Hey guys,
Just in response to the post about trafficking on Craig's List... I know that sometimes you read about these sort of issues, and you continue to feel as though there is little you can actually do. But in this case, it's so simple --
http://www.love146.org/uploads/CL_petition_1_2008.doc?tr=y&auid=3291770
Download this form, and then post it on Craig List's forum, or email it to Craig's List in their "contact us" section, or mail it to Craig's List Inc. World Headquarters at: 1381 9th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94122-2308 or fax it to Craig's List at: (415) 504-6394.
Who knows, if enough of these add up, maybe they'll listen. It's crucial that we bring this issue to the table, in order to offset any change. Human trafficking on Craig's List is not okay. It's important that we let that be known.. empower peace in action.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
The Olympic Games, A Private Utopia?
The Summer Olympics were always a huge event in my household. For two weeks, my brothers and I glued ourselves to the TV. Amanda Beard, Michael Johnson, Dominique Dawes, Kerri Strug, these athletes were my idols. To me, the Olympics was a festival, a celebration of talent across the globe. Different nations, their athletes and their fans, coming to compete? Even the visual splendor of the different colored rings and blazing torch, it was an event of incredible festivity. I remember quite seriously writing my parents a note in 6th grade, "letting them know that I was going to go to the Olympics" to swim. Looking back it seems a little bit of a joke, but I really thought that I would. To be a part of something so glorious and honorable - the best of every country joined for two weeks – it seemed to me to be the ultimate dream.
In the past year, this "festival of talent" has been under much debate. Protests have rippled across the torch relay, in stops like San Francisco, Paris, and London; signs reading "Shame on China" have been fanned across protest lines. Critics shun China for flagrantly ignoring human rights in Tibet. The event has unveiled pent-up criticism and controversy internationally.
In response to the recent protests in San Francisco, International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Jacques Rogges laments, "I’m deeply saddened by the fact that such an important symbol has been attacked. We recognize the rights for people to protest and express their views, but it should be nonviolent” (USA Today). There seems to be a general sentiment among the Olympic Committee that the event should remain separate from politics; that the tradition and glory of the Olympics should be preserved, and contained from the political situation in China and Tibet.
I agree with this to a point. As the USA Today article concedes, the US-led boycott of the Moscow games in 1980 and the Soviet-led boycott of the L.A. games in 1984 was a disservice to the athletes, and general spirit of the Olympics significantly. In a perfect world, one would hope that the unity and celebration of the Olympics could be celebrated as such. Without a doubt, the athletes have worked hard outside of the political realm, and so I understand the position that the event should not be tainted by this environment. As U.S. swimmer Tara Kirk says in an interview, "Just because the Olympics are happening in China doesn't mean they should suddenly be about something else. It bothers me when I feel the Olympic ideal is being degraded when people are attacking the torch . . ."
However. Doesn't it add a certain sting that the spirit of the Olympics does not extend beyond the stadium? Isn't it less compelling to know that such "unity" exists only within the track, pool, and gym? The truth is that it would be irresponsible to view the Olympics as some shrouded Utopia. If they were completely neutral, then China would not be looking to them to bolster its global image. If they were not linked to any political circumstance or consequence, then they would not be perceived as a way for China to "reemerge on the world stage in a wave of good will." The fact of the matter is that the two worlds - the Games and the international complex that surrounds them - cannot be kept separate. When China pledged to the IOC to respect human rights, they necessarily linked their two roles - the responsibility of a host country and a nation-state. Clearly, the Olympics have been recognized as a celebration of human spirit and talent. They give birth to sport legends like Michael Spitz and Florence-Griffith Joyner, icons that unite and inspire their countries. But we cannot separate these heroes from the political reality. We cannot sacrifice their glory for the well-being of oppressed peoples, because to do so would ignore the spirit of the Olympics all together.
The Games are meant to emulate this splendor, arguably in recognizing the integrity of shared human rights. Whether or not we should boycott the Olympic Games in Beijing, I'm unsure. But we should absolutely use this as an opportunity to address the inequity in Tibet, and to understand the reality that China is not living up to its responsibility. The Games should be an honor bestowed to a country fully cognizant and respectful of this shared human spirit, a cognition that extends outside of and beyond the two weeks in August.
In the past year, this "festival of talent" has been under much debate. Protests have rippled across the torch relay, in stops like San Francisco, Paris, and London; signs reading "Shame on China" have been fanned across protest lines. Critics shun China for flagrantly ignoring human rights in Tibet. The event has unveiled pent-up criticism and controversy internationally.
In response to the recent protests in San Francisco, International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Jacques Rogges laments, "I’m deeply saddened by the fact that such an important symbol has been attacked. We recognize the rights for people to protest and express their views, but it should be nonviolent” (USA Today). There seems to be a general sentiment among the Olympic Committee that the event should remain separate from politics; that the tradition and glory of the Olympics should be preserved, and contained from the political situation in China and Tibet.
I agree with this to a point. As the USA Today article concedes, the US-led boycott of the Moscow games in 1980 and the Soviet-led boycott of the L.A. games in 1984 was a disservice to the athletes, and general spirit of the Olympics significantly. In a perfect world, one would hope that the unity and celebration of the Olympics could be celebrated as such. Without a doubt, the athletes have worked hard outside of the political realm, and so I understand the position that the event should not be tainted by this environment. As U.S. swimmer Tara Kirk says in an interview, "Just because the Olympics are happening in China doesn't mean they should suddenly be about something else. It bothers me when I feel the Olympic ideal is being degraded when people are attacking the torch . . ."
However. Doesn't it add a certain sting that the spirit of the Olympics does not extend beyond the stadium? Isn't it less compelling to know that such "unity" exists only within the track, pool, and gym? The truth is that it would be irresponsible to view the Olympics as some shrouded Utopia. If they were completely neutral, then China would not be looking to them to bolster its global image. If they were not linked to any political circumstance or consequence, then they would not be perceived as a way for China to "reemerge on the world stage in a wave of good will." The fact of the matter is that the two worlds - the Games and the international complex that surrounds them - cannot be kept separate. When China pledged to the IOC to respect human rights, they necessarily linked their two roles - the responsibility of a host country and a nation-state. Clearly, the Olympics have been recognized as a celebration of human spirit and talent. They give birth to sport legends like Michael Spitz and Florence-Griffith Joyner, icons that unite and inspire their countries. But we cannot separate these heroes from the political reality. We cannot sacrifice their glory for the well-being of oppressed peoples, because to do so would ignore the spirit of the Olympics all together.
The Games are meant to emulate this splendor, arguably in recognizing the integrity of shared human rights. Whether or not we should boycott the Olympic Games in Beijing, I'm unsure. But we should absolutely use this as an opportunity to address the inequity in Tibet, and to understand the reality that China is not living up to its responsibility. The Games should be an honor bestowed to a country fully cognizant and respectful of this shared human spirit, a cognition that extends outside of and beyond the two weeks in August.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Trafficking at Home?
Recently, a man in Boston and his niece were charged with advertising underage girls for sex on Craig's List. For those of you who might not be familiar with the site, Craig's List is an online community where people can post job openings, babysitting services, or items for sale. My friends have often gone to the site to look for apartments or parking spots for rent. The other month, my roommate bought a pair of used vintage cowboy boots; another friend a chair that she planned to refurbish.
More than 25 million people use Craig's List monthly. It receives more than 8 billion views per month (http://homepage.mac.com/srjeanschafersds/stoptraffic/stoptraff603.pdf). But, there is an alternate side to the site that most people are unaware of. An article on www.notforsalecampaign.org cites that 25,000 new "erotic ads" are posted per day; many of these are child traffickers. Particularly in Washington D.C., the spots typically endorse "legal escort services," however this all too often serves as a cover for the darker reality. Girls as young as 13 are being passed off as though they are a used pair of shoes or a tired old couch. They often are made to have sex with 10-12 men per day. It seems that sex trafficking is now entering the online realm in full force.
One of the problems in montoring such advertisements on Craig's List is that users are not required to register before they post something on the site. Craig's List therefore provides a prime location to solicit prostitution because it is free, anonymous, and depends on viewers to censor its content. If a viewer has a problem with a post, she can flag it; after repeated flags, the post is removed from the site. However, this system makes real enforcement particularly difficult. If the majority of users aren't aware of these posts, how will they receive the "flags needed" to be removed? Doesn't somone else need to step in?
The fact of the matter is that most victims of human trafficking have been promised a far different life than the one they face upon arriving in the US. They are often promised a job and a home; only upon arrival are they forced to work, often without pay, in the control of criminal employers. Many women do not know their rights, and lack the peer support necessary to find help. They struggle with both a language barrier and foreign legal system, and this makes the prospect of help even more forlorn. Particularly around here, sex services are often concealed under the guise of massage palors or nail salons, and this makes tracking down such cases particularly difficult.
Nobody likes to think that such "modern human slavery" is happening within any real proximity to them. Wrongly so, most Americans seem to think that "sex-selling" happens only in impoverished corners of the world, or on risque street corners. But the fact of the matter is, it happens right in our neighborhoods, under our noses. What can we do to take a stand against this type of behavior, to let places like Craig's List know that we do not support such activity?
You can check out www.notforsalecampaign.org to get a better idea of how to get involved. The organization is a "campaign of individuals, musicians, artists, people of faith, business, schools, and sports teams united to stop it." When you hear a statistic like "27 million people are enslaved today," the number is really too big to comprehend. Even in my own mind, I am quick to think of people in other countries suffering such inequity. Gross disparate numbers that are nevertheless faceless. But the truth is, it's so much closer to me than that. I went on Craig's List just the other day to browse for a new apartment. And so it seems that I have an automatic responsibility, as a user of this website, to try and help protect those who may not be able to protect themselves. As my friend/co-worker Mike said, "it's all connected."
More than 25 million people use Craig's List monthly. It receives more than 8 billion views per month (http://homepage.mac.com/srjeanschafersds/stoptraffic/stoptraff603.pdf). But, there is an alternate side to the site that most people are unaware of. An article on www.notforsalecampaign.org cites that 25,000 new "erotic ads" are posted per day; many of these are child traffickers. Particularly in Washington D.C., the spots typically endorse "legal escort services," however this all too often serves as a cover for the darker reality. Girls as young as 13 are being passed off as though they are a used pair of shoes or a tired old couch. They often are made to have sex with 10-12 men per day. It seems that sex trafficking is now entering the online realm in full force.
One of the problems in montoring such advertisements on Craig's List is that users are not required to register before they post something on the site. Craig's List therefore provides a prime location to solicit prostitution because it is free, anonymous, and depends on viewers to censor its content. If a viewer has a problem with a post, she can flag it; after repeated flags, the post is removed from the site. However, this system makes real enforcement particularly difficult. If the majority of users aren't aware of these posts, how will they receive the "flags needed" to be removed? Doesn't somone else need to step in?
The fact of the matter is that most victims of human trafficking have been promised a far different life than the one they face upon arriving in the US. They are often promised a job and a home; only upon arrival are they forced to work, often without pay, in the control of criminal employers. Many women do not know their rights, and lack the peer support necessary to find help. They struggle with both a language barrier and foreign legal system, and this makes the prospect of help even more forlorn. Particularly around here, sex services are often concealed under the guise of massage palors or nail salons, and this makes tracking down such cases particularly difficult.
Nobody likes to think that such "modern human slavery" is happening within any real proximity to them. Wrongly so, most Americans seem to think that "sex-selling" happens only in impoverished corners of the world, or on risque street corners. But the fact of the matter is, it happens right in our neighborhoods, under our noses. What can we do to take a stand against this type of behavior, to let places like Craig's List know that we do not support such activity?
You can check out www.notforsalecampaign.org to get a better idea of how to get involved. The organization is a "campaign of individuals, musicians, artists, people of faith, business, schools, and sports teams united to stop it." When you hear a statistic like "27 million people are enslaved today," the number is really too big to comprehend. Even in my own mind, I am quick to think of people in other countries suffering such inequity. Gross disparate numbers that are nevertheless faceless. But the truth is, it's so much closer to me than that. I went on Craig's List just the other day to browse for a new apartment. And so it seems that I have an automatic responsibility, as a user of this website, to try and help protect those who may not be able to protect themselves. As my friend/co-worker Mike said, "it's all connected."
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Thoughts on Disney
Hi All -
I am doing a case study on Disney for my Globalization and Media course. I was wondering how widespread Disney really is and what your experiences are on watching Disney movies and shows. I have been to Disney World twice and my dad owns every Disney movie ever made. Disney is a huge part of my life, but I assume most other people do not share my sentiment. Please post your thoughts on Disney and your exposure to it.
Also, I just had to write an essay on how the movie Aladdin is racist and pseudo-feminist. Do you think that Disney is bad and negatively influencing our culture? I know the girls I babysit for are really into dressing up like princesses, and several of my friends claim that they are princesses. :) Is Disney too prevailant in American culture?
Just wondering what other people thought about the topic. Please let me know.
-Andrea
I am doing a case study on Disney for my Globalization and Media course. I was wondering how widespread Disney really is and what your experiences are on watching Disney movies and shows. I have been to Disney World twice and my dad owns every Disney movie ever made. Disney is a huge part of my life, but I assume most other people do not share my sentiment. Please post your thoughts on Disney and your exposure to it.
Also, I just had to write an essay on how the movie Aladdin is racist and pseudo-feminist. Do you think that Disney is bad and negatively influencing our culture? I know the girls I babysit for are really into dressing up like princesses, and several of my friends claim that they are princesses. :) Is Disney too prevailant in American culture?
Just wondering what other people thought about the topic. Please let me know.
-Andrea
Friday, February 8, 2008
Why do people matter and mother nature doesn't?
As some of you know, I have volunteered to go to south africa as a research assistant to aid scientists and biologists in conservation with an organisation called Operation Wallacea. through OW 32 speices have been introduced to science in the previous years.
Now for me to go on the expedition i need to raise about £5000 although if i get to £4000 it wouldn't be that bad. it's for the expedition itself, travel expenses, accommodation although most of the time we will be sleeping in tents and we'll have armed guards with us that'll protect us in the wild, our food and insurance. our diving equipment and so many other things. When i ask people to donate even if it's just £1 or $1 or BD1 sometimes i get people saying we only give money to help poor people. what those ignorant people don't see is that they actually do more than just destroy those poor people's lives by not helping science and biologists like myself.
i'll give you an example if people would bother with donating money to install tsunami warning devices people would not have died, had their houses destroyed and their lives wouldn't have been the hell it was when the tsunami came. AFTER they had gone through all that horror those ignorant people were like "yeah ok now we'll donate money to make their lives better". why couldn't you have donated before than so that they wouldn't have GONE through that horrifing experience?? as a mate of mine said " prevention is better than a cure" same with south africa if we don't conserve their forests, their animals, their lands they won't have anything to eat if everything dies, in addition most medicines come from plants and if all are destroyed where are people going to get their extracts. I better stop since I can go on and on...please feel free to comment and add your ideas even if you disagree
If anyone wants to have a look at operation wallacea and what their scientists and research groups have achieved and what they are currently doing please visit www.opwall.com
Reem
Now for me to go on the expedition i need to raise about £5000 although if i get to £4000 it wouldn't be that bad. it's for the expedition itself, travel expenses, accommodation although most of the time we will be sleeping in tents and we'll have armed guards with us that'll protect us in the wild, our food and insurance. our diving equipment and so many other things. When i ask people to donate even if it's just £1 or $1 or BD1 sometimes i get people saying we only give money to help poor people. what those ignorant people don't see is that they actually do more than just destroy those poor people's lives by not helping science and biologists like myself.
i'll give you an example if people would bother with donating money to install tsunami warning devices people would not have died, had their houses destroyed and their lives wouldn't have been the hell it was when the tsunami came. AFTER they had gone through all that horror those ignorant people were like "yeah ok now we'll donate money to make their lives better". why couldn't you have donated before than so that they wouldn't have GONE through that horrifing experience?? as a mate of mine said " prevention is better than a cure" same with south africa if we don't conserve their forests, their animals, their lands they won't have anything to eat if everything dies, in addition most medicines come from plants and if all are destroyed where are people going to get their extracts. I better stop since I can go on and on...please feel free to comment and add your ideas even if you disagree
If anyone wants to have a look at operation wallacea and what their scientists and research groups have achieved and what they are currently doing please visit www.opwall.com
Reem
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Hot Wheels?
Hey,
I had a speaker in one of my classes yesterday who brought up several interesting points relating to globalization and the way the world interacts. He told us a story about something they were doing with Hot Wheels toy cars. Mattel decided that they wanted to create stories and videos to package with their cars when they are sold. This guy's company created characters to drive the cars, mostly guys, but also a few girls and wrote stories about them. When they went to pitch the ideas, the problem came up that they could not sell cars with female drivers globally, because some countries do not allow women to drive.
I thought this was a very interesting point. I knew that companies had to do market research for the varies countries they sell to and that they have to adjust their products to sell in different countries. However, it seems crazy that children in these countries cannot even play with toy cars that have female drivers. I know our cultures are very different, but I wonder how you guys feel about this. Is this a common occurence? Do you know that these types of things are happening? Are we forcing Americanization by even wanting to sell toy cars with female drivers because women here can drive? Just things that make me wonder . . .
Andrea
I had a speaker in one of my classes yesterday who brought up several interesting points relating to globalization and the way the world interacts. He told us a story about something they were doing with Hot Wheels toy cars. Mattel decided that they wanted to create stories and videos to package with their cars when they are sold. This guy's company created characters to drive the cars, mostly guys, but also a few girls and wrote stories about them. When they went to pitch the ideas, the problem came up that they could not sell cars with female drivers globally, because some countries do not allow women to drive.
I thought this was a very interesting point. I knew that companies had to do market research for the varies countries they sell to and that they have to adjust their products to sell in different countries. However, it seems crazy that children in these countries cannot even play with toy cars that have female drivers. I know our cultures are very different, but I wonder how you guys feel about this. Is this a common occurence? Do you know that these types of things are happening? Are we forcing Americanization by even wanting to sell toy cars with female drivers because women here can drive? Just things that make me wonder . . .
Andrea
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Elections
Yesterday being Super Tuesday, people are buzzing around here about the elections... How much do you guys hear about this? Do you have any thoughts/opinions at this point?
I read an interesting article in Time magazine the other day. (You can find the link below...)
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1708570-3,00.html
The title was Why Young Voters Care Again (And Why Their Vote Matters)...
The article talks about how my generation is using their right to vote more than in years past. I think a lot of people have become a little disillusioned with the government in general, and November will bring the possibility to turn things around, to bring the key word of everyone's campaign: "change." The article brought up the point that for the 18-25 year old voter, he/she has never really known (or at least remembers) anyone besides a Bush or a Clinton in office. Which I hadn't realized, but is entirely true.. Even just by the very fact that Obama is a new face and name, he seems to emulate the change and inspiration that is so desperately needed.
I have to admit, to my own self, that I do not know as much about the individual issues themselves as I should. But I agree with what Carolyn Kennedy wrote in her endorsement of Obama:
"I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved."
Obama has demonstrated the spirit that I think we really need. As everyone can feel, Washington has become so divided, and I believe that Obama can instigate a certain healing process. I was talking to someone in the office about this, and he said he wanted to be able to "go to Europe and other nations and wear the American flag with pride," like his Canadian friends can do.. and I think we should all want that. I guess apart from any particular policies (and I don't mean to imply that the particulars are unimportant), to me this is what will matter in the upcoming election.
On the other, somewhat more cynical hand, I wonder if the enthusiasm that the Time article outlines has to do with our generations' desire to be a part of history - to have a hand in electing the first black or the first woman president. Is it this novelty that makes both candidates so appealing? Is this right? I suppose in a way it follows our general desire for change. Either way, the support that both campaigns have rallied so far is remarkable.
Would love to hear some of your thoughts. The forecast this week is rain, rain, rain... keep your chin up and stay dry ;)
E
I read an interesting article in Time magazine the other day. (You can find the link below...)
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1708570-3,00.html
The title was Why Young Voters Care Again (And Why Their Vote Matters)...
The article talks about how my generation is using their right to vote more than in years past. I think a lot of people have become a little disillusioned with the government in general, and November will bring the possibility to turn things around, to bring the key word of everyone's campaign: "change." The article brought up the point that for the 18-25 year old voter, he/she has never really known (or at least remembers) anyone besides a Bush or a Clinton in office. Which I hadn't realized, but is entirely true.. Even just by the very fact that Obama is a new face and name, he seems to emulate the change and inspiration that is so desperately needed.
I have to admit, to my own self, that I do not know as much about the individual issues themselves as I should. But I agree with what Carolyn Kennedy wrote in her endorsement of Obama:
"I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved."
Obama has demonstrated the spirit that I think we really need. As everyone can feel, Washington has become so divided, and I believe that Obama can instigate a certain healing process. I was talking to someone in the office about this, and he said he wanted to be able to "go to Europe and other nations and wear the American flag with pride," like his Canadian friends can do.. and I think we should all want that. I guess apart from any particular policies (and I don't mean to imply that the particulars are unimportant), to me this is what will matter in the upcoming election.
On the other, somewhat more cynical hand, I wonder if the enthusiasm that the Time article outlines has to do with our generations' desire to be a part of history - to have a hand in electing the first black or the first woman president. Is it this novelty that makes both candidates so appealing? Is this right? I suppose in a way it follows our general desire for change. Either way, the support that both campaigns have rallied so far is remarkable.
Would love to hear some of your thoughts. The forecast this week is rain, rain, rain... keep your chin up and stay dry ;)
E
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
PSA's for Peace
