Behind the Veil: Our obsession with sexy

It all started when I went dress shopping. It was almost Mid-May, the days were getting hotter and I wanted some nice Summer dresses to wear to keep cool during the next couple of months. I headed to the mall to check out the usual women’s retail stores. I stepped into Forever 21 after seeing their bright colorful display and sign advertising summer attire.

Wearing a hijab sometimes makes it difficult to find clothing tailored to suit my needs. However I usually have no problem layering outfits to customize them to my taste.

After walking around the entire store for half an hour to no avail, I finally approached a sales rep for assistance, “Excuse me, can you help me find some longer dresses?” My inquiry was met with a chirpy, “Sure!” and she led me around the store, color coordinated section by color coordinated section searching for dresses.

Each time we came across a dress, she would pull it off the rack, hold it up to herself and ask for my approval. About 97% of the dresses we found barely covered mid-thigh. After 36 dresses—yes, I was counting—we found one that was knee-length, but still, not long enough for me. The sales clerk began to look a little exasperated. Finally, we located a small rack at the back end of the store that had four maxi-style dresses that were full length. The fact that they were in garish, gaudy colors and prints is besides the point. The more important issue is what the sales girl said to me while I was examining the horrid prints, “You could try this one” She said, while holding up a cheetah print mini, “it would go great with any type of accessories.”

“I’m sorry” I replied, “I don’t wear anything that isn’t full length.”

“But it’s so sexy!” She said with a smile, “It would look great on you!”

“But I don’t want to be sexy,” I responded without even thinking.

“Why..” She began, but then stopped mid-sentence. She shook her head as if she couldn’t grasp what was wrong with me.

There was an awkward pause between us, then she hung the dresses back on the rack, smiled at me, and left.

I stood there for a long while thinking about what had just happened.

I left the store without purchasing anything and thought about what I said to the sales rep on my drive back home. It was true, I did not want to be sexy, at least not for everyone else to see. I resented that I was made to feel weird for not wanting to be a sexual object, and what is our obsession with oozing sex appeal 24/7 anyway? Why must I look sexy for everyone? And why must one look sexy all the time? What is so wrong with looking modest, or decent, or presentable without the sex factor?

A few days later, I was waiting to pick up my brother in my car in front of his school. A parade of middle school children walked past my car to their rides. I had my windows rolled down and I was overhearing tons of conversation. One particular conversation caught my attention, four young girls were speaking animatedly describing outfits they had bought on their shopping trips over the weekend. One girl was gesturing while describing her purchases, “It’s a strapless and it’s cute and short, and I got a blue headband to match it,” she described, illustrating the dress with her hands for her friend. Her friends were all entranced with her description, “That sounds so sexy!” her friend chimed in.

I wondered for a moment, why her friend hadn’t chosen the world “pretty”, or “beautiful” to describe her friend’s dress. Since when did these words get replaced with a variation of the word sex? And of even greater concern, these girls were only in 6th or 7th grade, why were they concerned with sex appeal at age 11?

The girl smiled at her friends compliment, “Yeah, I know!” she said excitedly, and began describing the other things she had bought.

I thought about the dress she had described and it reminded me of my own shopping trip this past weekend. Her description matched all the dresses I had seen, and I understood why her friend chose to compliment with the word “sexy,” it’s because it matched the outfits perfectly. Those outfits were not designed to make a woman look beautiful, or pretty, or lovely, they were designed to make you exude sex appeal and leave little to the imagination.

The conversation taking place between the middle school girls was simply a reflection of our society. A mirror showing us what values we are teaching our future generations. We are teaching our daughters and younger sisters that it is important to be sexual at all times with everything they do, the way they act, the way the dress, and what they say. And it’s no surprise that they are picking up these ideals. Just take a look at the type of women we glorify in our society, Kim Kardashian, for example, whose only claim to fame was the release of her sex tape with an ex-boyfriend, or Paris Hilton, who surprisingly also had a sex tape with an ex-boyfriend. We plaster images of these women in magazines, or on Yahoo’s front page, forcing people to see what they are doing, and what they are wearing at all times. We give these women the limelight, it’s no wonder that the next generation of females is following in their footsteps.

Change comes one person at a time, and I am determined to break this “sexy” cycle by complimenting more women by telling them that they are “beautiful” or “pretty” instead of “hot” or “sexy.” I am starting a beautiful revolution. Justin Timberlake might have brought sexy back, but I’m bringing beautiful back.

Filipino veterans fight for equity, commemorate the Fall of the Bataan

Bataan Day, a Philippine holiday, marks the largest U.S. army surrender in history. More than 70,000 American and Filipino troops surrendered to Japanese forces after brutal fighting for over 3 months in 1942.

What followed was the gruesome 60-mile march from Bataan for the surrendering army. It was the trudge of battle-weary soldiers, bearing the pain, heat, and agony with little to no food to eat. A few soldiers escaped, but many died from starvation, dehydration, and disease. This became known in history as the Bataan Death March.

Justice for Filipino American Veterans (JFAV) commemorated the Fall of Bataan or Bataan Day on April 10 at the Filipino American Community of Los Angeles (FACLA).

I entered the small function room, modestly decorated with a banner on the center stage wall, framed by the American flag on stage left, the Philippine flag and a bust of Jose Rizal, the Philippine national hero, on stage right. Plastic chairs in rows of five were set up with a small walkway through the middle, while draped tables with small plastic flowers as centerpieces are lined against the walls for the luncheon after the commemoration.

Arturo Garcia, National Coordinator for JFAV, spoke with me briefly at the event. He has a commanding presence, undoubtedly emanating from his passion for the cause, which becomes apparent within moments of speaking with him.

“We are commemorating the 68th fall of Bataan. Bataan Day, as it is called in the Philippines, is the fall of Bataan, when the main army of USAFFE (United States Armed Forces of the Far East) surrendered. That was the largest garrison of the US in the Far East,” he explained.

Garcia formed JFAV to continue the veteran fight for equity and rights as a campaign for People’s CORE (Community Organization for Reform and Empowerment). The group’s mission has been to bring the Filipino-American community together and fight for justice for all veterans.

“We are asking for the benefits rightly due to the veterans which where denied to them in 1946,” said Garcia. “The 250,000 veterans (who) served for the United States were not even recognized. That is why we are fighting for recognition. We are fighting for benefits. We are fighting for justice.”

As we spoke, several veterans stop by to say hello, shake his hand and look inquisitively at my notepad and recorder. They greeted me with a small hello, a wave or a nod. Garcia told them to grab a seat inside; the program will start soon. Donning their military uniforms and decorations, their medals clinked softly as they shuffled slowly to the function room.

A member of JFAV opened the event and the function room was buzzing with conversations and energy. Present in the commemoration were WWII Filipino veterans, veteran widows and special guests. Filipino-American groups from UCLA Gawad Kalinga, Samahang Pilipino, Kappa Psi Epsilon (Delta Chapter), and Theta Delta Beta (Gamma Chapter) presented the veterans and widows with certificates of recognition.

One by one, the veterans stood up to receive their certificate, though many of them were absent. A veteran sitting in my row carried a Priority Mail envelope with him when his name was called. He carefully placed his certificate inside to avoid wrinkling it. It was a humble reminder that for many veterans, this piece of paper is a small token of recognition for their sacrifice. A small “thank you” from the generation of young Filipinos who remember their historical contribution and significance.

“They (U.S.) want to forget it. We want to remember it. We want to show how the system is being unfair and how injustices are being perpetrated against our veterans,” he added, referring to the 1946 Rescission Act which stripped Filipino soldiers of benefits and veteran status.

Since then, Filipino veterans have been fighting for equity and recognition. It is a fight that JFAV wages along with many Fil-Am veteran groups across the nation.

“JFAV wants to highlight the historical contribution of the Filipino nation, the Filipino soldiers and the Filipino-American soldiers who fought in that war that the US wants to conveniently forget. We are fighting a war to remember,” Garcia said.

The ceremony closed and everyone grabbed their chairs to the tables. People lined up to get their share of pancit and other Filipino dishes. The veterans ate and talked. Each of them looking genuinely happy to be sitting among friends and fellow “kababayans” (countrymen). I sat down and spoke with some of the veterans, introducing myself as a journalism intern writing about the event. Their faces lit up and they told me their various stories (”I was only 16 years old when the Japanese came,” “I came here in 2003!”). One can sense immediately, that there are hundreds of stories waiting to be told and a multitude of voices fighting to be recognized.

Writer’s Note: The 2009 Stimulus Bill included the Filipino Veterans Equity legislation which gives Filipino-American and Filipino veterans a one-time lump sum payment. Today, only 18,000 WWII Fil-Am veterans are alive and living in the U.S. Though JFAV welcomes the compensation, JFAV joins the Migrant Heritage Commission in Washington, D.C. in filing a suit against the Department of Veterans Affairs for the denied claims. Read the press release here.

U.S. troop build-up on Guam faces opposition from locals

It has been ten months since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton re-signed an agreement with Japan officials to relocate Marine Corps Futenma air base. This agreement includes the relocation of 8,000 Marines from the U.S. military base in Japan to the small island of Guam, a U.S. territory.

The agreement was initially signed in 2006 to reduce U.S. military presence in Japan and lighten the load in the airbase which currently holds more than half of the 47,000 troops in Japan, according to news reports.

In a few months, the Marines will be greeted “Hafa Adai” or “Welcome”, as they set foot on Guam.

Recently, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) reported on the military build-up and the infrastructural stress such a high influx of people would put on the island’s already-stretched resources. An estimated 18,000 troops and families are set to arrive by 2014, but with a population already exceeding 150,000 residents, Guam’s 212 square miles of land seems barely enough.

Also, with an unemployment rate of 9.3 percent, Guam would need much more than what it is currently receiving from its main economic source, the tourism industry. Reports put an additional $100 million in tax revenue that Guam will receive from the relocation, bringing jobs and revenue to the island. This could generate much needed funding for crumbling infrastructures and for education, not only to support the current population, but the additional military personnel and families as well.

But the troop build-up should be more than just throwing money at the island to make the relocation smoother. Though President Obama has approved $738 million to spend on Guam, with reports of additional tax revenue in the first year, community outreach should also be on the table.

Opening lines of communication between local governments and the military is essential and includes discussions and agreements about land use and preservation, military borders, crime rates, military and local tensions that could arise, as well as further discussions about paying for the troop relocation. Without these, the troop buildup will not move beyond the concerns and issues of crime and safety (for both military and local communities) that were prominent issues in Japan, and could be exacerbated by disenfranchisement and resentment for the relocation.

But such frustrations over the military’s presence on Guam are nothing new.

During WWII, Guam served as a vital military base for U.S. troops in the Pacific and was the site of many battles during the war. Many Chamorros, the island’s indigenous people, fought against the Japanese invasion of the island, but many of their descendants are still fighting for war reparations. Several locals have voiced concern over the military’s continued presence and the tolls it is taking on the island–and that the U.S. have little concern over the people of the island.

Guam remains one of the 16 non-self-governing territories in the world, according to the United Nations, and elects one non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. So when changes are made around the island by the federal government, there’s an assumption that not much can be done.

Despite this, Guam maintains one of the highest recruitment rates for the military, according to the PBS report, and pride in the island remains high. The island’s relationship with the U.S. is a long and complex one, bound by history and continues to be shaped by the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But mostly, Guam’s contributions to the nation remain relatively unheard, unknown, and unrecognized, despite its strategic importance to the military.

The island’s cultural treasures remain a secret from the rest of the U.S. and its significance in U.S. history left unwritten in many books. Perhaps this time around, as the island prepares for the build-up to support the nation’s defense plans, Guam would be more than just a footnote in U.S. history.

Under the Radar: The Copenhagen Summit

Between health care reform news and the daily reports about the economy, it is no surprise that a climate change summit scheduled for December 7 in Denmark has passed under the radar in America.

The Copenhagen Summit is the United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference and will run for two weeks. It is the 15th Conference of the Parties, officially COP15, where more than 60 leaders will negotiate and create a succeeding pact to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. The Protocol committed 37 industrialized countries and the European community to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent compared to the 1990 levels of each country. The U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol but never ratified it.

COP15 will also address the role of developing countries and what industrialized nations must do to put them on a “clean energy path,” said Yvo De Boer, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) executive secretary.

The inclusion of many developing countries in the summit shows the growing importance of a global effort to address the rapidly increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It also calls for industrialized countries, like the United States, to ramp up commitment to reduce carbon emissions.

President Obama has announced the country’s climate target to reduce emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels based on the House of Representative bill passed earlier this year.

With recent reports of alarmingly high levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the worsening impacts of warming since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, Obama’s attendance can change opinions about the country’s commitment to environmental issues.

But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as the UNFCCC, acknowledges that a legally-binding treaty with every detail finalized may not take place next month.

And public opinion in the U.S. seems to be shifting as well.

There has been a decline in the number of Americans who believe in global warming, according to a report released last month by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The number of Americans who believe that there is sound evidence that the earth is warming declined from 71 percent in April 2008 to only 57 percent in October. Fewer people also see global warming as a serious problem, declining from 44 percent to 35 percent.

Even Congress has stalled on climate change legislation. The House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 but the Senate is yet to introduce a bill.

With an economy still struggling to recover from a recession and high unemployment rates that continue to plague states, Americans are quick to skip environmental issues when prioritizing. Not to mention a six-year war in Iraq and a possible increase in troop deployment in Afghanistan, environmental policies are slowly being eclipsed by health care reform and other pressing social issues.

There is also the matter of finances. A global treaty would need money to implement, restructure, adjust or accommodate any changes to our current environmental policies. Part of the summit’s focus would be to determine how funding would be managed to undertake such a treaty and what changes would be undertaken with the new treaty. Such changes, undoubtedly, will face fierce opposition and debate on what climate change policy would mean to consumers, energy and coal industries.

Though I have faith that COP15 will blaze the trail to a more inclusive climate change treaty, it will take a long time before any commitment will come to fruition. While I am hopeful, I will not be holding my breath.

–

Get more information on the Copenhagen Summit here.

–

Francesca Gacho holds a B.A. in English from Cal State Fullerton. She is an intern at Minority Dreams Magazine, where she hopes to spread her journalistic wings, explore and hone her writing ability, and gain insight into the myriad of issues in today’s soundbite-focused world. Her writing interests include human interest pieces that delve into culture, arts, current events, and community service.

How U.S. foreign policy may have led to Ft. Hood incident

States don’t just exist - they actively exist. It is as difficult for a state to gain sovereignty and existence as it is to sustain them. And how states sustain both tells us a lot about their sense of national security. National security with regards to terrorism breaks down into two types: domestic and international. The former being terrorism perpetrated by American citizens on U.S. soil and the latter being foreign threats faced by the U.S. either on its own soil or abroad.

With all the focus on international terrorism since 2001, it may seem as though American sovereignty and existence are contingent upon the elimination of imminent, foreign threats. But according to FBI reports between 2002 and 2005, twenty-three of the twenty-four recorded terrorist incidents against the United States were domestic. Minus one white supremacist firebombing of a synagogue, the other twenty-three domestic attacks were carried out by extremist environmental and animal rights group.

The sole international terrorist incident involved an Egyptian national killing two at Los Angeles Airport.

Before the pro-war advocates tell you there was only one such international incident because of Bush’s decision to wage wars against Islamic fundamentalism, also know that between 1980 and 2000, 250 of the 335 suspected terrorist acts against the United States were domestic. It appears that the same animal-loving, tree-hugging, white-supremacist type individuals of today have been targeting the wellbeing of the United States longer than Osama himself. And as a result, American national security may be ruling out the probability that it faces a great danger from members of its own state than it does from pro-bin Laden fanatics hiding in the caves of north-western Pakistan.

With two abysmal wars waging onwards in Iraq and Afghanistan, many are asking the same sorts of questions. Namely, is America really that much safer than it was just before the 9/11 attacks? Is it as unsafe now as it was prior to 2001?

Since 2001, national security measures of the United States have focused on preventing imminent threats from abroad. These measures have narrowed their focus on Islamic groups and individuals – making the assumption that because 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims, the biggest threat to US national security must continue to come from the Islamic world. Additional assumptions must also exclude the probability that increased terrorist activity from Islamic communities were reactionary to pre-emptive American action. After all, if such wasn’t excluded, one could argue that the United States was engaging in terrorism and facing the opposition out of defense.

There is no doubt that the Untied States has provoked a great deal of social and ethno-religious unrest throughout the Islamic world in recent years. Also given the unique and heterogeneous nature of the American citizenry, these measures have adversely affected many Muslim-American communities. Is it possible for such a state as the U.S. to pursue national security interests, aimed at guarding the wellbeing of the state and its people, such that their very nature ends up marginalizing American citizens it seeks to protect?

Aside from the Americans who raid fur factories and bomb industrial ones (in the name of foxes and Mother Earth) it should become apparent that improper national security measures will also lead to reactionary situations. This is where the international and domestic terrorist threats merge into one major concern. I find this to be the prominent issue surrounding the recent Ft. Hood massacre in Texas. Unlike Lierbman’s anxiousness to investigate where Hasan’s assessment went wrong, I wonder where the U.S. went wrong on a very different level.

By preemptively engaging in two massive wars against Islamic states and developing rather discriminatory legislation aimed at marginalizing individuals of Arab and Muslim descent (see: The Patriot Act), the U.S. created a situation in which its own unregulated paranoia is prompting development of imminent threats against it. In a sense, it is contributing to its own difficulty in maintaining its sovereignty and survival.

Had Hasan not been subject to the discrimination and marginalization that he was, would he have snapped? Had the US not pursued a unilateral mission against the Islamic world, would our troops be as keen on weeding out their fellow Muslim soldiers?

It appears that the majority of attacks have always been domestic, but now we’re importing reasons for our own citizens to pursue them even more.

Remembering Veterans’ Day

As flags fly half-mast around the nation, we celebrate Veterans’ Day, or what was initially called, Armistice Day—the day that marks the signing of the ceasefire agreement to end the First World War. Signed on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, it has come to symbolize peace between warring nations and to commemorate the fallen. But what has been traditionally, and in spirit, a day of remembrance seems to have passed unnoticed for some people. Outside of a few moments of silence by Congress or the President’s remarks from the White House lawn, for many people, Veterans’ Day has served as a day-off, a break from work or school, getting paid time-and-a-half (if you’re lucky), or perhaps even an opportune time to take advantage of several Veterans’ Day sales. What has started as a day to celebrate peace has become synonymous with flag-laden advertisements for 40% off on widescreen TV’s.

But in light of the recent Fort Hood shooting in Texas, Veterans’ Day this year takes a different tone. Though already a day for commemorating and honoring the servicemen and women of the Armed Forces, it is a somber reminder of the sacrifices given to our country. And this year, Veterans’ Day takes on a mix of tragedy, painful acceptance and reverence for the great sacrifices given.

Twelve soldiers and one Army retiree died in a shooting rampage in the Soldier Readiness Center at Fort Hood military base in Texas, where soldiers are processed for deployment. Much of the shock surrounding the horrific incident is from hearing that “one of our own” is the alleged shooter, that this could happen in a military base—the towering symbol of safety, security, and order. Speculations about the gunman’s motives continue to be debated, but there is no explanation clear enough or comprehensive enough to assuage the loss of friends, families, and colleagues. And this loss has and continues to affect many more families of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Though we have been embroiled in two wars for years, these wars seem to escape the daily minutiae of American lives. For many, life goes on as usual, punctuated by news marquees of casualty reports on television. What escapes most of us is that soldiers from combat return from deployment every day and rejoin mainstream society as students, co-workers, family, and community members, often with trepidation. Many come home from combat bearing the burdens of war and of life-changing experiences only so few can understand. These are the untold and unrecognized obstacles our veterans face. It is unfortunate that it had to take a tragedy to bring our attention once again to the realities of war time. Though the 13 casualties did not fall by the hands of a foreign enemy, such violence would not be foreign to a war zone. Just like the soldiers who died in combat, they leave families behind to piece together what has happened, to pick up and carry on with their lives, cherishing and honoring loved ones. We tend to think of war as a feat we fight and win, but not always as something we suffer. What the incident at Fort Hood has painfully given us is a chance to look at the tolls of war so close to home.

President Obama, in his speech at the Fort Hood memorial service, described November 11 as a “chance to pause and to pay tribute—for students to learn the struggles that preceded them …. for citizens to reflect upon the sacrifices that have been made in pursuit of a more perfect union.” November 11 passes as a somber day of remembrance for all the fallen, civilian and military, but today, we should also take time to remember the loss and sorrow we suffer from our ongoing wars and what has been given to fight them. Maybe this way we will carry with us those who have sacrificed much for the good of many, remember those who have returned to us, and truly see the meaning of this day beyond elegant speeches, moments of silence, and discounted widescreen TV’s.

–

Francesca Gacho holds a B.A. in English from Cal State Fullerton. She is an intern at Minority Dreams Magazine, where she hopes to spread her journalistic wings, explore and hone her writing ability, and gain insight into the myriad of issues in today’s soundbite-focused world. Her writing interests include human interest pieces that delve into culture, arts, current events, and community service.

What Does Fort Hood Mean for American Muslims?

By all accounts, on November 5, Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 12 soldiers and 1 civilian at the Fort Hood Army base where he was stationed.

While investigators and reporters try to piece together the events and what prompted them, one fundamental aspect of the rampage is not in doubt: the alleged attacker was Muslim.

Writing shortly after the incident, the perceptive young American Muslim writer Wajahat Ali understandably cautioned against leaping to conclusions: “A cousin of Hasan, interviewed by reporters, has suggested an alternative motivation, not necessarily influenced by religious conviction. ‘He was mortified by the idea of having to deploy,’ said Nader Hasan. ‘He had people telling him on a daily basis the horrors they saw over there [in Iraq and Afghanistan],’” he wrote.

But in the face of additional evidence that emerged today, it is not reasonable or logical to pretend that some great wall separated Hasan’s own sense of Muslim identity from his motive. Witnesses report that he shouted “God is Great!” ahead of his rampage; family indicated that he was deeply upset over discrimination he said was visited upon him for being Muslim; and he openly expressed his hostility to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by describing it as a “war against Islam.”

Of course, we do not yet know precisely what combination of factors led to the attack, and with more than 20,000 Muslims actively serving in the U.S. military, it would be absurd to mistake one man’s warped and skewed understanding of Islam and graft it onto every other Muslim.

But the scale and nature of this incident raises a number of uncomfortable questions about what usually goes unseen and remains unsaid outside of military circles.

A psychiatrist, Hasan heard the stories of soldiers returning from combat: did these accounts of killing, abuse and other horrors fuel his anger at American policy as the date of his own deployment to Afghanistan neared? What kind of harassment was Hasan subjected to on base for his Muslim identity? How widespread is enmity toward Muslims and Islam among the very soldiers who Gen. McChrystal is sending to fight alongside Muslims against Islamist extremists?

There are also other, equally pressing questions that directly affect young Muslims, such as me, who call this country our own. People will invariably ask why and whether Muslims are in the military–or perhaps even in the country at all–and what sort of measures will be taken to “monitor” this minority.

The Council of American Islamic Relations released a statement condemning the attack, labeling it “heinous” and contrary to Muslim principles. An assault upon one’s own unarmed and unsuspecting comrades is unquestionably cowardly and immoral, but I suspect that no number of official statements will stave off questions of Muslim “loyalty” to the state or disrupt the almost magnetic attraction between conservatives and anti-Islamic rhetoric.

The greatest and most pressing questions of all, however, are whether incidents like this one mark a growing trend of radicalization, isolation, or anger among Muslims in the U.S.–and if so, why. A few years ago, it was commonplace to observe that Islamist terrorists were foreign-trained and foreign-born, but the Fort Hood attack was at least the fourth this year involving American-raised or American-born Muslims.

The status and station of American Muslims — who by and large have enjoyed prosperity and contribute to the country as doctors, scientists, and translators–is a living rejoinder to fantastic rhetoric about a clash of civilizations or religions. But it is not a relationship that can be taken for granted or neglected by either side.

–

This article originally appeared on WireTap.

Levesque-Alam writes about America and Islam at his website, Crossing the Crescent, and for WireTap, where he is also the immigration blogger.

Walking away from the world of money

One day you loose your job and your last hundred dollar bill breaks into two 20’s and a 10. Then your money crumbles into the last dimes that send you off the cliff.

Watching myself slip into poverty feels like following the lethal injection as it disappears into the skin. Poverty is its own society and system and if you don’t know the system as you leave the world of money, you’re so lost, you suffocate.

Everything is complicated and uphill now. If I get work today, how would I afford the gas to get there? How would I survive for two weeks or a month as I waited for my pay?

What amazes me is how much money, change, how many extra rooms, couches, cars and jobs people have. But so few help and even fewer do anything of substance.

Even when someone does help, there is an amount of guilt mixed with resentment within me. I need a job so that I can create free will for myself.

Even my relative who is letting me sleep here wants me to move already. It has been a month and she wants to get her second bedroom back and maybe turn it into an office for her pyramid scheme business.

So, do I look for a job or a place to live?

I have no place or rights at the restaurants or the movie theaters either. I have no reason to go into almost every populated place I find. Tomorrow, for just one day, imagine a world like that.

The world sees the beating heart of a poor man as an unfortunate continuation. If things get worse and my clothes get dirty, finding even a bathroom will become a moment of guilt that I will have to pursue.

You sometimes feel that you have slipped into a place somewhere between a dog and a man. And so you wait patiently for a world that is so bothered by your existence that it finally calls you to your bowl. But you will eat knowing it is only because you barked, whimpered and gave the world your guiltiest eyes.

I have heard people say that the homeless or the poor deserve these circumstances, are lazy or want them. But I am here because someone hired me and then did not pay. Then another job was starting but it did not. I would bet most of us are here because of something similar.

It is believed that 1 out of 10 people in this country, very soon, will be unemployed.

Of the nearly 10 percent unemployed now, many will slip forever away from their productive lives. Many will silently slip through the cracks of the richest country in the world.

The goal is to not be one of them.

Living on a dime

Sometimes ‘living on a dime’ is just an expression we use. For some it refers to cutting back on expenses or maybe even dipping into a savings or credit account to make ends meet. But for some people, in some places, this expression literally is a style of living.

The world is divided into three parts: First World countries, Second World countries and Third World countries. Poverty rates differ drastically between each division due to many, often overlapping, political, social, strategic, cultural and economic situations. Many in the Third World deal with very high poverty rates, where people have to scratch through their daily lives and find ways to feed and bathe their children, to put them to sleep in a safe place and find clothes for them to wear. But “need is the mother of all inventions”, and many people use their ingenuity to do some or all of that daily.

Palestine is not much different from any other Third World country. It also suffers from poverty, and has witnessed a huge increase in poverty rates over the last eight years. The Gaza Strip is a small part of Palestine that extends along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. It is densely populated and suffers from very high rates of poverty and unemployment.

The Gaza Strip has three main commercial ports that allow goods, materials, medical aid, building tools, food to enter. Unfortunately, they stay closed most of the time because of the political situation that we suffer from which leaves all Gazans living on a dime whether we chose it or not.

No electricity, no fuel, no food, no water, no medicine and no life is our daily life here in Gaza; but life cannot stop; it just has to go on and Gazans make sure that happens. Of course, these band-aids have their advantages and disadvantages. Take fuel for instance. Gazans came up with a fuel formula that the world was not aware of before by mixing cooking oil with gasoline. The fuel they came up with can make cars run perfectly.

Advantages: it is very cheap as people turn to falafel shops and restaurants to take huge tanks of used cooking oil for half a dollar each.

Disadvantages: it pollutes the air with huge amounts of smoke and damages the car’s engine if used over the long run.

The fuel formula has been used to develop other products too. Gazans invented cooking tools and ovens that work using the same formula.

Advantages: the oven is very powerful and takes no time to cook, plus the formula is very cheap.

Disadvantages: It produces very high heat and can be dangerous to start and operate.

Using the same formula you can also have a light bulb which is very useful due to the constant electricity outages and a heating system that comes handy in winter.

Advantages: cheap sources of light and heat.

Disadvantages: It produces polluted smoke and can be dangerous to operate and start.

Small (but effective) electric cooking tools:
Cooking tools that depend on electricity to produce a huge amount of heat in no time using iron as the main component in manufacturing them.

Advantages: cooks in no time, very small and doesn’t take any space and very cheap (very affordable).

Disadvantages: the electricity is out most of the time, which makes the electric tools useless, very dangerous and contains naked wires.

Living tents: it’s not an invention but they coped with living in tents like living in houses due to the demolish of their own homes.

Advantages: better than living in the street, a place to live and sleep in and without monthly rent payments.

Disadvantages: It doesn’t protect from the rain, can burn while cooking, very hot in the morning and cold in the night, strained dogs can bite through it and hurt the whole family, and doesn’t apply as a healthy living place.

Gazans live on scratch literally, they use wood and flammable materials to make fire, tents to live in, any edible things for food, public or nearby faucets for water or children’s bathing and dish washing, the beach to bathe their children and wash their clothes and dishes, sleep on the floor, and any kind of cloth to sew and stitch for their children to wear.

“Living on a dime” has a whole new sensation here in the Gaza strip that you have to come, see, feel and experience yourself.

–

About the writer: Omar is a 22-year-old journalist living in Gaza – Palestine.

Nobel’s Will vs. Obama’s Will

The Cuban dissidents and Fidel Castro finally agree on something: Obama deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

In a rather controversial decision last week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee handed U.S. President Barack Obama the world-renowned prize for what they saw as extraordinary efforts in diplomacy and nuclear disarmament.

The Committee wasn’t mistaken in what it saw. But the question remains – was what it saw worthy of such a prestigious acknowledgment?

Let’s take a moment first to understand what the Nobel prize is and what it stands for. For starters – who is Alfred Nobel? One of the more amusing conversations I had over this news included a comment from a man who argued that Obama deserved the prize because no one knew who the other candidates were. Aside from the fact that this shouldn’t be viewed as a popularity contest, I’m quite certain that no one actually knows who Alfred Nobel (the man after whom these awards take their name) is, either.

Nobel came from a Swedish family known for its technical genius and contributed a great deal to science and technology during the 19th century. To flavor his artistic side, Nobel was also a polyglot, a dramatist and a poet. According to the Nobel Foundation, “he was also very interested in social and peace-related issues, and held views that were considered radical during his time”.

This man was so busy during his lifetime that he had to take out a personals ad in the newspaper to try and find a wife. The closest match, Austrian Countess Bertha Kinsky, decided not to marry him but the two remained life-long friends. She was a critic of the arms race at the time and wrote a book (Lay Down Your Arms) about the issue. Nobel was so touched that he awarded her a sort of “peace prize” in his will, alongside other individuals and organizations he deemed worthy of his wealth.

So what does the award stand for? Alfred’s will itself, on the subject of peace, states the following about awarding the Nobel Peace Prize: “the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the promotion of peace congresses.”

Countess Bertha Kinsky and President Barack Obama do share much of a common vision – an end to an arms race. But for one thing, the former was an author on the subject matter, not a head of state. She also had no idea that two world wars and the development of nuclear weapons would throw her reality on the matter into complete disarray. For her time period, her thinking was very new and very radical. And what about Obama?

For starters, he had no romantic interest in Alfred.

Secondly, he has yet to achieve an abolition or reduction of his standing armies. It’s a known fact, unlike the times during the 19th century, that the arms race is very real and very concerning. Taking over as Commander-in-Chief, increasing troops in Afghanistan and having barely started to show signs of reducing American military presence anywhere still stand in sharp contrast to Nobel’s vision of a peaceful world. He continues to allow funding of billions to the Israel Defense Forces, one of the world’s other strongest standing armies. As the United Nations continues to condemn Israel for grave and serious crimes against humanity during last year’s Gaza siege, Obama remains silent and flimsy. Illegal settlements continue to flourish. The Department of Homeland Security and John Ashcroft still roam free.

A Commander-in-Chief awarded for lack of elimination of the world’s largest military presence? Alfred must be rolling in his grave.

To be fair, Obama has worked towards undoing a lot of Bush’s eight-year mess in a very short period of time. Steps towards closing Guantanamo, granting Iraq greater autonomy, releasing classified information on prisons to the American Red Cross, opening up dialogue with a previously-shunned Syria – to name a few- are very admirable moves.

Many argue in Obama’s defense, citing that he has achieved a great deal as a black man in the United States. He is the first black president, after all. But the question is – what does this have to do with “fraternity among nations”, “abolition or reduction of standing armies” or “promotion of peace congress”? Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela, for example, took their work beyond their state borders and made racism an issue the entire international community could not ignore. Their work prompted an international camaraderie during the early 1990s that the world so badly missed during the Cold War.

Nelson Mandela’s already “been there” and “done that.” And rightfully stands as a Nobel Laureate for such achievements. Obama follows in his footsteps, and carries with him a very different set of goals. This isn’t a fight against the Ku Klux Klan for him – this is a fight for increased multi-lateralism and idealism with the rest of the world. And what stands in his way is a bloated, American military presence that’s time again violated the sovereignty of other nations.

In the span of ten very short months, Obama has pledged to decrease such presence and increase diplomacy. But what he pledges to do is a very different matter than what’s been actualized into visible progress. Everyone wants world peace and an end to world hunger, conflict and poverty. Should we all get a piece of Nobel’s funds for our thinking? The Committee can’t award the prize, first, and hope that the recipient will earn it, later.

The Committee also made its mistake not in considering him as a candidate, but considering him too soon. It would have come with better agreement had the world experienced the fruits of his labor and not the harmonious ring of his speeches.

But he can’t be blamed personally for any of this. He didn’t award himself. In fact, the prize may have raised the stakes to make his job even harder.

And for those other potential candidates, like Sima Samar and Hu Jia, well, it looks like they’ll just have to wait another year.

–

This article also appears here.

Next Page »