I came back last weekend from Philly, and I didn’t want to think. I got the projector and hooked it up to my laptop and watched the first two weeks of The Bachelorette. Monday I watched another two weeks and another two weeks on Tuesday. I eventually saw all the episodes by Friday and I learned a few things about why the show is fake
1) The bachelor or bachelorette feels the need to give a negatively constructive reason for why someone was let go completely annihilating the idea that you can have four good options and just be forced to choose 3 and nothing be bad with the 4th. There seems to be no understanding that there is more than one good fit in life (especially if there is real love [not the emotion]).
2) People, today, do date multiple people at the same time, but the multiple people, whom a girl dates, usually don’t know each other. Ouch!
3) The extreme love some of them feel for each other is probably an emotion and fleeting at best. Real love isn’t emotive; moreover, if I and a rock were in those intensely romantic situations and locations like Lisbon and Tuscany, I too would fall in love with that rock, making rock and roll. They should rather have the couples practice living normal lives, going to work, cleaning a house, co-managing trips and households. That’ll show ‘em! ;-)
4) Those men told the bachelorette that she was beautiful every time they saw her. I’m not sure that would happen in real life. It’s a good practice, but I don’t know if the guys are that good in a daily real situation.
But I was mesmerized because I was LEARNING about women while watching. It was a free lesson and I couldn’t help but learn. This is what I learned (more important than the silly objections above). I studied Ali, the bachelorette, and these are some of the generalizations I made and saw.
1) Women want to be pursued.
2) Women like to be touched and held.
3) Women want to be loved, adored, and appreciated, told they’re beautiful.
4) Women want to feel secure.
If you don’t provide this for a woman, it can have repercussions. Even in a silly show like that. I looked back at all the relationships I’ve had (what relationships!), and I can see where those were not provided and how it altered the relationship eventually unto the end. It’s sad and frightening and freeing and sad. You stand and face loss in the face, analyzing.
I traveled the past 3 weekends. 3 weeks ago I was in LA for a wedding. The week of the wedding my friend, Dan, died in Switzerland while on tour. He was swimming in a lake and his friends lost sight of him. The next time he was seen was floating in 3 feet of water. . .Dan left behind a 2-year-old daughter and a wife. She is distraught and numb. The daughter will never remember him as memory sets in around 4 or 5 years of age. We made a scrap book of messages so she can later read about what kind of man Dan was.
Dan was in the same group of friends as the wedding friends. So the wedding was . . . Bittersweet.
Then 3 pastors were in a bus accident in Korea. 2 died and one was in critical condition.
My brother’s good frat brother died from a battle with liver cancer quite suddenly and quickly.
I could go on, but you get the point.
The next weekend we met in NYC for the funeral. I was honored to be asked to sing and play at the wedding by his wife. I loved Dan, great human behind. His own funeral was filled with a few of his songs, some of his poetry, and one video he put together. Still creating even after passing. . .
These two trips were the first time I had traveled around since returning to the States from South Africa. We realized we didn’t want to wait for the next wedding. . . Plus there were only two of us left in the group and they didn’t see any hope for either Bryan or myself. Ha ha! And we were too young to start the funeral cycle, so we decided to meet just to meet. So some of us met last weekend in Philly, those of us in the East coast. It was nice. I was a 10th wheel - 3 husbands, 3 wives, 4 2-year-olds (I was one of them). Good time. We saw Ving Rhames in our restaurant with a pretty lady.
There’s been other loss. One friend in my program saw her engagement end. It was really sad. She was actually planning it. A date had been set. She even invited me to go to a dance lesson when her fiancé wasn’t going to go. But she was finally able to get him to go to the ballroom dancing lessons. And then boom, he ends it. She’s been through a lot, and I was glad to be able to talk to her about it a bit. It completely changed her life and life direction as she was probably going to leave the program and move to the Middle East.
I know of another friend whose engagement ended (male). But this friend had such a good relationship where his fiancée encouraged and pushed and supported every bit of God in him even if it was to her detriment, no matter if it would take him away from her for a period, etc. Because of that, contrastingly, nothing changed for him after the engagement ended. His plans are still the same. How strangely bitter sweetly beautiful is that? It was the firs time that anyone had ever loved him in a romantic context.
I won’t say much, as I’ve talked about poverty before. But I recently found someone who defines it similarly to me. I couldn’t believe it! I specifically have never felt poor because I’ve always had people around to help even if I did fall on hard times. I had a friend once who was struggling financially and her father wanted to help. But she refused saying “I didn’t want my father to help me and bail me out. I wanted to trust God this time,” for her heavenly father to help her.
What’s so strange is that people compartmentalize “spiritual things” all the time. I would say the spiritual makes no sense without the physical. They are intertwined, not in God, but in us (actually in God as well). We are human, that means we live in the tension of humanity and divinity and escaping one or the other is probably trouble. So I live for the day when a friend I that situation would see her father helping her as God helping her, that God LOVES to work through people, and that it is a blessing (from God) to have a father who helps.
Others aren’t as lucky. I’ve counseled people with family who won’t help them or no family or friends--no one. Check out this definition of poverty.
Very few people will have read down to this section, but I just wanted to explain that being in Washington has taught me a lot. I want every person to rotate through the government and spend time learning how the state and/or national government work. I would love it if it were like jury duty because it’s really important.
I’ve spoken how Congressmen (reps and senators) only respond to constituents and lobbyist. Every decision they make is whether or not it will get them re-elected. Otherwise, you commit political suicide if you do the right thing and the right thing doesn’t get you campaign dollars (lobbyists) or direct votes (constituents). And remember campaign dollars bring you votes, indirectly. So it’s all about votes.
I’ve learned that the US media is called liberal by conservatives and conservative by liberals. This is because each side focuses on the liberal piece or the conservative piece they see or hear and concentrates on it creating a distorted picture from that concentrated view. You have to look at it holistically or in totality. When I look in totality, it is one way or the other, but I won’t say. I won’t join the argument, but I can say globally (quite matter-of-factly) the US media, again globally, is conservative. We call some people dictators who are elected democratically because they don’t serve US interests (businesses) for example.
So I’ve been trying to figure out why certain things that are morally obvious are hard to do in the US and through the government. I’ve decided that most initiatives tend to be opposed if it affects large corporations negatively, if it could reduce profits of large companies. This is why the electric car has never come into the market for the past 30+ years (I mean a real electric car, not a golf cart that is not allowed to go on the highway or go above 35 mph) or why health care was such a heated debate (we all understand it needs reform regardless of how you want to reform it). Many large changes that are beneficial for the small individual can cause losses for large corporations that have powerful lobbies and it makes it hard. Corporations seem to also affect foreign policy as well as domestic policy. In fact when I came to this realization this year, it reminded me of the book “Confessions of an Economic Hetman” which shows how corporations in the US affect US foreign policy inordinately.
I know US corporations have an inordinate amount of control on the media and US policy especially foreign policy but I’ve been trying to figure out how the link works. I mean does a politician just always side with things that are good for US businesses, naturally? It doesn’t seem logical.
A company is an impersonal entity whose bottom line is profit. That’s all it cares about. If it’s more profitable to ignore safety, safety is ignored. Only when they will go out of business due to law suits or governmental regulations do the take care of things like safety--only when it’s profitable. So the US is controlled by companies. Companies’ bottom line is profit. Therefore, mathematically and logically, the bottom line of the US is profit. Still it leaves the question of how does US policy get shaped by companies instead of by individuals who vote?
It’s quite strange. I’m unimpressed with US history books in our school which don’t seem to paint a factual or balanced picture of our involvement around the world, specifically in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
Anyway, I’ve learned there’s been a “revolving door” in government where the people in the highest offices are also corporate executives and they move back and forth between the two. This creates a really bad dependent link. It’s bad because the government is supposed to be independent of corporations but there is a strong bias in favor of them in terms of foreign (and domestic) policy for instance.
Secondly, lobbyists represent companies and corporations; individuals or small groups cannot afford lobbyists. And Congress listens to lobbyists. Politicians depend on multiple donations and large donations from companies to raise the money needed to run for office, so again there is this connection. If you don’t act in their favor you lose their money.
So, as I’ve said before, whenever US ideals (democracy, freedom, capitalism) clash with US geopolitical interests (remember this usually means corporate interests) the US generally sides with the geopolitical interests. In doing so, we have subtly built up an empire across this land. We are not a lone superpower in the world. We are the lone hyper power in human history, a superpower of any superpower that has ever lived or had an empire in the history of the world.
According to John Perkins’ research an empire has the following characteristics
1) exploits resources from the land it dominates 2) consumes large quantities of resources--amounts that are disproportionate to the size of its population relative to those of other nations 3) maintains a large military that enforces its policies when more subtle measures fail 4) spreads its language, literature, art, and various aspects of its culture throughout its sphere of influence 5) taxes not just its own citizens but also the people in other countries, and 6) imposes its own currency on the lands under its control.
(from ‘The Secret history of the American Empire”)
Well, even though you may not generally see how #5 fits (you can ask me later) all the characteristics fit and match the US in the 20th century and early 21st century. And it’s sad. I’ve talked before about the general procedure for coaxing other countries (#3). First you send in Economic Hit Men (“Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”). If that doesn’t work, you send in jackals (assassins). If that doesn’t work, you send in the military. Remember that EHM (Economic Hit Men) are economic forecasters that go into countries to forecast the amount that a developing country’s economy will grow if they are given a loan. The forecaster over predicts or over exaggerates the amount a large loan will make the country’s economy grow so that the IMF or World Bank, for instance, will grant the loan and the country will be sure to default. Then the country is beholden to the multilateral organization or the US and either constantly paying interest to the detriment of social services to its people, having to side on UN votes with the US, giving up land space for US military bases, etc. This is largely due to the fact that the US largely controls the World Bank and the IMF, if you remember (some equate the IMF with the US Dept of Treasury).
Sometimes this doesn’t work, so assassins are sent in. If that doesn’t work militaries are sent in.
Now most times we have had an excuse to go into these countries--freedom, democracy, liberty, anti-communism, but usually empires (historically) always need an enemy and something to rally the citizens around. US contractors and companies benefit no matter if we win or lose a war. For example, in Vietnam which my friend argued was a war fought only to stop the spread of communism on ideological grounds, US companies and the government benefited from increased arm sales, expanded markets, and a greater labor pool (we now could have sweatshops and outsourcing in Vietnam). In all honesty, when looking at the historical analysis, Vietnam was a regional conflict, not a greater global conflict. This point is harder to see in Vietnam, but many can see that democracy and freedom were not the reasons of the US entering Iraq.
Remember we created the situations in Iraq and Vietnam. In 1963, Kennedy supported a coup against Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam; he was later assassinated which led to a buildup of troops there and eventually the war. Likewise, during the 50’s and 60’s Qasim, the popular president of Iraq demanded Iraqi people share in some of the profits of the oil reaped from his country by foreign companies (US and UK, for example). He threatened to nationalize Iraqi oil which of course the US and UK didn’t like (this pattern has been repeated in places like Venezuela, Iran, etc.). Economic hit men were sent to Iraq, but it didn’t work. So then a young Saddam Hussein was part of team that was hired to assassinate Qasim. Their attempt failed; Saddam was shot and fled to Syria. Kennedy then ordered the CIA to join the MI6 to finish the job. They executed Qasim on Iraqi TV by a firing squad. Saddam came back and placed as head of national security and his second cousin became president. This led to more support later on (when Saddam was our friend against the enemy of Iran), but I’ll continue later.
Most people in other parts of the world understand that the US is responsible for coups around the world: Chile’s Allende, Guatemala’s Arbenz, Venezuela’s Chavez, Iraq’s Qasim, Brazil’s Goulart, etc. This list continues.
When a country opposes US interests, the EHM come in usually followed by jackals if that doesn’t work. Finally the military is sent in. This pattern occurred in Iraq, and I’ll talk about it in another e-mail. The first two steps occurred in Venezuela and there is a huge buildup of US forces in Columbia at the moment across the border from Venezuela. And though Africa was very much hurt by this empire building and it neutralized parts of Asia, Latin America has a rising tide that is changing the story. For such actions quite honestly build up resentment and reaction from the forces of the people within the country. And in Latin America, the people have had enough of leaders who have bought into the system and have been electing, as of late, “leaders of the people,” men who were previously in prison, priests, and farmers.
The US media talked quite badly of many Latin American leaders, but I don’t think it’s wrong to want to provide and funnel the profits of your resources towards your people, to request the US remove military bases from your country, and to desire to nationalize your oil. It’s your choice, really.
Bachelet, Chile Kirchner, Argentina Lula da Silva, Brazil Rafael Correa, Ecuador Hugo Chavez, Venezuela Evo Morales, Bolivia Fernando Lugo, Paraguay
Now these people oppose the US corporate interests to differing degrees. Still, can I say something about these guys for a moment?
When Evo Morales came into power in Bolivia, he cut his salary in half and ordered that no cabinet member could be paid more than he. He then took the savings from this act and invested in hiring more public school teachers. WHO DOES THAT? Name one leader. Name one. His minister of justice was a maid. His vice president was a guerilla leader in Bolivia’s anticorporatocracy revolutionary movement and had been in prison for 4 years after which he came out, got a degree as a mathematician, and became a sociology professor being praised as a political analyst. The leader of the senate was a rural school teacher. Four months later, Morales ordered the Brazilian military to occupy all oil and gas fields around the country and place them in state control. He said the looting of these countries had ended and demanded a reversal in the traditional oil profit percentages of 80% to foreign companies and 20% to the country to one that was more favorable to Bolivia.
When Bachelet became president of Chile, she named women to HALF of her cabinet staff. WOW!
Chavez staged a failed coup in 1992 in which he claimed all responsibility. He led a coup because the country’s collaboration with the western corporatocracy had led to a per capita income plummet in Venezuela. They no longer had the largest middle class in Latin America, no where close. In 1998 he was elected president with 56% of the vote and he honored people like Guatemala’s Arbenz, Chile’s Allende Panama’s Torrijos, Ecuador’s Roldos--all assassinated or overthrown by the CIA. When he came into power, he kept his commitments. He invested oil profits into projects to fight illiteracy, malnutrition, disease, and other ills instead of back into the oil industry. He helped Kirchner buy down the Argentine IMF debt of more than $10 billion and he sold discounted oil to those who couldn’t afford even in the US! He set aside a portion of oil revenues for Cuba so it could send medical doctors to impoverished areas around the continent. He fought for inclusion of Afro-Venezuelan curricula and helped create laws to consolidate rights of indigenous people.
EHMs could not convince him (Chavez read “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” and admits to being approached by them), so jackals were sent in. They staged a coup in 2002, but the coup actually failed (read the details; it’s quite interesting). People loyal to Chavez called for a massive countercoup and he was restored to power.
Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, said he took a check to the IMF and paid off the debt of his country (Rafael used to be the economic/finance minister). When he handed them the check, the IMF people said “No, no no. It’s fine. Keep the money, you can pay later.” Can you imagine that? I’m shocked. He said no. He handed them the money again and said he didn’t want to deal with them anymore.
Kirchner, former president of Argentina and husband of current president, said that he sat down with Bush in one meeting. After suggesting a Marshall plan for Latin America, Bush got angry and stood up saying no, that a Marshall Plan was an idea of the Democrats. Bush told him that the best way to revitalize the economy was war, that “all the economic growth that the US had had had been based on the different wars it had waged,” according to Kirchner. He couldn’t believe it, and neither could I.
Bachelet, Chile Kirchner, Argentina Lula da Silva, Brazil Rafael Correa, Ecuador Hugo Chavez, Venezuela Evo Morales, Bolivia Fernando Lugo, Paraguay
There are others, but I don’t want to put people who I think might actually be quite horrible people. These, though, I see as wanting the good for their people.
So it’s a strange place here in Washington. I don’t look at the media in the same way. I don’t think as highly of some US news sources. I try to diversity when I prioritize news-learning. It’s important to see how people see things from different perspectives.
So there is a rising tide. I’ll talk a bit about EHM work in the Middle East and some of the most recent “roots” of the tensions there both religious and ethnic and a little bit about Africa.
I took a 10-week course from the World Bank Institute. There were about 19,000 people in the course from all over the world.
Every week we received an e-mail telling us to log in. We did and we read a 6-7 page graphic novel set in 2020 dealing with some world crisis. We were then given a mission. Each mission had 3 objectives. The first objective was educational (do a lot of learning and reading and report on it); the second action-based (you had to do something to solve the problem in your community on a small scale); the third was imagination-based (you had to imagine the world in the future with the problem solved and write about it). Each week there was also a quest, a writing portion to write about you as a hero and what motivates, inspires you, bothers you, moves you, your background and environment, your mentors and helpers, etc.
Each week focused on a different problem: food security and agricultural development, water security and development, the energy crisis, women’s empowerment, crisis networking, etc. The list went on and on for 10 weeks. And the goal was to use social innovation and social entrepreneurship to address the problem. We followed along the story of the secret global agents who were social innovators and used their skills to solve the problem in the year 2020. It was a very cool game and course. I really enjoyed it though it was a lot of work (the 2nd objective each week took time).
If you completed 1 objective from each week and each quest you were called a hero. If you completed 2 objectives from each week and each quest you were called a certified hero. If you completed 3 objectives from each week and each quest you were called a legendary here.
I think certified heroes and higher received a certificate saying they finished the course. At the end of the course, you were allowed to submit a proposal developed as you worked each week and collaborated and discussed. Some would win mentorship prizes, some would win travel funding for a summit that is to happen in DC later. The top 20 would win a seed grant to launch their social enterprise and get started.
I submitted two proposals; neither was chosen. But I am helping and advising a friend from the class who is doing a film project on the Story of Happiness. He won a mentorship and chance to put his project on Global Giving and if he can get $4000 from 50 donors in a few weeks he gets a permanent spot there. So I’m helping him a bit, while I still pursue my own AIDS research and student summer project program (ask me later).
The game was designed by game designer Jane McGonigal who thinks games can change the world. Instead of telling her story, I’ll let you listen to her tell how she has created games that are changed the real world, not the virtual one.
I always have too much to tell, and people get annoyed with length, but I wanted to share one more thing--movies.
COUNTDOWN TO ZERO This is a documentary by Participant Media. I highly recommend it though it’s depressing. It opened last weekend, but you should be able to still find it. It tells the history of nuclear armament and explains which countries still voluntarily have it and which don’t; it makes the case for nuclear disarmament. And it’s a good case.
Trailer & Ways to help http://www.takepart.com/countdowntozero
Different Drummer (I worked with these people to get free tickets for my entire fellowship class) http://www.differentdrummer.com/
Participant Media http://www.participantmedia.com/
INCEPTION Great creative, new concept. Thank you for that!
SALT Interesting. I think about these agent CIA issues all the time as you can tell. The African American agent in the movie is a Nigerian-Englishman who does accents quite well. I heard him do a Nigerian accent in “Dirty Pretty Things.” Angelina is a good actor as usual.
