Real Hope for Haiti

When I watch the devastation in Haiti, I am amazed by not only the amount of destruction but also by the expressions of human care and love.  While most of us do not have a personal connection to Haiti, the impact of the earthquake has made its impression.  Many everyday citizens have donated money and supplies.  They have traveled to offer their hands in service.  I am in awe and so encouraged to see the countless ways everyday hardworking people are helping the people hurting in Haiti—without press, media coverage or acknowledgement of their work.

In the midst of this swell of human compassion we have the celebrities, behaving as they usually do in these disaster situations, deciding to band together to raise money—from us.  Tonight, a number of major networks will carry the “Hope for Haiti” telethon hosted by George Clooney and Wyclef Jean.  Stevie Wonder, Beyoncé, Madonna, Bono, Taylor Swift, Justin Timberlake, Keith Urban, Rihanna, Alicia Keys, Coldplay and Bruce Springsteen are all scheduled to perform.  In addition, Brad Pitt, Clint Eastwood, Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, Will Smith, Robert Pattison, Matt Damon, Tom Hanks, Nicole Kidman and Bill Clinton will also make an appearance and ask us to give generously.

I have a better idea.  Why not charge every celebrity and performer 3 million dollars to appear on this telethon?  This would raise 72 million dollars from just the celebrities slated to appear!  In a year filled with bank foreclosures, soaring unemployment rates and a depressed economy, the celebrity’s earning potential has not waned.  Angelina Jolie replaced Oprah Winfrey as the number one wage earner—Winfrey made 275 million.  Madonna banked 110 million and Beyoncé? A cool 87 million.  Twenty year old Taylor Swift earned 18 million! And let’s not forget, this is their annual income.  Even five million dollars wouldn’t create a hardship for almost any working celebrity.

In contrast, Americans are experiencing an unemployment rate which is over 10%.  The average American makes $18.80 an hour and the cost of basic necessities are on the rise.  Even then Americans are giving generously to the people of Haiti.  So why the big telethon?

George Clooney could just as easily host a party at his huge LA home or perhaps at his six building compound in Lake Como, Italy and ask his celebrity buddies to give 1 million for the evening.  Remember the Haiti people only get the proceeds of this telethon.  It still costs an astronomical amount to put something like this on the air!  Why not host a private party and donate the cost of putting this telethon on the air as well?

Ahh!  But then Madonna, Bono, Julia Roberts and all the rest would miss the publicity that comes with coming on the air and begging all of us to “do our part.”  They wouldn’t get to parade around in their designer clothing, perfectly made up and hair coiffed within an inch of their lives, proving for once and for all that no, they are not shallow.  Of course it goes without saying, that those performing during the telethon will garner yet another opportunity to sell a CD, movie ticket or concert appearance.  Is this about the need of the people of Haiti or just more publicity?  If this is to raise the most money to help Haiti, then perhaps they should just dig into their own pockets.

I am grateful to be one of the hardworking every day citizens who do not reach out to soothe the human spirit only when they know they will benefit—but just because they care.

Can I have my change please?

On a cold afternoon, I put water to heat for some tea.  I opened the refrigerator to get milk and saw the gallon jug had been put back—empty.  I let out a loud sigh and sent one of my sons for milk.  I gave him a twenty dollar bill, measured the tea leaves and waited.

When he returned with the milk, I finished making the tea and resumed reading my book.  The next day, while rooting through my purse to pay for a pack of gum, I realized I had never received change from the twenty given to my son the day before.  I asked him for the $16+ change he had not returned.  “Oh yeah!” he said and then wandered about the house looking for the change.  The next day, after much prodding, he found the jeans he had been wearing on the day of the milk errand under his bed.   After turning the pockets inside out, he handed me some badly crumpled bills.

I reminded him of the many times he had been careless with money, spending without remembering where or how he had used it—I was feeling a bit cranky since it was his actions that had deprived me of a stick of gum.

Obama is acting like my teenage son.  We sent him out to buy milk and he doesn’t want to give us back our change.

The 700 Billion dollars that was loaned to the banks is being repaid faster than expected and guess what?  There’s 200 BILLION in the TARP fund—our change.  There was a sale and good news, bailing out the banks is only going to cost 500 Billion.  So can we have our change back please?  Congress is divided on what to do with the “extra” money.  Since we never had it anyway, I wonder how they can call it extra.  Obama wants to spend it and the Republicans want to use it to reduce the deficit.

I look at like this.  On the day I sent my son out to buy the milk, imagine that I owed the electric company $50 and $80 to the phone company.  While he was out buying milk, if he had spent the $16 change on what he perceived were more important needs, perhaps socks, deodorant and chips—such a decision would have been outrageous.  I would have used the money to reduce my debt or perhaps I would have saved it for more groceries.

Obama wants to use our change for more spending projects—after he pays off Hilary’s friends.  How about letting the American people decide?  Or better yet, just like I tell my kids—Don’t spend money you DON’T HAVE.

I don’t know about you, but $50 is a good chunk of money and $100 is still a lot of money to me.  Obama wants to spend 200 Billion Dollars, that’s nine zeros!—200,000,000,000 on more spending projects.  Our national debt is already over 10 Trillion!  Stop the madness; reduce what we owe, so our children do not have to pay for our folly.

Freedom for Women—Veiled in a Burkha or Revealed in a Bikini?

This week French President Sarkozy called for a ban to be placed on Muslim women who choose to express their faith by observing hijab and donning a burkha.  The French have been the most vocal and active in the arena of attacking religious freedom.  In 2004 they outlawed the use of headscarves, Sikh turbans, large Christian crosses and Jewish skullcaps in their state schools.  The French defend their law which is designed to strictly adhere to their ideas of separation of church and state, but French liberalism is coming dangerously close to ending religious freedom.  Even worse it seems to be spreading to other parts of Europe.  Italy, Turkey, three Belgian towns and seven of Germany’s 16 states have banned headscarves.  While speaking in Cairo President Obama said it clearly, “it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.” Members of the French Parliament, from both the left and right called the burkha an “oppressive dress that breaches individual freedoms”.

Individual freedoms?  According to whom?  There are many in the world who would consider Western women oppressed because they feel compelled to don a style of dress that is made to entice and attract men.  Indeed, upon hearing the new French policy the spokesman for the Muslim Council of Great Britain said, “Unfortunately, there is a pressure on women to dress skimpily in the West.”  I agree.

Perhaps the burkha could provide greater freedom than a skimpy bikini ever could.  It can be said that the burkha is a tyrannical and repressive piece of clothing forced on the women who wear it, but the same could be said of a bikini. Both the burkha and the bikini are worn to indulge the whims of men in the society they represent.  The burkha is worn to mask and conceal that which belongs or could belong to the men, and the bikini is worn to expose and display the same.  Both articles of clothing find their impetus in their effort to control and subjugate women.

Women long to adopt a carefree and liberating expression in their choice of clothing.  There are few women that can wear a bikini and feel comfortable in it.  Even supermodels lament because they feel their thighs or behinds are more ample than they should be.  Donning a large black covering in the morning could provide a liberation few Western women have experienced.  To arrive at work, school, or social occasion without first applying makeup, dressing the hair, and fussing over clothing would be a dream come true!

One need only to read the comments and remarks made about Hilary Clinton’s appearance to long for this type of freedom.  During her run for the democratic presidential nomination, what Mrs. Clinton said was never as important, as how she was dressed when she said it.  The criticism made about Mrs. Clinton’s hair, makeup, body type, and clothing took precedence over what she was saying.  Her legs were compared to tree trunks, her clothes called frumpy, and her hair and makeup was the topic of many water cooler gatherings.  In the same vein, such discussions did not take place about Benazir Bhutto or Indira Gandhi when they were Prime Ministers of their countries.  The political pundits debated their political agendas and viewpoints, not their choice of clothing or makeup.  Perhaps this was because the males in their countries were conditioned to view respectable women in a non-sexual way, and therefore these women were taken more seriously than Hilary Clinton.

Men will be unable to view women as equal—as long as women continue to exercise their right to seduce men, and therefore objectify themselves.  If women will dress in a manner that does not engage a man’s libido and instead engages his mind, they will be able to experience true freedom and liberation.  Both women and men should be disturbed by this fact: the American voting public is unable to elect a woman even as a vice-president.  While India, in 1966 and Pakistan, in 1988—countries thought by the West to have little equality for women, had already elected women as Prime Ministers!

EU ♥ Obama!

When President Obama made his tour of Europe soon after his election, he was greeted with open arms, cheers, welcoming placards, parades and smiling children.  For many Americans it was a relief to gain favor in the eyes of our European neighbors.

The election of President Obama, agree or disagree with his political agenda, was an amazing moment in American history.  It took America almost 90 years to abolish slavery, 188 years to pass the Civil Rights Act and over 230 years to elect a black president.

Since the 1720 establishment  of Sir Robert Walpole as the United Kingdom’s first prime minister, to the election of Gordon Brown, over 285 years have passed.  The UK is yet to elect a minority to the most powerful position of prime minister.

The first modern chancellor of Germany in 1867 was Otto von Bismark.  Of the 34 individuals who have served as the elected head of state in Germany, each one has been from the racial majority.

Since 1848, France has had various titles for the elected head of state and for 161 years, all the French presidents have been caucasian.

Italy is no different.  Italians have elected 81 prime ministers!  Not one of them has been from a racial minority.

While President Obama has enjoys immense popularity with our EU neighbors, one point is clear—While the Europeans claim to love and respect Obama…

They would  have never elected him as president in their own countries!

Obama loves the Europeans and they say they love him—but not enough to elect him or someone like him.  If Obama was running for president or prime minister in Europe, it is quite doubtful he would have won the election.

No matter what the citizens of the EU try to “teach” Americans about being open minded, or morally upright—it is Americans who are leading the way to correct racial inequality.  All Americans can be proud to be a part of a nation that elected Obama.

shame, shame, shame!

Now that the war effort has shifted in focus to Afghanistan, it gives us a chance to stand back and     look at Iraq through a different lens.  When American troops first landed in Iraq, I remember the accounts about the poor conditions of the Iraqi soldiers and the suffering of the people.  At first glance it seemed that the Iraqi people were quite joyful that they had been liberated from Saddam Hussein’s rule.  I watched the American soldiers on Iraqi soil receive a warm welcome.  By the time the first elections were over and the now iconic photos of women waving their purple dyed fingers began circulating, I noticed a subtle shift in the attitude of Iraqi sentiment—decidedly negative.

 

Today, there is no mistake; Iraqis seem resentful, bitter and downright angry at the presence of Americans in their homeland.  Rather than offer an over simplified or easy answer that throws around ideas like “stealing oil” or “imperialism” I suggest the real answer regarding the Iraqi sentiment is something much deeper.

When Iraq gained freedom, there was an essential ingredient missing—It was the chance to win independence for themselves.  When the noose around the necks of the pre-revolutionary Americans, grew so tight they could take no more, they fought tyranny with their own strength.  General George Washington crossed the Delaware River on Christmas in 1776, and his men were demoralized, hungry and barely alive.  Words by Thomas Paine boosted morale, “These are times that try men’s souls…Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph,” and inspired the historical victory.

When India won their independence from the British, it was because the people of India decided to end the British exploitation for once and for all.  Gandhi’s call for the British to “Quit India” rallied pride and a sense of dignity in every Indian.  Each citizen had a chance to contribute to their own freedom–spinning cotton, making salt, or joining the march to boycott British goods.

In the same way, Frenchmen while carrying a tremendous national debt and broken under the burden of over taxation, (sounds familiar!) achieved their own revolution which led to the establishment of their New Constitution.

But the people of Iraq were denied this.  They did not win their own freedom.  Instead it was given to them, like a gift with a bow.  There is no doubt that the people of Iraq were oppressed by Saddam Hussein.  But it had not yet reached ignition point.  This moment may have been a year or even ten years away, but when Saddam was overthrown by the Americans, the noose around the collective Iraqi neck had not yet reached the moment of suffocation.  They were denied a chance to gather in the streets, circulate revolutionary papers, choose a leader and fight to overthrow an oppressive regime.  When Saddam was brought to justice, the power behind the accomplishment was not organically generated, but came from an outside source.  As many others who had felt tyranny before them, the people of Iraq at the time of their own choosing, would have overthrown Saddam Hussein in their own way and most importantly, with their own might.

The memory of the Iraqi people in relation to their independence is not one of ownership.   Since their independence was given to them and they did not earn it for themselves, their momentary happiness, viewed retrospectively, has turned into shame.  In many ways the global community asks Iraq to be grateful for a present they did not ask for and were not ready to receive.  The Iraqis are resentful toward America because America is the source of their shame.

Politically, the independence of Iraq seems a success, but the collective consciousness of the people of Iraq has been deeply bruised.  Shame is not easily erased and it will take time before Iraq can raise their eyes and look eye to eye at the rest of the world once more.

child collector

our collection

When I travel, I like to collect art work.  I have paintings from local artists, small sculptures, carpets and other household items I have collected.

Obviously, I’m behind the times.  Brad and Angelina like to collect children when they travel.  So far they have collected Maddox Chivan, Zahara Marley, Pax Thien and Shiloh Nouvel.  And just to round it out they added two more from the good ol’ United States of America —Knox Leon and Vivienne Marcheline, birthed in France this time by Angelina herself!

When I wandered through the market in Tanzania, and said “oh how gorgeous!” I picked up a watercolor painting.  But when Angelina wanders in Ethiopia and says, “oh how beautiful!” she apparently picks up a child.

Mr. and Mrs. Pitt went to India to pick up a brown one and India told them to forget it.  They went home with a sari or jewelery like the rest of us.  I applaud India for the decision that just said no to Child Collectors.  It’s about time someone told this couple that children are to be cherished and brought into a family to be loved and cared for—not as another publicity stunt.

I’m not against adoption, by any means.  I love my adopted nephews and niece very much.  But they were adopted after much careful consideration and deep soul searching on the part of their parents.

No matter what their publicist says about how “hands on” Brad and Angelina are, you and I both know these kids are dumped with the nanny(s) most of the time, except when they are taken out for an occasional photo op.  And who advocated for the children when they were forced to leave their country and were brought to America (not everyone wants to live here!) to be the collection of  this hunted and don’t-take-pictures-of-us!-wait-i-live-for-fame harassed couple?

I wonder why this couple had to leave their country to collect these children.  Did they think about adopting one of the thousands of children who are in the many fost-adopt programs in America?  Most of these children are no longer babies, or have complications (health or emotional) but are desperately waiting for adoptive parents.  Of course these are not “perfect” children and might not present the proper “we love the world” perspective Brad and Angelina want to portray.  We have so many children in the country who could benefit from an adoptive family.  Doesn’t charity begin at home?

I’m posting about child collection because I have something to say about people who are up in arms about the lady who has seven cats but give Child Collectors a pass.

first post

While creating this blog, I found out that there are hundreds of ways to make a blog site unique or personalized.  I found this mildly irritating, because I don’t like to spend so much time choosing what I like (I HATE shopping).  But I guess that defeats the idea of a blog.  After all blogging is about your own personal opinions.  So I had to get over that feeling and push forward.

While some blogs are highly personal–including family, pets, hobbies or personal triumphs or struggles, I will not blog about my private life (my family and friends can rest easy!) but rather my personal take on what I read, see or hear.

A friend once told me (that’s about as personal as I will get) she thought it was hilarious when I ended a particular long and opinionated rant with the words, “because I have something to say!”  And thus the title of this blog was born…because I have something to say.