"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/)

So much bleeding, and more to come?

As if Iraq was a patient that had not suffered too much already, news of the contention between the Kurds [of Iraq] and the Turkish government comes in to shatter the infinitesimal probability that the region might be healed soon, that peace might come in the near future in the valley between Tigris and Euphrates. But how optimistic could one be if looking at Iraq today, if seeing that the single region of this extensive battlefield spared from belligerence entertains the possibility of immediate aggression?

The warning of the president of autonomous Kurdish region Massoud Barzani against Turkey issued during an interview in Arab television station Al-Arabiyah leaves little room for doubt: if Turkey invades Kirkurk, the Kurds of Iraq would retaliate and attack back this time in favor of the Kurds of Turkey. Not surprisingly the response of the Turkish military establishment is equally lucid. In the words of General Büyükanıt the army is ready and awaiting: "a political commanding decision is needed for a cross border operation. If we are assigned the mission, we will accomplish it".

For there is nothing worse to even ponder at this point than the possibility of an escalated conflict, one that would transcend the highly porous borders of Iraq to diverge and include neighboring states, beginning here with Turkey. To the world, Iraq is already a very badly infected wound; it takes up too many resources while showing little, if any signs of progress. The prospect of grand scale conflict in the region comes only with significant drawbacks; it needs not be repeated how it will compromise the chances for peace or the economic and political stability of the broader region or how it will deepen the divide along ethnic and religious lines.

To be sure, the goal here is not to present worst case scenarios, let alone to contribute to their popularity. Nonetheless, to refuse to undertake tough questions in whole or part just because they appear bleak is no good either - shunning away from reality does not help. It does help though to think that gloomy scenarios need not materialize into dreadful realities: it goes without a say that politics involves much more talking and much less action - thankfully so in most cases. Moreover it is in times like these that one resuscitates the lost confidence in diplomacy or for that matter discovers it for the first time: whether it is power dynamics or covert strategies, a number of unrelated factors shape outcomes and skew the decision-making process for better or worse - often in unpredicted ways. Finally, if one was to stick with the facts, in order to realistically assess the situation one must consider a wide array of factors and assumptions including dispelling notions of applicable: just because Turkey has a significant Kurdish minority this does not mean that all Kurds of Turkey want independence, let alone to be found overnight in a poor, landlocked state with little to offer.

Having said that all, Kirkurk is an important city with oil "worth" vying for. But it is neither oil and the fact that it scarce nor any other such individual factor that causes the greatest concern; it is the greedy nature of humans that makes one fear the most. Mahatma Gandhi has often been quoted for saying that "there is enough on earth for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed"; he could not be more right here.


Links

The story: "Iraqi Kurds urged not to 'interfere' in fighting"
The Turkish reaction, in Turkish: "Siyasi irade isterse Kuzey Irak'a gireriz" and in English: "Assign us the mission and we will enter Iraq"
On the "international dimension" of the story and where diplomacy fits in "Gül urges Rice over Barzani's threats against Turkey"

Post-Olympic "fiesta"

It has been a while since I last posted anything and this was not because I lacked ideas. As I sit down and read my scribbles on news I have read or observations I have made in the past days, I find a lot indeed; I will devote however this post to something that happened in my native country, Greece, a few days ago and with which I still cannot make peace: the killing of young man as a consequence of mob fighting between fans of the two major sports' clubs in a suburb of Athens.

For anyone who is Greek the story is no news by now. For the rest let me simply say that in the context of a volleyball game fans of the two major teams, Panathinaikos and Olympiakos, "met" in order "to put an end" to some hitherto unresolved claims and contentions. And they did put an end indeed - in the life of a 25 year old whose death verdict is too tragic for me to repeat here. Of course my one sentence summary is only the backbone of what appeared to involve a decent dose of planning and quite a few individuals - arrests continue to date. For information purposes, I do link articles at the end of the post - but my point is not to provide with a factual reportage. Instead it is my outright condemnation and frustration what I want to share here.

It is my belief that those most involved in sports issues in Greece were long aware of such and similar issues occurring and had opted, in what is a very "greek way" of dealing with things, not to do anything or do very little. Tragic as it is and horrendous as it may sound it comes as no surprise to anyone really, even to ordinary people like myself, that such incident did occur; not a single football (=soccer) match between the two major teams has been spared from violence or threats thereof... what has only varied is the degree. And while I do not want to give the picture that people persistently die, hooliganism, and to be precise, violent behavior between members of opposing teams, is yet another modern disease sadly not confined within the borders of the small south European state.

To be sure, responsibility lies among many people. It includes, of course, those in the industry, those in "the politics of sports", and those that have been assigned jobs directly relating to sports, in the government or the various agencies and secretariats. It of course involves the "fan clubs". But it goes well beyond that. It touches upon the media and the culture of conflict (not to say violence) they propagate; has any reporter/journalist ever really wondered about the consequences of his/her word choice? When the most popular description of an Olympiakos/Panathinaikos game is that of an encounter between "THE perennial rivals" ("το ντέρμπι των αιωνίων") there is something wrong and someone to blame too. One can go as far as to argue that all ordinary citizens who refuse to go to the games are responsible too: their contempt for the state of Greek sports contributes nothing really towards a solution.

But I wish not to go the full distance. Nor do I wish to undertake a study of who is to blame and how much. Policing is not what I have chosen to do for life. And inasmuch as I cannot let go of the news because I am concerned with what happens in Athens too, I do not think that I would ever do a full length post of this incident and the folly that has been cursing people - because after all the full responsibility goes to those narrow minded individuals thinking in this paranoid way. Not because it is not an important matter: certainly it is. It just so happens that a thousand other things are happening too at the same time which merit my/our attention: in my scribbles I read about how the value of life of Indian children has "depreciated" and how the peaceful citizens of the Solomon islands woke up to a tsunami that wrecked their lives. But there has been one thought in my mind since March 29 and this is what has spurred all this: "if we condemn fighting and killing even when this occurs for a loaf of bread, how much less tolerant can we be of such a killing that occurred not in the name of survival or of a God but in the name of a product of a man-made, drug-influenced and money-making business?"

Links

στα ελληνικά:Οργανωμένο σχέδιο πίσω από το «ραντεβού του θανάτου»

in English: All Greek team sports suspended after death in volleyball riots

"The women did not accept the flowers"

My second reaction after reading a reportage in the March 5th edition of Turkish daily Sabah on a women protest in Istanbul was that the title of the article ("Çiçekleri almadılar", "The women did not accept the flowers") should figure in my next blog post. My first reaction was, of course, that I should seize the opportunity to discuss yet another facet of Turkey, one that surely affects politics but primarily speaks volumes of the society itself.

What brought 500 women in Çağlayan and another 3,000 in Kadıköy was not only the upcoming Women's Day; it was an urge to denounce discrimination and abuse of women. "Honor killings" and sexual abuse are, sadly, present in portions of Anatolia and further to the east, particularly in the countryside. Often embedded in cultural norms and traditions, such practices are in violation of both the major international human rights texts, to which Turkey is a party, and the legal foundations of the Turkish Republic as established by M. Kemal Atatürk in 1923. But Turkey epitomizes contradiction; suffice here to say that Turkey has been an early proponent of women's emancipation introducing bold social and political reforms including women's suffrage as early as 1930, much earlier than France (1945) or Belgium (1948).

Earlier, I spoke of women in the streets of Istanbul as constituting one facet of Turkey: this is because I align myself with the view that Turkey's unique combination of different and at times contradicting streams requires a cautious approach, one that acknowledges particularistic elements and thoughtfully places them in the historical and cultural context. Otherwise one risks being overly superficial. It is only wrong (and dangerous) to see just the face value of such incidents as the protest and much worse to pass judgments on Turkey's respect of human rights or lack thereof based just on fragmentary evidence.

In Turkey there is a strong kemalist secular legacy and at the same time a religious pro-Islam faction that was muted in the early years of the Republic but has successfully re-emerged in the last decades. At the same time, the cultural norms are holding strong and they vary substantially based on the region and the composition of the population. The European endeavor that Turkey has been pursuing since the signing of the Ankara Agreement for accession in 1963 has increased the scope of the European (or Western) influence: partly represented by the secular pro-modernity faction, this stream is also an entity of its own in the form of media, governmental and non-governmental institutions and monitor groups with offices in the Bosporus or the capital.

Turkey of 2007 is a state that is at the eve of presidential elections (with parliamentary elections to follow in the fall), with a moderate Islamic party, Erdoğan's "Justice and Development Party" in power, that in the view of many has failed to rise to its true potential, and yet might also win elections, and with the military still present and "watching". This is the context within which women demonstrated but one should also be mindful of legacies of the past that are echoed today: the headscarf controversy, the rise of right-wing parties, the 1997 return of Kemalists. Women demand a responsible approach to some arguably crucial issues and most importantly make their commitment clear. The symbolic gesture of not accepting the flowers that were being handed by the police emphasizes the very core of the notion that reforms must be deep, not just a "face lift". In addition, such a protest is also important because it denotes a certain sense of national unity, a concept that itself has been challenged lately: women in Istanbul called for the rights of all women even if it is clear that women of urban areas suffer less.

Having said that, it is clear that the issues that bring women in the roads this time are much less controversial than, say, the headscarf debate. The difficulty here lies not so much in mustering support -for no one really opposes such demands- but in bringing about change. And change is a difficult and lengthy process. Raising women issues -from very basic to second-tier- requires a greater "opening" that political elites and civil society must be willing to undertake and allow. Most importantly it requires going above and beyond the traditional course of action by introducing bold reforms primarily socially and legally, and later by implementing them. And this is much easier said than done, for to undertake the strenuous path of reform requires challenging at the same time established norms and respecting culture, it requires assuming political cost without jeopardizing one's power base, it requires "confronting" the people and yet engaging them in the struggle.

If Turkey in the 1930s achieved great strides with its innovative reforms, the same does not apply today when reforms are not even an option. Can women and their protest instigate and sustain the much-needed change or is Turkey, yet again, in deep need of a charismatic leader?

Links:

The original article: "Çiçekleri almadılar"
A translation in English: "The women did not accept the flowers"

'Vodka Lemon'

An Iraqi born Kurd who lives in Paris, director Hiner Saleem hits the snow-covered mountainous villages of Armenia to make a film about endurance and perseverance in times of adversity and uncertainty. Set in the post-Soviet era, the film explores the daily struggles of a population that is trying to adapt simultaneously to freedom and the new economic reality: focusing on the lives of Hamo and Nina, two widowers that ultimately develop a relationship of their own, the film never loses sight of its primary goal which is to extol the inner power of humans to rise above calamities.

At great risk of being insipid to the audience and even aesthetically unappealing, the film blatantly refuses ornaments and embellishments of any sort. Instead, it takes on harshness of everyday life - for Hamo (and Nina) it means taking endless trips to the cemetery to talk with the deceased spouse, selling their meager possessions for a few dollars, living in dilapidated houses, letting their children go... And yet a touch of humor or a proof that life has a hopeful side are also present in the film - just like vodka lemon, to lift the spirits. The finest example of this positive attitude towards life comes from the end of the film where Hamo and Nina ultimately hold on to the piano they intended to sell, despite being in a dreadful financial position. This is a truly powerful scene, one which through visual effects beautifully communicates l'état d'âme of the protagonists and their optimism to the audience.

Testament to the high caliber of the film is without a doubt its treatment of the question of resilience after the collapse of the Soviet regime: how does freedom stand next to the economic precariousness that came along? While freedom is clearly endorsed, criticism about the economic plight that ensued is not absent: references to the old times, "when there was no need to pay for gas, electricity or water" do exist. The heartbreaking scene of Hamo walking in the snow carrying an extremely heavy closet -just to sell it for a few dollars in the street- also goes along this direction. But even here one sees how characters soar beyond basics: when the bus driver forbade Nina to board because she had no money for the fare, she did not even think of asking a second time, but instead silently stepped down and walked back. And it is indeed interesting to see that this all comes from a director who is himself an individual longing for freedom, being a Kurd who fled Iraq and Saddam's regime. In an interview that accompanies the film Saleem comments on the question of freedom and Soviet nostalgia: "I do not make a judgment. I know that when people are hungry, they are in need of bread. But I also know that when people have bread but no freedom, it is as if though they have nothing at all."

Freedom being a notion almost interwoven with human existence, it has been at times a positive force but equally often, if not simultaneously, a source of clashes, even bloodshed. The cultural and geographic proximity of the film to an area of the world that has yet to agree on a common understanding of freedom -not to say adds a whole new dimension to the term- may be an additional impetus for watching this film. However, to label Vodka Lemon as political only or describe it with a single adjective would be a major injustice to the film, just like it would be to constrict freedom within a Wilsonian or a purely political framework.

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...

One (more)

In his article today titled "Η φωλιά του κούκου, 2007" republished in his blog , well-respected Greek journalist Michalis Mitsos takes up the question of victims of wars and warfare. Citing the case of Iraq he underscores the disproportionately grand analogy of casualties to dead -particularly when juxtaposed against previous wars- mostly thanks to advances in the medical field.

Meanwhile here in Boston word has come of the death of a young woman in Iraq - one that was not fortunate to make it into the "list of wounded". This morning I grabbed the local edition of "Metro" newspaper before riding the "T" [the name we have for the subway here] only to find its front page dedicated to Marine Captain Jennifer Harris, of "Swampscott, MA". The next page was a report from her funeral which was held at her native Swampscott, -a small community of some 15,000- yesterday, "with full military honors" - as if this would soothe the pain of her family, her fiancé Maj. Christopher Aaby, the community, us reading the newspaper.

Of course her fellow soldiers wanted to honor Jennifer, her life, her service - this was the rationale behind the elaborate funeral. Lt. Gascinski -a roommate of Harris at the Naval Academy- in her speech stressed the "calm demeanor" of Harris whose nickname was "Dove" for this reason.

But that said and done, bottom line is that 28 year old Jennifer is dead: her helicopter went down on February 7. Fate, death, the Sunni group, -how you want to name it- did not take into account her youth or the fact that she was a woman pilot or that this week was her last week in Iraq: she was expected to come home the following week.

Jennifer and every man or woman killed in Iraq or any war: this is the version of Iraq war that rarely makes it to non-US papers. The mere listing of casualties and victims no matter which place it occupies within the newspaper or how it is commented, it can never be compared to that of "the individual dead", the resident of the community, the neighbor, the college classmate.

In a densely-knit community-based America there is one puzzle, one unanswered question which at the same time dwindles support for the war and gives hope to all of us opposing it: "for how long more can people assist to funerals of their loved ones, their fellow citizens?" For Swampscott, Jennifer was not the first one. 20 year old Army Spc. Jared Raymond died just a few months ago in Taji, Iraq, the newspaper tells us, leaving us with this thought in mind - not without a reason I believe.

As numbers of dead and wounded rise, as our expectations from the constituencies in Massachusetts and elsewhere increase, so does our hope that this "war" will be brought -somehow- to an end: for one thing, the newspapers of Iraq, if they were to be printed regularly, they would need an extra budget to dedicate articles to all the casualties, not to say front pages.

But learning from the American experience and the pain and sorrow that such news brings, perhaps is better this way, without articles. It may not honor the memory of those killed, but it does not suck whatever courage has been left to the citizens of Baghdad and all those other cities where a trip to the market has a risk factor greater than swimming in a pool with sharks: an avid diver, my father tells that if you do not move and stay still the shark does not perceive your presence and hence does not attack.

Unfortunately, running or standing still, bombs manage to get you in Baghdad - somehow.


Links

"Metro" newspaper
The town: Swampscott, MA

Reading on Reading

With all due respect to Mr. Carroll, his op-ed in Boston Globe's February 12 edition is one of such columns that risk to -but hopefully will not- be left -entirely or in part- out of the average reader's reading of the paper. The lack of 'hot', sensational, 'buzz' content [echoing Wolfsfeld's thesis/explanation on why peace negotiations are more often than not 'less attractive' to the media industry] along with the limited time one allots to reading in a clock-dictated world are a few explanations - by no means justifications. How ironic really this is, since Mr. Carroll undertakes the very same issue of our (changing) reading habits in what is another interesting viewpoint of his.

Focusing on the self primarily, James Carroll surveys our reading habits from childhood on, underscoring the value of silent reading and specifically the internal/intellectual process that accompanies it. Such highly beneficial process -it promotes growth- is violated -if not negated- by modern technologies: interruption of the reading process is the fundamental difference here as a variety of simultaneous electronic processes (email, IM among many) often interfere with reading. And while the net impact of this 'change' is perhaps too early to assess, Carroll concludes by cautioning against a possible change even retrogression of our reading skills.

And while there may be no sufficient scientific evidence of potential biological consequences of "interrupted" reading, one finds reasons to be alarmed. Next to the "democratic dissemination" of knowledge that Internet embodies and people advocate, one wonders if not the rhetoric is not taking us "too far". Simply put, while it is undeniable that the Internet and the modern technologies have contributed to an unprecedented spread of knowledge at relatively low cost (especially in the western world), one needs not to assume that the mere existence of knowledge makes every "surfer" a scholar. Of the many factors that determine one's absorption of information, distraction or interruption are classified as obstructive.

Regardless of how successful the Internet truly is to its goals or human expectations on its educational mission, it comes as no news that interruption brings also segmentation and may even jeopardize cohesion [referring here exclusively to the readable material]. Interruption can be temporary, in which case the reader resumes reading but may also be long-term or even permanent if the reader never goes back to finish the article. My inability to calculate probabilities of different types of behavior (along with of course estimating the impact on perception and other neurobiological processes) does not allow me to draw specific conclusions.

However, to the extent that the reading experience becomes compromised in some manner (for example lack of concentration or abandoning of reading altogether) unease should ensue. This is particularly important when it comes to readings that extend beyond entertainment and involve political or other such issues. To avoid what can amount to a lengthy discussion on opinion formation, media influence and democracy, suffice here to say that partial information and fragmented knowledge over a given issue of some stake can have equal if not worse consequences to lack of knowledge altogether - as a reader may be anything from vulnerable to information extraction to unreasonably confident and vocal. Of course one must turn to specific studies in order to substantiate further such claims; that one makes better and wiser choices if well-informed is however considered common knowledge.

Some five and a half years ago, a very good friend of mine said (and wrote) that "modern technologies [referring to Internet and computers more broadly] entered our lives silently, with out any drum roll" Inasmuch as I tend to agree with him, I cannot help but think that part of this reality is because we also chose to shut our eyes and close our ears. Would this have changed anything? Perhaps not, but it would have certainly made us more aware of what is going on around us, as opposed to our childish almost experimental and certainly empirical understanding of reality.

Notes:

The Boston Globe Editorial: Silent reading in public life

Gari Wolsfeld. Media and the Path to Peace. Cambridge: CUP, 2004.

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

A, B, C....

Despite being a fervent proponent of multilingualism myself, I promise to try and mute the plethora of opinionated voices in me, in favor of a more dispassionate analysis on the very important subject of acquiring (foreign) language skills in our (post)modern times. Hence it is to be said -in lieu of an introductory comment- that responsibility for foreign language encouragement (or lack thereof) befalls upon many actors: politicians, academia/teachers, individuals all contribute through choice or decision. Conversely, anything from dogmatic views to budgetary issues to cultural streams within society can impact the popularity of languages and language-learning. The already heated debate becomes more contentious today as additional parameters become influential: a supranational phenomenon, globalization is one such example of a factor that shapes attitudes towards languages.

As the world and individual states experience interaction and interdependence at such an unprecedented level, some practical requirements must be met, the first being to successfully "communicate". How states choose to respond to the resurrection of the lingua franca concept [or to a handful of prevalent languages] does already -and will even more so in the coming years- affect economic, political and cultural decisions across as well as within states. In a debate on globalization and France in Le Figaro, Jacques Attali, the French political thinker cautions that global markets may bring about the end of languages if reason does not prevail and if languages are not sufficiently protected. Moreover, the superimposition of a single language can be disastrous to peace, security and more broadly stability, if, for example, the premises which bring about the dominance of the language cease to exist, are deemed threatening or unjustifiable or more broadly are rejected by some population. This is very important to observe as languages are not only tools of communication; they are also carriers of a culture and often become symbolism, perhaps unjustifiably so, of politics even ideologies.

For such reasons and many more, the trend today seems to favor promotion of multilingualism and cultural awareness based on an understanding that people can come "closer" and cooperate more efficiently if there are not linguistic and cultural barriers between them. Partly as a reaction to this phenomenon and to serious political criticism for the Iraq war, the United States has been encouraging its citizens to acquire foreign language skills as they are "intrinsic to the security and the interests of the country" as the 2006 National Security Strategy tells - following thus the honorable example of many other countries, most notably the Scandinavian states. In her bitter comment in the December 20th edition of The Guardian (republished in the January 28th edition of Kathimerini) Agnès Poirier chastises British snobbery of foreign languages arguing among others that monolingualism is a source of decay for the society and a threat to the English language (on the premise that language learning improves one's native language too) and a serious threat to democracy (as it creates xenophobia and hinders critical thinking).

Is learning many languages therefore the solution that humanity seeks? Unfortunately, for the world's most complex issues there is no panacea today, as there has never been one in the past. Peace, security and prosperity the perennial concerns of people have always depended on a number of factors; globalization only magnifies the scope of such concerns by showing how dependent (to one another) or vulnerable countries are. The ability to "communicate" solves only the logistical part of the equation. Adding to this the "cultural parameter" -which accompanies language learning- can take us a step further. But no more than that.

Save a few merchants and wanderers, the vast majority of people well into modern times would only speculate about other languages as they would spend most of their life in a ten mile radius from where they were born. Interaction with people of other cultures the way we experience it today is novel to us and the history of mankind more broadly. Languages offer us a magnificent tool to improve the quality of interaction with humans from different backgrounds; to view them however as tools only or as tools primarily would be to misunderstand their purpose and logic. To reduce language learning to the utilitarian value would be killing the language - period. A language is much more than communication; it is immersion in another culture, the past and present of a people; it has volume and texture, depth and shallowness.

Learning a language establishes lines of communication not only with the speakers but the world: it is not the vocabulary or the grammar, it is the "decomposition" and "reassembling" that the self undergoes in the process. For this reason, even a single (foreign) language has profound impact on its student. Naturally people will never be able to speak all the languages, not even "many languages" considering how many there are and how costly and time-consuming the process is. But the more people decide to explore this realm for the magic it offers -more than the practical application it unquestionably yields- the more rewarding the experience it is. True magic happens from time to time too, as when a Spaniard can understand a speaker of Portuguese and vice versa... OK, maybe with a few gestures and body movements, but this is all game, right?

References and Links:

The very interesting debate between Jacques Attali and Pascal Lamy on globalization: La mondialisation économique ne suffit pas

Agnès Poirier's article in English: The high road to decadence and in Greek: Η αλαζονεία της μιας και μόνης γλώσσας

A praiseworthy initiative

It started small but it is growing by the day; it is still very much local but has always had an international flair "attached" to it. What makes the "San Juan Del Sur Biblioteca Móvil" distinct however is its effectiveness: from its very first day of operation it has tremendously benefited the locals and the community in San Juan del Sur, Nicaragua. But let us pause momentarily to briefly explain the "San Juan Del Sur Biblioteca Móvil" project.

An initiative of Jane Mirandette, the project started as a way to literally "bring the books to the Nicaraguans"; in a country where 50% of the people live in poverty and a third of the society is illiterate access to books is a privilege reserved to the very few. What Mirandette did was to set up a small lending library in the 'backyard' of her hotel: the very first lending library of the country was the beginning of a much bigger project. The library found its own place a block down the street and the aspirations grew; a 'mobile library' would spring out of this, so as to serve the the villages of the region. Today, books are rotating reaching as many as 27 communities in rural Nicaragua. Hence the name "San Juan Del Sur Biblioteca Móvil" which translates to "Mobile Library of San Juan del Sur". In the meantime, Mirandette established a not-for-profit organization based in Colorado, USA: the project was well underway.

To the best of my knowledge the project is growing virtually by the day and the much-needed contributions, mostly from the US and elsewhere abroad, are fueling the project. When I was in San Juan del Sur in November I saw the "headquarters" but I can only imagine the significance of this library moving to remote villages where the percentage of illiteracy is greater and access to books a rare occurrence. A perfect example of what "sound development in practice" is, the library is administered by the locals who know the needs of the people best and volunteers from abroad who bring their expertise. Most importantly, while promoting literacy and educational opportunities the project does not interfere with the traditional patterns of living: by providing opportunities for education in one's village it reconciles work and family obligations with education and intellectual growth.

Praise for the achievements of this project goes to all those involved, directly or indirectly, in San Juan del Sur or elsewhere in the world. The labor of love bears fruits by the day in Nicaragua; it also transcends the borders of the small country proving to the rest of us that the joined forces of humanity can bring change, positive change. Something which indeed is useful to remember nowadays as the deleterious effects of dubious in nature and often catastrophic initiatives monopolize our attention in many ways and quite often end up preventing us from seeing beyond the facet of reality which is masterfully tossed upon us.


A condensed presentation of the "San Juan Del Sur Biblioteca Móvil" activities.

For more information please visit the site of "San Juan Del Sur Biblioteca Móvil". The site has an English and a Spanish version.

94

When Hannah Arendt published her pivotal, prototypic and controversial [when juxtaposed against her previous publications] "Eichmann in Jerusalem" in 1963 she argued her famous "banality of evil" thesis - that people committing atrocities need not be inherently bad but may be influenced by an ideology or a set of codes. Because they are good "bureaucrats" they abide by rules, principles and orders thereby committing crimes.

Seeing the atrocities that occur on a daily basis at Iraq -United Nations announced today the death toll for Iraqis to be 34,000 for 2006- I cannot help but question what is that has made "evil" look like a "banality" in the lives [and hence the culture] of a people. Conversely, what sort of "banality" is this, which spurs an almost routinized coverage of Iraq by media and non-media actors, an awfully repetitive sorrow-dominated vocabulary to politicians and officials of any sort and a "yet again" or "not again" [at best] reaction to "innocent, powerless" civilians, if not of "evil"?

A great paradox and virtue of language is this, namely that it allows one to play games with words, to deconstruct phrases and to create wholly new and different meanings based on a word or two. Language can also downplay or increase the importance of virtual anything simply through wise word choice and word ordering. But numbers, are not like that; numbers cannot get dressed up to look "good" or "sloppy", they are destined to carry the naked version of the story - whatever this story maybe.

It so comes that 94 is the number for Iraq. If 34,000 was difficult to comprehend, the fact that this figure translates to 94 people being killed every single day at Iraq may help those not handling easily big figures, myself included. Early on we learn also that metaphors help, as they render our speech or writings clearer. Strikingly painful as it may appear, and it is, 94 dead Iraqis is almost like if a Boeing 737 crashed everyday or if the entire grade six of a 564 elementary school disappeared again and again and again every single day of the calendar year - rain or shine.

It almost causes shame to me the fact that I dared to quantify in this most disgraceful and dishonorable manner human life. And as I am about to delete my previous statement, I decide I will not - I think it does much less justice to victims to refuse to refer to their plight; it is much too hypocritical and shameful to aspire to a Pontius Pilate attitude when we all have some share of responsibility for the atrocities on the Iraqi soil. Unfortunately, few of us have the excuse of "abiding by an ideology" and fewer still are "the good bureaucrats" exercising at our best the civil duties entrusted to us.

That 94 people die everyday at Iraq because of the mess calls, once more, for urgent action. Much advocacy still focuses on "an end to the war". Will that suffice? Most journalists and experts signal otherwise; they talk about a possible splitting of Iraq into three states and they allude to further bloodshed. Even the most optimist would agree that the current state of Iraq is one of utter fragility and instability and that no deus ex machina can bring this tragedy to a bloodless conclusion. Regardless of the course of affairs at Iraq what seems clear is that we, non-Iraqis, are not entitled to any more mistakes, to any more gambling of human lives in our futile attempt to transform "vision" into action. Our duty is to help: may we be fortunate to find ways to assist - not to absolve ourselves from our atrocities, but, simply to decrease suffering. And to lower this damned 94.

References and Links:

in English: Blasts kill at least 70 in Baghdad; U.N. reports 34,000 Iraqis died in '06

en Français: Irak: plus de 100 morts dans des violences, 34.000 civils tués en 2006

an interesting study of Arendt's "banality of evil" in the context of fear is to be found in Corey Robin "Fear: The History of a Political Idea" (Oxford: OUP, 2004).

The world could be a better place: Irène Némirovsky

Duty often befalls upon us, future generations, to speak of those most capable and enlightened individuals who did not receive recognition during their lifetime - not to say were maltreated. One such person that deserves to be honored is author Irène Némirovsky, a Ukrainian-born French-raised Jewish woman whose last book "Suite Française" was published in 2004 by Denoël in France.

Remarkable as the literary style of Némirovsky may be, it is the "Némirovsky-individual" as opposed to the "Némirovsky-author" that I wish to bring up here. Besides, if it was just about the prose, a literary review would suffice; instead here is the case of an honorable person which happens to be known to us via books and manuscripts.

A woman of principles and values, a woman that perhaps exemplifies the true meaning of 'love of the other', the symbol of anti-racism, Némirovsky was born in Ukraine in 1903 to a Jewish family and to a mother that paid little attention to her. Thanks to her French gouvernante, Némirovsky adjusted easily in France - where her family moved and grew to love as her own; yet France never granted her citizenship paving the way to her death. Like many and despite being a published author already, Némirovsky was not spared from Nazi horror; she was arrested in 1942 and died at Auschwitz shortly thereafter.

"Suite Française" comes to us half a century after her premature death in the form of a manuscript; foreseeing her arrest in 1942 Némirovsky put her handrwritten loose pages in the suitcases of her two daughters as she was sending them off to a Monastery so that they -at least- could escape Nazis. In the first edition of "Suite Française" one is able to read notes from the Cahiers (Notebook) of Irène where she explains in detail the ambitious project that "Suite Française" would be: a series of four books that would commence with the raid of Paris and would end with the triumph of peace and love epitomized by a marriage. But Némirovsky managed to write only parts I and II: the rest of the book remained forever with her.

The narrative, the full structure, even her choice of simple words all receive praise from critics; truly, the full book would be an epic achievement. What is most important in this book to me as a reader is the humanity that comes out of it. I cannot think of a better example of dignity and nobility than Némirovsky's portrayal of average German soldiers. Nothing strikes me as a greater proof of kindness than conceding virtue to one's enemies knowing that such men will have to kill you and your children. It requires great reserves of kindness to be a Jew during World War II and to create the character of Bruno von Falk: powerful as the descriptions are one almost comes to believe that Némirovsky feels pity for the fate of the Germans. Everyone sees the dividing line between Nazi ideology and average German soldiers; one can hardly believe nonetheless that such words of peace and solidarity come from a woman that knows her death is coming.

The following is a passage from "Suite Française". Némirovsky initially talks about Bruno von Falk and later permeates into his soul to talk about how the soldier fantasizes taking his French hostess -with whom he shares a lot- Lucile to a Ball... The passage comes from Book II (Dolce).

"Bruno s'abandonnait à cette excitation puérile à la fois un peu folle et presque désespérée qui s'empare des soldats dans les moments où le combat fait trêve et où il espère quelque diversion à l'ennui quotidien. (...) Il avait envie de dire, comme un enfant à qui l'on a promis le cirque et que l'on voulait garder à la maison(...) Il n'était pas uniquement soldat du Reich. Il n'était pas mû simplement par les intérêts du régiment et de la patrie. Il était le plus humain des hommes. Il songea qu'il cherchait comme tous les êtres les bonheur, le libre épanouissement de ses facultés et que (comme tous les êtres, hélas, en ce temps-ci) ce désir légitime était constamment contrarié par une sorte de raison d'Etat qui s'appellait guerre, sécurité publique, nécessité de maintenir le prestige de l'armée victorieuse. (...) Mais ce que les Français n'auraient pu comprendre, c'est qu'il n'était pas orgueilleux ni arrogant, mais sincèrement humble, effrayé de la grandeur de sa tâche.

Mais justement aujourd'hui, il n'y voulait pas penser. Il préférait jouer avec cette idée de bal ou bien rêver à des choses irréalisables, à une Lucile toute proche de lui par exemple, à une Lucile qui pourrait le suivre à la fête... Je délire, se dit-il en souriant. Bah! tant pis! En mon âme, je suis libre. Dans son esprit, il dessinait une robe à Lucile, pas une robe de ce temps-ci, mais semblable à une gravure romantique; une robe blanche aux grands volants de mousseline, évasée comme une corolle, afin qu'en dansant avec elle, en la tenant dans ses bras, il sentît par moments, autour de ses jambes, le fouettement d'écume de ses dentelles."

(Extract from: Irène Némirovsky. Suite Française. Paris: Denoël, 2004, pp.367-368.)

"Κοιτάζοντας" το 2007

Από τις σπάνιες φορές που δύναμαι να διαβάσω την τυπωμένη έκδοση της Καθημερινής, η 31η Δεκεμβρίου του αισίως παρελθόντος έτους επεφύλασσε για μένα μια έκπληξη στη δημοσίευση της έρευνας-δημοσκόπησης της V-PRC. Θέμα της η σφυγμομέτρηση της ελληνικής κοινωνίας για μείζονα ζητήματα εσωτερικής και εξωτερικής πολιτικής, οικονομίας και ανάπτυξης και το συμπέρασμά της διττό: η ελληνική κοινωνία υποστηρίζει τις μεταρρυθμίσεις και τις ιδιωτικοποιήσεις αλλά εμφανίζεται επιφυλακτική και ανασφαλής ως προς το μέλλον. Στην αντικριστή σελίδα σχολιάζει τα αποτελέσματα αυτά ο έγκριτος δημοσιογράφος-αναλυτής κ. Παπαχελάς αλλά εγώ από το «βήμα» τούτο θα ήθελα να σταθώ σε τρεις «λεπτομέρειες» που μου πρόκαλεσαν έκπληξη και προβληματισμό ταυτοχρόνως.

Η πρώτη αξιολογείται ως μία εκ των αιτιών της προαναφερθείσας ανασφάλειας και αφορά το μεγάλο ποσοστό των Ελλήνων που κατά το τελευταίο έτος δεν αποταμίευσε τίποτα. Το γεγονός ότι το 67% των ερωτηθέντων απάντησε αρνητικά στην περί αποταμίευσης ερώτηση αποκτά ανησυχητικές διαστάσεις δεδομένου ότι το 65% δήλωσε αβεβαιότητα και «καθόλου σιγουριά» για το μελλον του στην ερώτηση περί κοινωνικης ανασφάλειας. Αποτελεί όμως και αντιφατικό στοιχείο τη στιγμή που οι Έλληνες διαθέτουν σεβαστά ποσά για «δευτερεύουσες» αναγκες μην έχοντας καλύψει σε πολλές περιπτώσεις βασικές. Στο άρθρο του «Οι απίστευτες διαστάσεις του υπερκαταναλωτισμού στην Ελλάδα: Υπερβολή χλιδής και γκλαμουριάς» στο Forum (Δεκέμβριος 2006) επικαλούμενος στοιχεία της Εθνικής Στατιστικής Υπηρεσίας ο κ. Παπαναγιώτου σημειώνει: «Παραπονιούμαστε για την ακριβή βενζίνη, αλλά είμαστε πρωτοπόροι στη χρήση του Ι.Χ. ακόμη και σε διαδρομές μικρότερες του ενός χιλιομέτρου. Πάνω από 10.000 μικρά σκάφη πωλούνται ετησίως στην Ελλάδα. Καθημερινά, πληρώνουμε για το καινούργιο μας αυτοκίνητο περί 10.000.000 ευρώ και οι πωλήσεις των πολυτελών ακριβών μοντέλων σημειώνουν φέτος εντυπωσιακή άνοδο μέχρι 35%». Ο τίτλος από μόνος του νομίζω αποτυπώνει το μέγεθος ενός προβληματος που εμπειρικά γνωρίζουμε, τεχνηέντως αποσιωπούμε και αδιάλειπτα βιώνουμε.

Η δεύτερη αφορά απάντηση στο ερώτημα για την ικανοποίηση από τη λειτουργία της δημοκρατίας στην Ελλάδα και συγκεκριμένα το 19% των ερωτηθέντων που απάντησε ότι δεν είναι «καθόλου ικανοποιημένοι» με τη λειτουργία της. Παρόλο που αδιάσειστα στοιχεία αναφορικά με τη διαφθορά (η Ελλάδα στη 54η θέση στην κατάταξη των λιγότερο διεφθαρμένων χωρών της Διεθνους Διαφάνειας, 47η το 2005), τη διαπλοκή και τα δημοκρατικώς κληροδοτούμενα πολιτικά αξιώματα αλλά και λιγότερο απτές πλην όμως εμπειρικά επιβεβαιωμένες παρατηρήσεις περί αναξιοκρατίας και πολιτικής για ψηφοθηρία συνάδουν με την άποψη ότι η δημοκρατία στην Ελλάδα παρουσιάζει αδυναμίες. Ωστόσο το γεγονός ότι ένας στους πέντε Έλληνες δεν είναι καθόλου ικανοποιημένος με μια δημοκρατία η οποία πληροί όχι μόνο τις βασικές προϋποθέσεις (καθολική, ελεύθερη, δίκαιη ψηφοφορία) αλλά και ειδικές προβλέψεις (σταθερότητα, εναλλαγή κομμάτων, κυβερνητικός έλεγχος, ανοικτές διαδικασίες) οφείλει να προβληματίζει. Τριάντα και πλέον χρόνια μετά την παλινόρθωση της δημοκρατίας και εικοσιέξι (αισίως) χρόνια συμμετοχής στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δε δικαιολογούν το υψηλό αυτό ποσοστό – ένα ποσοστό το οποίο θέτει ερωτηματικά ως προς την αντίληψη και άποψη μας για ένα πολιτικό σύστημα του οποίου την πατρότητα νεμόμαστε με κάθε ευκαιρία.

Το τελευταίο σημείο στο οποίο θα ήθελα να σταθώ αφορά το υψίστης σημασίας ζήτημα της μετανάστευσης και ενσωμάτωσης των μεταναστών στην ελληνική κοινωνία. Παρόλο που δεν καθίσταται σαφές αν υπήρχε η δυνατότητα πολλαπλής απάντησης στην ερώτηση «που πρέπει να ρίξουν μεγαλύτερο βάρος οι κυβερνήσεις στα χρόνια που έρχονται» και παρόλο που όλες οι επιλογές αφορούν βασικά προβλήματα της κοινωνίας μας, το γεγονός ότι μόνο το 2% των απαντήσεων αφορούν τη μετανάστευση είναι ανησυχητικό. Το χαμηλό αυτό ποσοστό αποτυπώνει την άρνηση μας –ίσως και την άγνοια της αναγκαιότητας– να προσδώσουμε την πρέπουσα βαρύτητα στο σημαντικό αυτό ζήτημα που ήδη διέπει και επηρεάζει το φάσμα της οικονομίας αλλά και της ελληνικής κοινωνίας. Για παράδειγμα αναφορικά με την κοινωνική ένταξη διαφόρων πληθυσμιακών ομάδων ο καθηγητής Ψυχολογίας κ. Μαρβάκης σημειώνει ότι «οι απαιτήσεις μας πρέπει να στηρίζονται στην ανάγκη (και να ορμώνται από αυτήν) για όλο και πιο διευρυμένη και γενικευμένη (κοινωνική) αλληλεγγύη με στόχο την κοινωνική χειραφέτηση όλων. Πρέπει να απαιτούμε, δηλαδή, ίσες κοινωνικές ευκαιρίες και ίσες δυνατότητες συμμετοχής στο δημόσιο/πολιτικό χώρο, και όχι να φαντασιώνουμε ότι είμαστε εμείς αυτοί που θα παρέχουν κάτι σε κάποιους ‘ξένους’». Ωστόσο για να επιτευχθεί αυτό απαιτείται η ωρίμανση της ελληνικής κοινωνίας που σκόπιμο είναι να γίνει αυτοβούλως και προοδευτικά και να μην είναι προϊόν κοινωνικών συγκρούσεων και ρηγμάτων – κάτι το οποίο μεν φαντάζει δραματικό σενάριο αλλά μπορεί να μετουσιωθεί και σε πραγματικότητα αν εξακολουθούμε να εθελοτυφλούμε στη θέα της πραγματικότητας.

Αναφορές:

Κυρίως άρθρο: " 'Ναι' των πολιτών στις μεταρρυθμίσεις"
και Το σχόλιο του Α. Παπαχελά

Παπαναγιώτου, Χρήστος. «Απίστευτες Διαστάσεις του Υπερκαταναλωτισμού στην Ελλάδα: Υπερβολή χλιδής και γκλαμουριάς.» Forum Νο. 382, Δεκέμβριος 2006 σ.38-40.

Μαρβάκης, Αθανάσιος. «Κοινωνική ένταξη ή κοινωνικό απαρτχάιντ;» στο Η Ελλαδα της Μετανάστευσης: Κοινωνική συμμετοχή και ιδιότητα του πολίτη. επιμλ. Μίλτος Παύλου και Δημήτριος Χριστόπουλος. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Κριτική, 2004. σ.188-120.

No, not again.

If there is anything worse about violence and ensuing beatings and killings then this only alternative can be that children are involved. Logically, one's mind goes to the numerous children that are maltreated by parents or strangers alike; the vulnerability of children makes it a duty for society to cater for and protect them. What happens though when children are no longer only victims but become perpetrators too?

Today in France two young teenagers, a boy and girl, killed their classmate in the school courtyard. A few days ago, a young boy of no more than 11 years was caught in Salonica, Greece throwing stones at policemen. Last year, in the town of Veroia, Greece a boy was allegedly tortured and killed by his classmates. Just a few years ago, in Columbine, Ohio, a young boy shot and killed his classmates.

Language deprived of sensationalism can make even the most shocking information appear normal. Yet no matter how objective and relaxed the language is, such news is disturbing, even to the most calm and composed individuals. Denial is a common response: one sees it in newspapers analyses, listens to it when people talk, expresses it on his own face. "It is not possible."

Sadly it is. Atrocities occur. Atrocities occur often. Atrocities occur often in many places. Can it go any worse?

Realizing the unrealizable is an obligation. Accepting what is unacceptable is a crime.

Society advances by the day. Is this a measure of our progress? Or is it perhaps a measure of our civility? What is it really that justifies our breeding of violence such that brings horrendous crimes like the ones we read in the papers to life? We talk about education and curricula reforms, we are concerned about what happens in school classrooms when we pay little if any attention to all the 'other' teachers of children: the movies, the games, the advertisements, the media, the archetypes. In her article in yesterday's Kathimerini, Tasoula Karaiskaki condemns society and the culture of abundance that breeds inequality and cultivates disdain to those least favored by society. Explanations there can be many. The question remains, and is poignant one: how do we go about? What sort of revolution it takes, if any, such that would liberate us all from the maze of the 'culture of violence'?

To me in this story there are two other things that are problematic too. Karaiskaki brings the first in her article: democracy, and the inherent inability of our political system to treat all those members of society, and particularly the younger ones, that are deviating. More often than note the society turns its face down to those mostly in need. While sure there are exceptions the fact that incidents occur repeatedly is a sign of our utter failure.

The second concern involves justice. How is it that we can administer justice when there are no fingerprints of the true perpetrators? (Let us not forget that children committing crimes are themselves victims). And, perhaps most importantly, what is that prevents us from doing so? It seems to me that our conception of crime being limited to traditional or almost stereotypical images of criminals as depicted in movies does little service to us in times when the definitions of villain and victim have expanded so drastically.

With the violence of children being such common phenomenon surely we must admit that another pillar of society has collapsed. In front of our eyes. The least we can do: try to pick up the pieces.

Maybe, maybe, one day we can have the full wall up.

References and Links:

Meaux : les deux collégiens mis en examen

Η ευημερία που πληγώνει

Il y (en) a partout...

The debate on 'what is poverty?' is a hot but not a new one: economists, proponents of defining poverty with mathematical formulas and anthropologists with an insistence on cultural variance have been crafting successful and less-than-successful definitions of poverty for years now. Regardless of how poverty ends up being defined, instances of poverty or, of what resembles to poverty, abound in rich and poor counties, in big and small cities, in urban and rural settings.

Because poverty is such a big challenge for countries and the world, efforts from governments and international organizations concentrate on perfecting existing approaches to dealing with poverty; to that end in a statement released a few days ago, the World Bank announced that is expected that globalization reduces world poverty. Meanwhile and regardless of whether on adheres to this line of thought or not, it is important to get to know the 'enemy' well: how are we expected to win the battle ignoring the 'strengths' of our opponent, ignoring its many faces?

French daily "Le Monde" published a very interesting article titled "Nous, les travailleurs pauvres" ("We, the poor workers") on the subject matter of poverty and one of its nasty faces, urban poverty. Claire Guélaud narrates the personal stories of individuals that are poor (or near the dividing line- pending which definition of poverty you take). Yet it is not the story of homeless or unemployed people: it is the story of individuals that work but barely (if ever) make the ends. It is the story of people whose receipt of financial aid is contingent upon how much or how little work they found this month, as most of them are part time workers. It is the story of people that experience the frustration of unpredictability and the anxiety of seeing the electricity bill rise, even if such a rise amounts to a coin or two worth of euros.

Regardless of the category in which such individuals fit in, particularly since it may change by the day, the article raises important questions about economics, society, social responsibility and education. It even brings up the question of the ability to control one's life and future, most evident in the case of Mr. Lewille who dreads the day that Social Security will take his little child on account that he is not able to raise a family.

San Jacinto and parts of urban France like Roubaix (Nord) may differ substantially in just about everything; and yet if there is a commonality to be found then that would be that they both have people that suffer; people that work a lot and gain little.

Next to the damage it causes on people's lives, poverty's defining characteristic is its ability to conceal itself: behind statistics, behind nice clothes even behind a big smile. That all makes poverty no less an enemy to people: it only makes harder to fight.

References:

World Bank Statement: Global Economic Prospects 2007: Managing the Next Wave of Globalization

article in Le Monde: Nous, les travailleurs pauvres

Defining absurdity

There was a time that Kyoto was known as the former capital of the Japanese imperial state. And then 1997 came. Kyoto, the city of Emperors and Camelias, is now associated with reductions of greenhouse gas emissions- a consequence of the fact that the a Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed there. Rightly so I believe since this Protocol is a landmark in the battle to protect the environment and the future of the planet.

Around the same time, hype terms such as 'global warming' or 'renewable energy sources' started invading our vocabulary: the planet is at risk we were told. Slowly but surely environmental issues made it to the papers and television and smiling newscasters talk now about the dangers of global warming with the same ease they announce wars and catastrophes. Of course environmentalism is no new phenomenon: already in late 19th century one can trace its first steps in the United States; West Europeans have been thinking about the environment quite some time now.

And yet despite that all, environmental news regardless of how serious it looks, it holds a second-rate status. You will never find an environmental issue making the cover story of a newspaper: if you are optimistic you can hope that on the bottom left corner next to the marriage of Angelina or Jennifer there is going to be reference to the gloomy prediction about the ozone layer. With the exception of some west European countries, notably Germany, Austria and Sweden, the ministry of the Environment is 'your typical Ministry': chances are that in a Cabinet meeting you will see the Minister sitting at the end of the table, rarely appearing in the news or protesting about the modest budget.

Worse still than the second class tag we attach to the environment is our hypocritical behavior. Regardless of whether we know or not what 'global warming' is we shake our heads if caught amidst a discussion in a business meeting agreeing that the environment is a serious matter. We approve of recycling and yet we rarely take the newspapers to the designated bins. We complain about poor air quality and yet we refuse to leave our cars at home. Convenience: another big catch.

Instead of pointing fingers or creating dividing lines between state and human responsibilities (as if though the two parties had opposing interests) how about looking at the environment's fate? To my eyes, a dying patient to which we inject venom everyday, the planet no matter how strong it was just a few decades ago seems to lose the battle for life. Species disappear. World temperature rises. Just two days ago "doctors" announced that North Pole ice may melt until 2040.

If the environment was a human being it would be in the emergency room by now. Chances are that "the children of the patient" would be outside weeping and praying to God. What we do instead is to remove the feeding tube and the oxygen supply by the day. Death is slow and painful. This is sad yet certain. The only thing to be debated is the following: Since we will be dying too, are we victims or villains?

The latest on our planet:

In English:
Arctic ice may all melt in summer by 2040 - study

En français:
La banquise du pôle Nord pourrait avoir disparu l'été, d'ici à 2040

Στα ελληνικά:
Θάλασσα ο Β. Πόλος

¡Bienvenidos a Los Hervideros de San Jacinto!

-Come on in, cross the gate!
-Where am I?
-Come on in, and I will take you a tour. In Hell.
-Where is Hell? Is it not far away from us, the sort of place you may go to after you die? Or is it some terrestrial version of it, say Iraq or Darfur?
-Ha. Well certainly no after life yet, let's constrain ourselves in Earth. And no, (thankfully) it is not Iraq. Why, you thought Hell is only there? Or where you hear about war and disaster and big money gets involved too?
-Well, no... But...
-But what?

-Where are we?
-Will a name matter to you?
-Yes.
-Okay therefore. We are in Los Hervideros de San Jacinto.
-...
-I told you it would be pointless. Come on here, come see this.

-Is this geothermal activity?
-Yes, indeed. It is where the earth boils and steam comes out of it...
-Is it because of the volcano I see further afield?
-Yes, the area is very volcanic. Hervideros in Spanish means hot bubbling springs..
-It is very beautiful! But I would imagine hard to live around.. The smell of sulfur, the hot steam coming out of the earth, the hearing of bubbles all day...
-This is one way to see hell... There is something else I want to show you.
-Okay.


-This is Hell too. Wanting to be able to live a decent life and not achieving it. Living in p-o-v-e-r-t-y, relying on whoever tourist will show up to see the Hervideros for maybe, say, US$0.50, relying on whatever you produce, not having enough money for any decent clothing... Poverty is everywhere.
-I know, I can see...
-You can see it because it is obvious of course but you can see it because you have the eyes to see it. If you lived far away you would not be able to. Who in the world you think cares about those destined to live in Los Hervideros de San Jacinto? If you lived here you would not be able to see poverty either...
-How so? It is all around me...
-Because it is all around you my friend. Because you have to try to find someone who has a clean shirt. Because you have to try to find a hut that is "liveable" by (average) health standards. Because poverty is all around you, your eyes get used to it, you get used to it, it does no longer bother you. In the same well you get used to sulfur smell. Horrible as it may appear to you, you get used to it when you breathe it all day and all night long. Plus, if you want to make money, you go to the hervideros when tourists come, you kneel, you show them the mud hole, you tell them the story... And, sulfur smells so damn well when it gives you half a dollar...

-I see.. People here are taken by this way of life... They have not seen anything different.. This is the way they have grown up, the lifestyle they pass to their children.. But, on the other hand if you think about it, this is their life, why change it? Does anyone have the right to?
-You are right here, perhaps. Perhaps not though. Because no matter how you want to preserve the local life, the culture and tradition of a group, can you say they are fine if they lack such basic things as education? Healthcare? What sort of a life is that where you may die at any given moment because of a mosquito, because malaria pills are too expensive for you?

-It is time to go. Is there anything to be said?
-So much and so little. It is time to go.
-For us that have the option to get out of hell. For the rest it is going to be a fine night next to the hervideros.
-Even Hell is not fair in Earth. Some have the option of getting in and out. So easily, and yet for others there is no way out whatsoever.

Los Hervideros de San Jacinto is small village located 25 km north of León, a famous colonial city in Nicaragua. Despite the fact it attracts some tourists, the village is typical of the region. Tourism is not yet developed in Nicaragua, the second poorest country in the continent with 50% of the population living in poverty and over 30% of its people unable to read and write. The country has witnessed a 50-year right wing dictatorship, followed by a tough communist rule and a ravaging civil war that claimed at least 50,000 lives. It is only during the last 15 years that Nicaragua has been experiencing democracy.

Killing globally: the untold story of globalization

Gold arches. I-tunes. Mickey Mouse. Yes, you have guessed correctly, McDonalds, I-pod and Disney are all typical examples of the pervasiveness -for better or worse- of globalization. And yet the globalization extends beyond common services and goods; guns can get global too. How? In just about the same way that the average toy of your son travels around the world before it settles in your home, a gun that was produced thousand miles away may kill a little girl in Uganda.

"Weapons and ammunition supplied to the governments of the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda were subsequently distributed to armed groups and militia in the eastern DRC involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity. In addition to committing other crimes, these armed groups systematically and brutally raped and sexually abused tens of thousands of women. Arms dealers, brokers and transporters from many countries including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Israel, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, the UK and the USA were involved in these arms transfers, highlighting once again the key importance of regulating the operations of arms brokers and dealers. By the end of 2005 only about 30 states had laws regulating such brokers."
(Source: Amnesty International 2006 Report on Arms Control)

Ever wondered how global conflicts are fought? How genocide is committed? How on earth do people that have no food to feed themselves find modern technology weapons and bullets? Well, we provide them with. Or sort of. The question of arms trade is a large one and truly global; Whether as producers of weapons (G8 countries, the Balkans) or recipients (Africa and pretty much wherever conflict takes place) or as in-between agents/smugglers, a good number of countries are involved in arms trade and a better number of people make a living by (enabling the) killing (of) others.

Years of campaigning and raising awareness bore fruits today when the United Nations passed a resolution that paves the way for a treaty on arms control; such a treaty would restrict the scope of this lucrative business and the chance that such weapons fell on the hands of guerrillas or terrorists. We would be talking of a milestone day today, had there not been one country, the United States, opposing such an effort: of the 192 countries members of the world, 153 voted in favor of the resolution, 24 countries abstained -mostly gun trading countries- and yes, the United States opposed it.

Fighting the war against terrorism while providing terrorists with weapons: Are we missing something here or is it just me?

-----

On the UN resolution:

In english:
UN seeks new treaty restricting global arms
En français:
L'ONU ouvre la voie à un traité réglementant le commerce des armes

?tnereffid taht ti sI/Is it that different?

December 3rd is the International Day of Disabled Persons. Aside from this one day devoted to our fellow citizens with some disability, the United Nations has passed two important documents: the World Programme Action Concerning Disabled Persons (1982) and the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1993).

But need we be reminded of the fact that all people are equal and deserve the same amount of dignity, respect and opportunities for prosperity?

It appears that we do. The World Health Organization's press release informs of a dismal reality: of the 500 million of people living with some disability, 80% live in developing countries and only 1-2% have access to rehabilitation services. Some 30% of the 104 countries that bothered to respond (there are close 200 countries in our world) said they have no provisions for the rehabilitation of the disabled. Only three countries involve disabled peoples' organization in the planning and evaluation of health services.

But statistics is only one side of the coin. There is another, a sadder one: Discrimination. Our inability as society to (fully) engage the disabled members is a testimony of our outter failure. But matters can go worse. We build barriers, both physical (lack of facilities and equipment) and social (unemployment- 70% in the US, a country that is well ahead in bridging the gap); we discriminate against verbally- or even without using words.

I don't think there is much more to be added here. Just let us all take a moment to briefly imagine how different our lives would be if, say, we could not walk? could not hear? could not see?

With this principle in mind, but with the goal of increasing awareness on the unique abilities of the disabled, the Foundation for the Hellenic World (Ίδρυμα Μείζονος Ελληνισμού) a not-for-profit cultural institution based in Athens, Greece organized a day of activities for the little ones, titled "Different skills, different possibilities..my friends" ("Με άλλες ικανότητες, με άλλες δυνατότητες.. οι φίλοι μου") which aimed at showing the unique ways children with disabilities perceive the world. What an excellent initiative!

Finally, I have been told that the newly released movie "Happy Feet" (the story of a penguin that is different in that it "taps" his feet unlike the rest of penguins and fights in order to become accepted in the society of 'mainstream' penguins) is also a strong criticism against discrimination.. may the powers of Warner Bros and the cute penguins help us become better persons..!

References:

World Health Organization Press Release
www.disabledperson.com
Foundation for the Hellenic World
The movie: Happy Feet!