The Last Blog

As we approach the end of the school year, and the end of our high school career, I think everyone is contemplating many different questions as they start the "rest of their lives". It is both a time of reflection and a time to look forward to everything we still have to do.

I have been contemplating what I want to do with the rest of my life, and why I think that matters. When I go to college, I am hoping to major in Biology and International Relations with a concentration in Public Health. Afterwards I plan to go to medical school, but I hope to work for a Non-Governmental Organization or the World Health Organization combining both my passion for international politics and my passion for biology. One thing I hope that I remember till I die, and am able to teach to my children, is that you should always remember to value the human community as a whole, and that everyone has the responsibility to help anyone they can - because everyone has the right to a their own safety, health, and the possibility of a good future. Since we have the ability to contemplate what is fair and what is moral, we must also have the strength to act upon those beliefs. That is (generally) something I have been thinking and reading about in the past year (check out Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers by Kwame Anthony Appiah if you are interested). This is why I want to do what I want to do with the rest of my life; I feel very lucky that in high school I have found something that I am both interested enough in and passionate enough about that I want to dedicate my life to it.

Both doctors and diplomats seek to fix the problems of the world, and I hope to combine the two in my studies. I want to learn about these subjects that fascinate me from people that know much more than I do. I want to fight for these rights not only because I think that every human being should have those rights, but also that every healthy person helps not only themselves, but their society, country, and the world as a whole. Then, through policies combining both biology and international relations, do my part to make the world a better place.

5 (Environmental) Reasons to Be a Vegetarian

In English class we have been talking about the environment and Eco-criticism and as always school work tends to seep into the rest of my life, so I want to examine Vegetarianism with environmentalism in mind. I have been a vegetarian for about eight years and I sometimes have a hard time explaining to people why I am a vegetarian, partly because I am not quite sure myself sometimes. However, I stick with it because I think it is a good thing to do, not only for yourself but also for the environment.

1. On Land
When food is grown to feed animals that are eventually consumed by humans, the transfer of energy is extremely inefficient. The human consumer only obtains about 10% of the energy from eating an animal (it is lower for most livestock, 6% for cattle) that was used to sustain the animal. Therefore, about 90% of the energy in the crops being grown to sustain the livestock industry does not get to the consumer, so it is hugely inefficient to eat meat. If the livestock is free-grazing, they still have a dire effect on the environment because the energy rules apply as above stated, except now they destroy natural environments and habitats. Furthermore, 90% of cattle ranch land is abandoned after about 8 years because of overgrazing and nutrient loss.

2. Food & Land Availability for Growing Population
Since it is more efficient to be a vegetarian this hypothetically creates more available food for those throughout the world that need it. Twenty vegetarians can live off the same land that one typical omnivore needs to survive, so the level of efficiency is not inconsequential. Furthermore, over grazing of crops leads to desertification that pushes people out of their lands. Also, increased need for land to grow more food for livestock has pushed millions of people out of their traditional homes and usually into lifestyles much less eco-friendly than they previously lived.

3. In the Air
Large livestock around the world release about 80,000,000 tons of methane, a greenhouse gas, per year. That is 22% of anthropogenic releases of methane. Fertilizers used to grow feed for livestock releases nitrous oxide, and the clearing of forests by fire releases more methane into the environment. Sprayed-on pesticides stay in the air and have been proven to be carcinogenic. Furthermore, the production and movement of meat-products to keep up with demand is extremely tolling on the environment. The actual process of growing enough food for livestock to sustain the unhealthy pyramid of energy in a non-vegetarian diet, and then bringing it to the consumer, reaches as far to effect the air we breathe. So the choices people make about what they eat also affects what they breathe.

4. In Water
As the world's fresh water sources decrease it is important to consider the fact that it takes 100x more water to produce 1 pound of meat than it does to produce 1 pound of wheat (water used to produce a 10 pound steak could provide an average household with water for a year). Wastes from farmland and production facilities flow into the water supply and harm both ecosystems and humans. Vegetarianism is more sustainable because water consumption and pollution is much decreased, leading to greater water availability and less polluted water overall.

5. Ecosystems and Non-Domesticated Animals
Many fishing methods destroy local ecosystems by destroying either the bottom of the ocean or by killing many different species in large non-discriminative nets. The depletion of the fishing stocks around the world has lead to the decrease in many different aquatic species that depended on the missing fish because ecosystems are a mess of connections. Livestock and other domesticated animals have terrible living conditions, painful procedures, artificial living conditions and hormones to speed up their growth, and many are killed in non-humane ways. The large farmland that is used to grow feed for these livestock have also become barren spaces devoid of almost all ecosystems and organisms that used to live there due to pesticides and lack of natural diversity.

Regardless of what people think about meat, I am happy with my decision to be a vegetarian for the environmental reasons alone. I think people forget that the industry we have built up to support the American lifestyle is neither sustainable or health (for ourselves or the environment) so although I would never push vegetarianism on anyone, I think everyone should consider it (or at least consider reducing their intake of meat products).

Thanks for reading, do not forget to comment!

Genocide Awareness Week

This week at my school the STAND (Students Taking Action Now in Darfur) group hosts Genocide Awareness Week. We build a model refugee camp and give tours of it the whole week. On Friday, we give presentations about historical genocides to classes and that night we have a musical fundraiser event. Events still occur in Darfur often, however, it is very rarely in the news.

Recently, I attended a talk at the Illinois Holocaust Museum given by Rebecca Hamilton, author of Fighting For Darfur, a story of activism and journalism surrounding the genocide in Darfur. She followed the spotlight of international attention in Sudan and Africa and found that when eyes are concentrated in one spot other conflict in other areas falls through the cracks. Once attention shifts, the attention-lacking areas are redefined but there are always places where events take place that warrant outcry and action, but do not receive it. The sad thing is that even when there is an outcry of a large group of people, as there was in the United States when the events in Darfur came to light, it does not guarantee any action or any wrongs being righted. Hamilton made the argument that if the attention does not shift, and if we can unite the stories of the different people of Sudan, then less crises and atrocities will slip through the cracks. So how can the story of Sudan be unified in a way that leaves nothing in the dark but brings into attention what needs to be done?

The two 'big' stories in Sudan recently were the referendum for Southern Sudan to secede and the Darfuri Genocide. As attention switched from one event to the other, people would be killed in Darfur or election preparations would be left undone in Southern Sudan, so both locations suffered. Uniting the narrative of the Southern Sudanese and the Darfuri people would have prevented, or at least helped to spread awareness about, some negative events.

Now, with the events happening throughout North Africa and the Middle East, Sudan might as well have fallen off the earth. Because 2 million people are still displaced from the conflict in Darfur, because more are joining their numbers every day, and because Darfur is not the only place that houses refugees and conflict is, why we host Genocide Awareness Week. To unite the stories of many into something that is consumable to the public may sound overly consumerist, however, in a fast paced world it is disgraceful that our outcry and our action is still slow. Our goal should be to find the balance between depth and scope of information so that the first story on the news is not the only crisis that we address.

So this week, remember those throughout the world that need remembering - and do what you can to act.

Vigilante Justice in India - Sampat Pal Devi

International Women's Day is held every year on March 8th, and this year The Guardian put out a list of the "Top 100 Women". They range from Lady Gaga to Hawa Abdi. The women on the list have achieved success in their own rights, but have also helped women as a whole. One woman: Sampat Pal Devi (shown above) caught my eye.

Devi is the leader of an all women's vigilante fighting force in the province of Uttar Pradesh, called the Gulabi Gang (translated as the pink gang, for the pink saris they wear). Armed with sticks, they have stormed police stations when they have refused to register complaints about violence against women, attacked men that have abused their wives, unearthed corruption in distributions of grain to the poor, stopped child marriages, and encouraged girls to go to school. Devi is a controversial character, and she has many criminal charges against her. However, she continues to travel around India on a rusty bicycle recruiting new members. With 20,000 members throughout India, with that number growing every day, Devi and the members of the Gulabi Gang are a powerful force.

So, is vigilante justice a suitable alternative to state sponsored justice? Devi and her gang have taken justice into their own hands because they believe that the state is not doing a good enough job to protect women. The danger would be that in an ideal state run justice force there are rules to prevent innocent people from getting hurt or convicted for something they did not do. Vigilante justice can easy descend to a place where innocent people do get hurt. Also, in Devi's version of justice an "eye for an eye" is implemented, and that can also get out of hand. On the other hand, many women in Uttar Pradesh and throughout India do not have any protection from their husbands or other men, so Gulabi Gang provides that. They also seem to have a positive impact on their communities. So, although vigilante justice can be misused it seems to work well for Devi and the Gulabi Gang.

What do you think?

To Draft or Not To Draft

Last Wednesday (March 2, 2011), Jon Stewart had Allison Stranger on the Daily Show to discuss foreign policy and her new book "One Nation Under Contract" (find the episode here). The book is about how the wars and Iraq and Afghanistan are the first time the United States has been involved in conflict and had about the same number of contractors as servicemen. However, that is not what I want to talk about. During the interview, the part that stuck in my head was Stranger's argument that now is the time to have a real national conversation about reinstating the draft.

If a draft were reinstated, since almost everyone would be involved in the military, there would be much more public interest in where our military goes. So the declaration of war would be given much stronger consideration, which I think is warranted because of the weight a war holds. Rousseau and Aristotle both argued for a draft so that democracy could be upheld - with every citizen involved Rousseau and Aristotle believed that the citizens would be more inclined to actively seek a better society for all citizens. There is also the argument that it gives young adults a sense of attachment to their country and descipline as well as breaks class divisions by combining all conscripts together. Economically it is more efficient because conscripts are not paid when they are not in active duty because they are in their civilian jobs while a professional military is paid even when inactive.

The reasons against are more well known, and many of them are very similar to the arguments to uphold a democracy for a draft. The power of an individual to choose whether or not they want to fight is a powerful and just argument and the act of imposing a duty on someone warrants the comparison to involuntary servitude. It can also be said that the very act of conscripting someone is an act that denies them their rights and destroys democracy in that area. Conscription during peace-time is not economically cost effective either.

Conscription in the US is a touchy subject and although I am unwilling to say I would support a draft I think the idea deserves more thought. What do you think?

Hamlet - A Double Edged Soliloquy

Hamlet – the myth, the legend, the book I am reading in English Class. In almost everyone’s educational career they must read Hamlet (at least once) and contemplate the many layers of meaning it contains. It is one of the most prolific pieces of literature in the English language, as well as the most preformed play in the world (above is the famous image of Hamlet with the skull from the 1948 Hamlet film starring Sir Lawrence Olivier as Hamlet). There are many different critical approaches that can be used to examine and interpret Hamlet. In an attempt to keep this a post and not a novel, I will examine the soliloquy at the end of Act 4 Scene 4 (lines 33-69) from a formalist and a mythic approach, and then examine each approach itself.

From a Formalist perspective, the movement in this passage from logic to violence and perhaps madness is one worth examining. Throughout the soliloquy, Hamlet continues in iambic pentameter and keeps up metaphors including sleep as death and inaction and cowardice in life as living as a beast. There is also the parallelism between Hamlet and Prince Fortinbras, comparing the action coupled with purpose in Fortinbras with the actionless purpose of Hamlet. All of these structural ornaments show that Hamlet is at this point thinking intelligently and thoughtfully, however, as he finishes and with apparent logic concludes that, "from this time forth/My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!" (4.4.68-69), it is unclear as to whether he has crossed the line of sanity into madness. When this logical thought progression with all the ornamentation and appearance of a sane person in the play transforms near the end of the soliloquy into a conclusion that many people would consider not logical or sane, Shakespeare makes us question both what it is to be sane and insane, and what that might look like.

From a Mythical perspective, Hamlet throughout the soliloquy examines what it is to exist and to be human. Hamlet asks near the beginning of the soliloquy, "What is a man/If his chief good and market of his time/Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more./Sure He that made us with such large discourse,/Looking before and after, gave us not/That capability and godlike reason/to fust in us unused." (4.4.35-41). Hamlet examines the meaning in his life by comparing it to the life of a beast, where one only sleeps and eats and has no meaning. He states that, "I do not know/Why yet I live to say 'This things to do,' " and by that Hamlet concludes that being alive without fulfilling his purpose is not really living at all (4.4.46-47). Then, with the parallelism of Fortinbras fulfilling his purpose even if it puts his life at risk while Hamlet does not do this, Hamlet's thoughts of the relationship between purpose and real life are cemented. When Hamlet ends with "from this time forth/My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!" he shows his determination to fulfill his violent purpose in life because living is about fulfilling purpose rather than just staying alive (4.4.68-69).

With these two perspectives two different parts of the soliloquy can be excavated; but neither is more right than the other. Using only one would be sufficient, but Shakespeare deserves more! Both approaches, and others I did not use, unveil another layer of meaning in each part of Hamlet, so using them all in conjunction can warrant the most fulfilling reading of Hamlet. I am not sure if I even believed that before examining this passage with different approaches, but I definitely do now!

Well, that is my two cents. Let me know what you think!