Burkas in America

My flight from London arrived yesterday into Washington Dulles Airport at the same time as a flight from Riahd Saudi Arabia. I was at first surprised by, and then curious about the many women in burkas, it is the first time I have seen them in person. As we made our way to the US Citizens line in the immigration area I noticed a family of four. A young father two children around 5 and 6 and an obviously young petite woman covered from head to foot, except her eyes, in black. All the other burkas and their groups were in the non-US citizen lines. So I proceeded to watch the advancement of this family in the immigration process to see if the immigration officer would make her lift the veil in order to compare her face to her passport picture.
What surprise, indignation and anger I felt when HE DID NOT!
What? Was there a James Bond like eye tester machine she looked into to confirm her identity? There wasn't one in my line... How did he know she was who her passport said, or was that photo of a veil and two eyes too?
We as airline passengers are foreced into ridiculous and degrading security measures at every airport world wide because of Islam sponsored terrorism and yet the women are allowed to enter into the US (and this one as a US citizen!) without showing her face because it's against Islam!! What about our security? PLEASE! We need to set rules for ALL based on OUR customs and beliefs and security needs.
I am not saying they should have to remove them during their stay here, (although I'd like a debate on that) but at least to enter the country!
Since I have read the book Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I have become much more supportive of our nation putting our foot down, and walking less on eggshells about applying our cultural, constitutional and American values. If anyone doesn't like it, then they are welcome to return to the countries they have immigrated from, if those traditions are so great stay where they are accepted.

Returning to the old or fundamental change?

I enjoy spending weekend mornings listening to all the current affairs debate and discussion shows on the international news channels we get: CNN Int’l (a far better cry from the American CNN), BBC Int’l., Al Jazeera, TV5 - France’s English version, Spain’s CNN or 24 hours news station. Subjects range from Int’l. politics, to green initiatives in many cultures, healthcare, education, social justice subjects or the economy. Recently there have been panels made up of financial experts of every kind talking about this “economic crisis”. This morning I listened to another one on BBC Int’l. focusing on whether we’ve hit the bottom and are now coming out of it. Every time I hear these debates it strikes me that there is always a tone of “returning”, “recuperating”, “getting back to stability”, perhaps with a few more regulations, but there is no discussion of a FUNDAMENTAL change in what drives the economy – personal consumption.

The economy has been driven by the developed world’s consumption of disposable goods for decades; it is a policy direction that was voiced after WWll (see the History of Stuff for a quick overview of the policy and system http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8). But now that so many of us have greatly reduced our consumption – of luxury items, an abundance of trendy fashion, bigger houses, all the furniture and decorative paraphernalia that goes with them, new cars every three years, and a lot of other non-essential “stuff”, do we the consumers really want to go back to the previous levels of consumption, and will we be capable of it, both financially and morally?

I perceive a collective sigh of relief at now having a legitimate reason to slow down the consumption that goes against so many of our grains – against what we learned from and admired in our grandmothers, against the false and short lived joy we got from buying things that we or someone else thought we had to have, against the time we spend shopping – taking it away from friends, family, ourselves or even projects that help others. I think we are ready to move towards other things that fulfill us more and that perhaps we “need” more as well.

By buying less we feel better: we stay within our budget, our environmental footprint is reduced, we have more time with our family and friends, we do things we haven’t had time for, perhaps we take a course and learn new things, all things that fill our soul not our home or closet – that are already overflowing. But this continues to have a negative effect on the employment numbers on a global level, we buy less, there are less revenues, companies cut jobs, those employees consume less so others loose their jobs, now not only in manufacturing and sales outlets, but in the periphery industries like packaging, advertising, graphic design, support services, etc.. It is a downward spiral that hasn’t seen its bottom yet. So now many unemployed have hard time just keeping up with what they really "need".

So in the debates when they talk about consumer trends, the economy, the financial sector, they do so in a mutually exclusive manner from the debates on sustainability, environment, education, healthcare, food supply, water availability, all issues that our global future depends on. Instead they continue to talk about when are we going to be back to where we were, rather than how to we create a new economic order based not on people going back to the consumption model but rather on people going into things that improve so many of the areas that have been ignored or damaged by these decades of consumer based economy.

Maybe this is why Obama is focusing on many of these issues, because the private sector has been too busy with earning, earning, consuming, consuming and not enough on these low profit, non-tangibles that benefit everyone. So now as the government looks to healthcare, the environment and improved education for all levels of the population, you would think a discussion of a FUNDAMENTAL change in what drives the economy would be included on these Int’l. programs and at these big G20 summits, but sadly they are not.

That is the discussion I want to hear, I want to be a part of. How can we all make a living that supports our needs – not our over the top whims – and whose results will help others achieve the same ability, not only in the USA but around the world? How do we go forward economically to a new order that benefits most rather than back to the same old one that only worked for some? When will BBC or CNN or FOX or CNBC have those discussions?

Obama on Leno

Barak Obama’s appearance on last night’s Jay leno show was splashed all over the Spanish news stations this morning. Initially I thought it was a cool thing, a president making himself available on a popular level. He’s our age, we can relate to him, he – hopefully – can relate to us. Up until a couple of years ago he lived a life similar to many of ours, with concerns for improving community life, for the education and well being of his daughters, with interest in sports, keeping fit, music, new restaurants, he came and went as he pleased.
Now he is responsible for navigating our country through tumultuous times on a global level, and an unprecedented economic crisis nationally, and he is a well known, highly protected figure world wide.
When I heard the news repeated this afternoon on CNN Int’l. I suddenly questioned his appearance on Leno. Presidents have always been above “popular” shows – and in some cases above news programs and interviews as well, they have their prestige, eliteness, reputation, aura to protect… or in some cases to create.
So I asked myself if it is good or bad that President Obama appeared on the Jay leno show. My personal jury is still out on the question. What do you think?

Obama Inspired!

YAAAY We did it! We voted in a man who prefers:

• peace vs. war


• helping the struggling vs. insisiting it's the fault of their own laziness and negating them support


• keeping in check greedy corporations vs. turning a blind eye to their abusive tactics because of their economic power


• pulling everyone together to promote change from bottom up vs. the haves dictating change (or lack there of) from a condescending podium of control


• multi-racial participation vs. white control

...and how hopeful I feel, despite all the HUGE problems to address.

He did it again with his acceptance speech, INSPIRING, hope he can keep it up!

The Superclass - Definition, Comments and Reflections

They're Global Citizens. They're Hugely Rich. And They Pull the Strings.
By David RothkopfSunday, The Washington Post - May 4, 2008; B01

We didn't elect them. We can't throw them out. And they're getting more powerful every day.
Call them the superclass.
At the moment, Americans are fixated on the political campaign. In the meantime, many are missing a reality of the global era that may matter much more than their presidential choice: On an ever-growing list of issues, the big decisions are being made or profoundly influenced by a little-understood international network of business, financial, government, cultural and military leaders who are beyond the reach of American voters.
In addition to top officials, these people include corporate executives, leading investors, top bankers, media moguls, heads of state, generals, religious leaders, heads of terrorist and criminal organizations and a handful of important cultural and scientific figures. Each of these roughly 6,000 individuals is set apart by their power and ability to regularly influence millions of lives across international borders. The group is not monolithic, but none is more globalized or has more influence over the direction in which the global era is heading.

The above paragraphs were the opening of an interesting article from the Washington Post, that I sent to many of my firends and family. What it argues I have heard in conferences here in Spain and have been observing for a few years now. Scarey, truly scarey.

Below is just my own quick refelction and prediction on what will happen that I sent in an on-going e-mail conversation with my conservative uncle. It seems we are in agreement on the problem and plight. We just disagree tremendously on how to address it. (See earlier article on Proud to be a Liberal)

" The superclass exists in all of the developed parts of the world. Question is whether they really want to see wealth redistributed in a more equitable manner."

" It’s so true in the First World in general, although the social safety nets here in Europe , (health care, unemployment, training, housing help) help keep the middle class from falling into poverty levels when difficult times, like now, come. I think this difficult period is the beginning of major changes, and getting through them is gonna’ be tough, with or without the safety nets. I truly believe a major shift is coming, and the US will perhaps be a big loser. Things are so out of balance globally– the environment, our values…consume, consume, consume, to keep an economy going when other people’s food chain and supplies are declining or non-existant,, the declining value of human life for so many, the pace we try and keep up with to keep earning to keep spending, which keeps worsening the environment, which hurts the have nots more than the haves….like I said out of balance. "
Well, how did I get there? I just have been observing it from that perspective for a long time.

Proud to be a Liberal

I've been going round and round with this notion since early last week when I saw a CNN report on the U.S. elections that claimed that Barak Obama may have difficulty in the General Election if he cannot free himself from the liberal label. (That, of course, the Republicans and their cronies at Fox and the rest paste on Obama every chance they get) The report showed footage of one of Obama's appearances on the campaign trail going through a list of his stands and explaining why they are not liberal, as if being liberal were something terribly wrong and to be ashamed of!

Why, over the past decade or so, has it become such a negative thing to be considered a liberal? The conservatives and neo-cons are proud to stand up and defend their labels, so why don't the democrats do the same thing?

In these musings I did a Google search for the definitions of the two labels. Here are the ones which encompassed all the definitions found:

Merriam Webster Dictionary:

liberalism
Main Entry:
lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation:
\ˈli-b(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
1: the quality or state of being liberal2a. often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties dcapitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party.

From the On Line Free Dictionary:

lib·er·al
play_w("L0148700")
(lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

What is there to be ashamed of in these definitions? In this fast changing, globalized world, where nothing is the same as it was 5 years ago, we need to to be "not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox or authoritarian attitudes.." It is a time when we need to be "favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress and tolerant of the ideas and behaviour of others.." These are the principals that business and industry have been adhering to on order to grow and succeed in this fast paced High Tech Information Age.

Now take a look at the defintions for Conervatism:

\kən-ˈsər-və-ˌti-zəm\
Function:
noun
1capitalized a: the principles and policies of a Conservative party b: the Conservative party2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.

From The Free Dictionary

con·ser·va·tive
play_w("C0581800")
(kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

With conservatives trying to "favor these traditional views and values.., and preserve what is established.." the United States now: suffers a worrisome large gap between the haves and the have nots; struggles with mistrust and fear of those who represent change and progress; has implemented constitutionally questioable methods in the name of "conserving" America and its freedoms. These are all catlysts to the strong division bewteen and the low tolerance of one for the other that the nation suffers today. (United we stand - Divided we fall) And yet the Conservatives continue to stand up proudly for their Conservative Values, while disdainfully criticising those supporting Liberal Values.

I am disappointed that Mr. Obama did not stand up, define and defend the Liberal label and then proudly declare that yes he is a Liberal. According to all definitions I found, he is. By not doing so, he has allowed the Conservatives to succeed at converting the Liberal label into something degrading, fearful and shameful. The shame is that the liberals do not stand up and return the respectable term to its rightful, repsectful place in the U.S. political debate and options.

I share with you just such a defense that I found on my Google search:

A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
Acceptance Speech of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." (The rest of his speech can be found http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html )

Mr. Obama, you missed the chance to draw another parallel of yourself to Mr. J.F. Kennedy on this one, and to once again eloquently expose and defend the "liberal" values of reform, progress and change that your campaign represents.

G8 vs. Grass Roots

If you read my I Believe piece below, you will see that I believe that a grass roots movement i s "threatening" the traditional power brokers of the world as we know it, and will in our lifetime bring about fundamental changes. The news today from the G8 summit in Germany supports my theory. 16,000 security personnel and a 12km (7.5 mile) fence, which I heard this morning cost 25,000,000 Euros, have been employeed to protect 8..EIGHT.. world leaders (and their entourage I assume) from over 10,000 protesters.

What does that say about our world. How many people's lives could those 25,000,000 Euros spent to build a fence significantly improve...and what did that money actually do for those EIGHT lives? Save them????? I wonder......

In latest news reports it seems the protesters have gotten closer than security planned, expected, wanted, and the leaders are surrounded, their wives have had to cancel excursions. Maybe they'll open their windows and listen. Or will they just close their eyes, look the other way and play deaf?

G8 vs. Grass Roots, I root for the underdogs..all 10,000 and counting of them.