One person can make a difference, but many people can make lots of differences!...or something like that

Brazil, February 2008

I have just submitted my entry to the Blog Your Way Around the World contest.  Lots of people have entered, and it's impossible to have any expectation of winning such a seemingly out-of-this-world (well, more like out-of-this-country...8 times!) grand prize.  I have 29 days to amass the votes, and I think that's a reachable goal. I can't vote for myself 2,000 times, though (I refuse to create 2,000 unique email addresses), so now it's time to see how far the power of online networking actually goes.

Will it be a Happy Hanukkah and a Happy New Year?  You tell me.  Better yet, *show* me!

Tanzania, August 2010

Peru, August 2009

{In my most teachery voice, "I know you can do a GREAT job of showing me you know how to vote.  Can you show me?"}

Thanks for the capacity to be giving

Jewish law requires that people give one tenth of their income to the poor.  That religious obligation is called Tzedakah.  So, if you earn 10 billion dollars a year, 1 billion of that goes to those less fortunate than you.  If you earn 10 dollars a year, 1 dollar of that goes to the needy.  Yes, I suppose that people will try to argue that they are needy in different ways (which is true) and, therefore, their self-proclaimed "neediness" qualifies them to receive Tzedakah without having to give it (which is not true).  Or maybe that, if you are earning 10 dollars a year, you can't afford to give 1 dollar away, but where's the compassion?  There will always be someone in the world who earns 0 dollars a year.

me, leaving big, tall building for the last time!

"The only certain things in this world are death and taxes," said Benjamin Franklin.  One of the reasons I opted against pursuing a career in a big, tall building (see right) with a big, green paycheck is that satisfaction in life comes with no pricetag.  If you die only with enough Benjamin Franklins to wallpaper the inside of your coffin, what have you really accomplished in life?  But if you die having paid it forward and having instilled rock-solid values and ethics into others by example, while having a wealth of priceless experiences along the way, one would think that that satisfaction would provide a whole lot more of a comfortable resting place than a handful of paper with Benjamin Franklin's picture on it.  Even still, if you are unable to set aside even one iota of greed to give to others, nota bene: there's something in it for you; charitable contributions can earn you a tax deduction, kind of like a compromise.  You give your money to charity; you don't pay taxes...isn't that a good exchange?  The government gives *you* Tzedakah.  But again, what makes you worthy of being given unto when you don't embody the giving spirit yourself?

I write this post not to be preachy, not to ask for Tzedakah for myself (though by Jewish law, it is frowned upon to refuse it), and not to convert anyone...I understand that many people (Jews and non-Jews alike) don't necessarily feel any obligation (whether religious, personal, or otherwise) to give unto others.  But how can you criticize the world and point fingers at people who or institutions that don't meet/exceed your expectations when you are not doing something to actively change it?

Luz Meri, me, and Elsi (El Salvador, June 2009)

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, I feel it my personal obligation to acknowledge that which *I* feel thankful for and invite you to do the same (much like I did last year).  While I am in agreement with many about things to be thankful for (friends, family, significant other, my little ones in El Salvador, job, etc.), I also feel compelled to express my thanks for the chance to be giving, my thanks for the knowledge I have gained in my 27 years... that it is not solely particular items one should be thankful for, but also the capacity to appreciate them.

(Sidenote: I am pleased to report that my girls in El Salvador have passed another year of school.  Elsi (15 years old) has just passed eighth grade and will start ninth in January.  Luz Meri (9 years old, 10 in January) just finished third grade and will start fourth grade in January.)

So as you sit down at your Thanksgiving feast tonight, and as you update your Facebook status messages to reflect "all" that you are thankful for, I just want you to think about this: would you still be A-O-K if that turkey on your table were one tenth smaller?

No one's any bigger if they use the word "n*gger"

Several months ago, there was a lot of publicity criticizing the latest celebrity to go off on a "N-word" rampage. Since all those happenings sort of jumble together, I got to thinking about some underlying issues.

Now, before I explain my thoughts, let me just acknowledge that I do not deem it appropriate in any context to use the "N-word," except perhaps for carefully planned lessons on history whose sole purpose is to educate in a neutral way. Personally, I wouldn't use the word in my everyday life (n*gger) or with friends (n*gga); I also don't listen to music that uses those words (not necessarily because of that word -- it's just not a favorite of mine).

But what I'm wondering is, is it ever "okay" to use that word? I'm not saying I would, but it's common knowledge that people -- many of whom are of the African-American persuasion -- refer to each other as "n*ggas."  Is it okay if they say it?  Along the same lines, is it okay if someone of a different race says it, even if it's meant in the same context (a la "homie," "pal," "buddy," etc.)?  When does it shift from being acceptable to being racist?

In addition to the word's usage in conversation, I'm wondering about the rules of song.  For instance, the "N-word" comes up frequently in music, oftentimes in rap.  If you slap a "Parental Advisory" label on the album cover, does that excuse the language inside the case?  If someone (again, either of the same or different race) is listening to the album and sings/raps along to the music, what about that?  It's not technically their words. It's like telling a story and saying, "And then the guy called the other guy a n*gger."  If you're quoting someone else, does that have any effect?

Even South Park tackles the subject, as seen in this parody of Wheel of Fortune.

---
It seems my thoughts are more questions, in an effort to understand where people draw lines and make judgments.  I'm curious to know what you all think and, hopefully, we can get an interracial dialogue going so shed some clarity on the issue.

the United States of Abhorrence

People on their high horses are due for a reality check.  Similarly, America is, too.  Yesterday, the US of A celebrated their 234th birthday, but what does that even mean?  Okay, so on July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed...by Americans.  Nearly three centuries earlier, in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, which ultimately led to the untimely (would it ever have been timely?) eviction of the Native Americans who already occupied the land.  Now, I was never so great at history, but if you just go up to a random house and kick out the people who live in it, only to claim it as your own, does that actually make it your own?  Does that mean you get the right/privilege to make the household decisions and that, when telemarketers call, asking for the head of the household, you can rightfully answer, "Yes, I am [s]he"?

While our independence from England itself is a pretty monumental event -- one that deserves recognition and pride -- I'm not so sure the rest of it does.  Consider it a reverse Robin Hood, if you will -- rather than stealing from the rich to give to the poor, it seems that the US of A took from the poor (who may, in fact, have been rich with resources), asserted their independence from the rich, and showed no grain of appreciation for the "tramplees" [those who are trampled upon], without whom the US wouldn't have had land to rest their weary egos.


If you're the coach of a youth basketball team and your team cheats, ending up with more points on the scoreboard than their fairly-playing opponents, who actually deserves the praise?  Will you continue to celebrate the anniversary of the win-by-cheating annually, with federal holidays, fireworks, and rampant celebrations?  Or will you teach your kids a lesson so that history doesn't repeat itself and they can try to make amends for the past and adopt better practices for the future?

What say you, members of the jury?  Is the USA founded on principles of cheating and destructive egoism?  What exactly are we celebrating, then?

Happy Birthday, with or without the tamales

People have asked me what I'm going to "do" for my birthday, if I'm going to plan a party or have some wild and crazy event in my honor.  The simple answer to that is "no."  Frankly, I'm just not interested this year.

When I was in El Salvador last year at this time (where my community, living on very few financial resources, threw me a surprise party (which -- don't tell -- I knew about from the day before)), I had a conversation with a 14-year-old girl named Elsi on her birthday (July 3), two days after mine.  There had been all this commotion in the community about my birthday (July 1), a date when people had given me a party, cards, cake, and love, and when I asked Elsi [pictured, left and right, with the dough to make tortillas] what she normally did for her birthday, her response was, "Maybe I'll get a card and maybe we'll eat tamales."  Tamales are a pretty common food to eat down there but, according to Salvadoran standards, they're not an everyday snack -- they're just too darn expensive (less than $2, I think).

Experiences like this are very grounding because it serves as a slap-in-the-face wake-up call that birthdays are merely the days when your age number changes.  You don't turn a year older -- it's just the day after the one before it.  Why do people even give presents on that day?  Congratulations -- I didn't think you'd make it 'til today and you have, so well done!  Bravo!  Maybe it's the opportunity to celebrate someone's life, in which case the birthday boy or girl becomes the person of honor for the day.  In this day and age, many people who are monetarily gifted might spend upwards of $100,000 on a party, thus bestowing upon themselves the authority to act as king or queen for the day.  In a place with few financial resources, however, it might not even mean a tamale.

What does this say about the people who only know how to celebrate by "doing something"?  Asking if someone is "doing something" for his/her birthday would suggest doing something out of the ordinary that would, consequently, count as "something."  My take on it is that one should "do something" every day so that, come birthday time, what one actually does is "nothing."

People often say, "it's the thought that counts."  I disagree.  It's the action.  I'm not saying that someone has to shell out lots of money -- or even any money -- to show their appreciation of somebody or to celebrate something.  But it's people's individual ways -- with respect to their everyday practices -- that reveal their true intentions.  Personally, I think people should adopt a well-intentioned mentality every day of the year.  Then, on the anniversary of their birth, they can merely sit back and reflect contentedly that they have lived every day of the previous year to the fullest.  They can be proud that every day has meant something because they have done something every day, raising the default bar so that something has become the new nothing.  I guess, then, when people ask what I'm doing for my birthday, it's with the something-nothing in mind.  So, to that, I say that this year, I'm just going to keep doing what I've been doing so that by the time my last birthday has rolled around, my collective days of doing nothing will have inspired others to turn "somethings" into "nothings" and will have left a lasting mark.**

**(Coincidentally enough, had I been born a boy, my name would have been Mark.)

Could you pour some sugar in my World Cup?

World Cup fever is upon us and the 2010 games are under way!  Just from watching the games and from seeing the fullness of the stadiums (stadia?), it's easy to tell how much pride people have for their home country as well as for the sport of soccer, football, fútbol, futebol -- whatever you want to call it.  While the World Cup is, indeed, a competition, it brings out such profound emotion among its players, fans, and even non-fans.

As I sit glued to the TV, watching the players from these 32 countries compete against each other, I realize that they are all motivated by a common goal (no pun intended).  Several months ago, I wrote a blog about judging people and the idea that members of countries with few financial resources choose to spend their money on soccer jerseys and not something more conducive to helping their communities to prosper (that being according to the American perspective on what it means to "prosper," of course).  Well, in seeing the hope and the group unity that is awakened by the World Cup makes me wonder whether the World Cup could achieve more than simply determining the winner of a soccer tournament.

Current events have us shaking our heads at the BP oil spill or at natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, etc.) or wars, but we as a community -- a global community of more than 6 and a half billion people -- have the power to overhaul the greater school of thought among us.  In other words, look how soccer brings together many of those people.  Everyone is excited and hopeful at what the competition brings and wants their country's team to advance to the finals.  Could it be that the World Cup is a microcosm of the world at large?

You have your die-hard fans (patriots), your fans who don't control their rage when the final whistle is blown (extremists), your team captains and coaches (leaders), your followers (law-abiding members of society), your referees (law enforcement), your yellow cards and red cards (citations/jail), and your uniforms (passports) as a means of identification.  (Naturally, there are also those who couldn't care less (the innocent bystanders/civilians).) Even though 31 teams ultimately end up feeling the pangs of defeat, everyone comes together to celebrate the sport and the fact that everyone exists on a level playing field (again, no pun intended -- well, maybe only a little bit intended), despite the fact that every country's background is vastly different from one another, with some that boast more opportunities, privileges, and resources, financial or otherwise.

Many people have established non-profit organizations centered around soccer as a peacemaking activity (like Grassroot Soccer), but I think perhaps these noble entrepreneurs haven't taken it globally enough. They might set up shop in a small African village or in an off-the-beaten-path Latin American community, but we need something more far-reaching...Then again, you can't create change without a starting point, something small-scale to expand into something more widespread.

I guess my point is this: soccer has the power to bring the world together. Why not take advantage of that so that everyone can wear their respective jerseys but play for the same team?  Is that too much to ask?  Coaches, fans, and players all working together? It all starts with the kickoff...

The Heinz dilemma...is there a right answer?

"In Europe a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2000, ten times what the drug cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said "No." The husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have done that? Why?" [Kohlberg, 1969, p. 376]

The "Heinz" dilemma was created by American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987), known for his theory of stages of moral development.

What do you think about Heinz's actions?  Items to consider: spousal relationships and obligations, property rights

Reflection on language learning

On February 10, 2009, my teacher gave my class 15 minutes to "reflect" upon language learning.  Now, it's not easy for me to  simply "reflect" on command but, for whatever reason, this time I managed a draft of something. Let me know what you think.
-----------

In language learning, there's a point where everything just "clicks."  Thinking no longer occurs in English but, rather, in the target language (for me, anyway).  When I studied Spanish, it came pretty easily to me.  My last year of college, I took a course on all things Don Quixote, which included reading the 1,000-plus page book.  While I loved reading that book, I struggled with it.  A lot of the language was antiquated and there were so many nuances to get.  Fortunately, because we discussed the book so extensively in class, I believe I was able to absorb most of those nuances (I don't think it would ever be possible to get all of them).  Had I not taken the class, however, I know I would have missed out on a lot of the book's subtleties.

When I studied Arabic, I didn't reach the "clicking point" before I had to put the language aside.  It was difficult and, though I kept working at it, the time that was necessary to devote to it became too great and I had to put it aside.

Guiding principles: It's better to understand a few items really well than to have a satisfactory comprehension of a broad range of material (with respect to language learning), although depending on the concept, that could be arguable. [Note: I'm not sure if this last part is just notes from the class or part of my response.  In either case, I agree with the message.]

-----------

What makes a good teacher?

The other day, as I was cleaning out old graduate work (since, being a Master now, I don't need any of it!), I came across a few items I drafted in class that I thought I would share.

I wrote this first item on October 2, 2008.  I had five minutes to free-write about what makes a good teacher.  This was my response:

A good teacher is someone who not only makes his/her students feel comfortable in the classroom but who also encourages students to participate actively.  Thus, the classroom environment becomes one in which, regardless of outside circumstances, everyone is an equal member of the class and has the opportunity to contribute as much as anyone else.  A good teacher strives to achieve this goal, while at the same time not letting the students forget where they come from.

-----------
What do you think makes a good teacher?  Are there different criteria for a teacher by profession and a teacher by nature?

Maybe the Star-Spangled banner wasn't waving over the U.S. after all

Last week, I attended a D.C. United game, where they beat Kansas City 2-1.  That's not the point of this blog, though.  Neither is the $4 little bottle of water or $4 mini-thing they called a hot dog.  But again, I digress...

D.C. United is a team name -- one that represents, well, a united Washington, D.C. (go figure).  Where I take issue isn't in the optimistic team name but, rather, our national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner, that played over the loudspeaker in the stadium...an anthem that continuously acknowledges that this land belongs to the free and serves as the home of the brave.  So, tell me, how, in this case, does one define the concept of freedom?  When someone buys land, from whom do they buy it?  When Columbus and his people "discovered" America, they kicked out the Native Americans and claimed the land as their own.  If I take a little trip down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and try to kick out Mr. President himself, I won't be starting a new country but, rather, extending my trip a little bit down in the Big House!  It's like stealing a bicycle and selling it as from the original owners.  Truth of the matter is, everyone here lives on borrowed land, so to discriminate based on a falsely-defined notion of freedom would simply be elitist.  Is anything or anyone, in fact, free?  Also, such behavior would show the U.S. to be a country that does not practice what it preaches.  Take a look at the unabridged lyrics of the national anthem and then let me know what you think.  If you need another topic upon which to expound, here you go: anthem = an + them. Discuss.

-----
O! say can you see by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Arizonar: let's conjugate

I think the video speaks for itself. And for all you Spanish learners out there, let me just point out that arizonar is a regular -ar verb, to be conjugated as such:

yo arizono
tu arizonas
el/ella/Ud. arizona
nosotros arizonamos
vosotros arizonais
ellos/ellas/Uds. arizonan

Disclaimer about images, videos, etc.

I just want to acknowledge that I use this blog as a forum for expressing my thoughts and raising issues that I believe are important.  I include images and videos that I think help depict my arguments, but in no way do I wish to claim all of these items as my own.  If you scroll over the images or videos, you will see the URL where I found those items.  The text within my blogs are mine and mine alone, unless I explicitly cite another source.  Since one can never be too sure about one's intentions, especially in this day and age, I wanted to take a moment to convey my purpose in writing this blog, both with the words and other visuals I include.  I copy from no one.

All men are created equal... except, of course, those who aren't

There's been all this talk about the importance of completing Census 2010 and the effect that it will have on how the nation develops with those data in mind.  What I'm wondering is, how it fits in with the status of immigrants.  Especially considering the unconstitutional (not to mention inhumane) legislation recently passed in Arizona, I got to thinking whether the census would include that population in its count.  If not, it wouldn't be an accurate reflection of who is in this country, which would mean the United States would have to wait 10 more years until the next one for there to be a reasonable estimate of the country's demographics.  If so, then shouldn't the government be acting in the best interests of all those represented in the census, regardless of immigration status?  It turns out that immigration status is not a question that appears on the census.  What that means, then, is that everyone is included equally.  On the Census website itself, there is a whole section dedicated to why the census is "so important."  The website states the following:

----

"Census information affects the numbers of seats your state occupies in the U.S. House of Representatives. And people from many walks of life use census data to advocate for causes, rescue disaster victims, prevent diseases, research markets, locate pools of skilled workers and more. When you do the math, it's easy to see what an accurate count of residents can do for your community. Better infrastructure. More services. A brighter tomorrow for everyone. In fact, the information the census collects helps to determine how more than $400 billion dollars of federal funding each year is spent on infrastructure and services like:

• Hospitals
• Job training centers
• Schools
• Senior centers
• Bridges, tunnels and other-public works projects
• Emergency services

Participation isn't just important—it's mandatory.
----- 
So let me see if I have this straight.  The government wants to know exactly who is in the country (and participation is "mandatory") and then they want to use that information to help decide how federal funding should be spent in ways that best cater to the nation's denizens.  But people who fill it out might be those very people who are discriminated against when passing through states like Arizona.  What motivation would they have, then, to oblige the same government that allows such segregation and discrimination to occur? Our nation's system of checks and balances needs to be seriously checked...and balanced.

A couple of months ago, I saw an advertisement on the side of a bus encouraging people to complete the Census.  The ad said, "If we don't know how many people we have, how do we know how many buses we need?"  When I saw that, I actually thought of my personal job hunt.  Since I am applying for a teaching position in a local public school system, it occurred to me that everyone -- whether legally here or not -- is eligible for schooling.  School officials (teachers, administrators, etc.) are not allowed to ask about status, which means that those students are entitled to the same rights as everyone else.  It goes back to that whole equality thing...to Thomas Jefferson's whole, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" spiel in that little-acknowledged 1776 document called the Declaration of Independence.  It's as if the government uses immigrants productively when it's convenient and discriminates against them when it's not.  Where's the equality in that?

I'm not really sure how much "sensus" the Census makes.  Should the Census ask about immigration status?  If so many people are undocumented, then wouldn't asking the question on this survey give the government an idea of how many immigrants are actually here?  Immigrants, after all, create such a formative part of the United States economy, that perhaps it is time to give credit where credit is due rather than ignore it altogether, and the government should act in every individual's best interests.  I realize that's a lot of interests to target, but people need to get off their high horses and acknowledge that a country made up of immigrants is approaching unchartered territory in the 21st century.  If immigrants declare their status as non-citizens, then the U.S. should consider, rather than condemn, their pursuit of citizenship.

It's all a bunch of codswallop...dontcha think?

Boy, with all these news items popping up, it has become even *more* abundantly clear that "Republican" means "Republican't"...as in, can't tell dumb from dumber!  Hell, even Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels could do that, and they were several french fries short of a Happy Meal.  It's all sixes and sevens now, folks.  But this one really takes the biscuit.



So, here's the latest: Republican Governor Tim James has created an ad (paid for by -- wait for it -- Tim James 2010, Inc.) in which he says, "Why do our politicians make us give drivers license exams in 12 languages? This is Alabama. We speak English. If you want to live here, learn it! We're only giving that test in English....we'll save money and it makes sense.  Does it to you?" He also has the words "Common Sense" that pop up at the end of the ad.  Why would *Common Sense* be at all affiliated with this rubbish?  Do people in Alabama even use the word "rubbish" or is that too English for them?  If that's what they speak (other than the language of dumbarse...(sorry, friends of mine from Alabama -- no offense to you..this just means you're bilingual!)), then those dammin' 'Bamans must say things like [GAR-aj] and [SHED-yule] right before they go to the water closet to use the loo.  I mean, *really* -- MATE -- what's all this bloody talk about?  It sounds like bollocks to me.

Mr. Tim "Daft is my middle name" James seems to have also forgotten that just because people have native languages other than English does not mean that they are not American citizens.  Perhaps they live in communities where they only need their native language to get by.  While, of course, it would be ideal for everyone to be at least proficient in English -- to thus give them the choice to pursue opportunities for which English is a necessity -- there is no official language of the United States.  Sure, people have tried to make it happen, but no one has ever been so off their trolley to deem English anything "official."  Besides, Mr. James...are you sure you even mean English?  Or perhaps you believe that drivers license exams should be given in Amur'kin?

Ta.  Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's all go get pissed....and, by the way, Bob's your uncle.

*Note: in case you aren't fluent in English, here's an online guide in case you want to take a dekko.*

New Arizona law? Big problemo!

So let's talk about this Arizona immigration nonsense. And I say "nonsense" because it makes about as much sense as, well, NON. A country that is founded on the principle of equality, one that -- constitutionally -- supports life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Well, how constitutional is it for one of the fifty states to institute a statewide policy that so drastically and so negatively affects one's life, restricts one's liberty, and separates one from the pursuit of happiness (we're not even talking about achievement of happiness here) based on arbitrary measures, left up to the discretion of local police officers?  Since when do police officers occupy a civil service position that challenges the U.S. Constitution?  What kind of civility actually lies therein?According to a New York Times article from April 23, 2010, Gov. Jan Brewer (of Arizona) "acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law."  Let me ask you, Ms. Brewer: how do you define "proper" training?  How does one teach someone how to "properly" engage in racial profiling? Doesn't that go against the very principles upon which our melting pot country was founded?

In the same article, the author mentions that Senator John McCain -- the former presidential candidate who stressed his desire to help immigrants -- was under pressure to support this bill (SB 1070) and only mere hours before its signing came out in favor of it.  Let's take a quick glance at the track record of a few of our nation's recent supposed "leaders."  George W. Bush: had unsatisfactory grades throughout his undergraduate career and was, let's face it, a cokehead.  Former Vice President Dick Cheney: has an openly gay daughter, but somehow the press doesn't let that affect his "Republicanism" or his platforms.  Don't personal opinions about these issues comprise the essence of platforms?  John McCain: says he'll help immigrants, but then turns his stance to supporting legislation that targets illegal immigrants and people who look like illegal immigrants.  Right there, you have three quick examples of people in power who have less than stellar histories of demonstrating their upstanding citizenship.  And now these people are going to be responsible for ensuring the "proper training" of police officers, so they are "better" equipped to execute racist practices?  We are trusting THEM to make judgment calls?  What even makes their judgment trustworthy?  It's like we're back to pre-Brown v. BOE times.  Pre-Martin Luther King, Jr.  Even pre-Abraham Lincoln!  What's wrong with this picture?  Oh, right, and maybe I should also mention since people may not know....the President of the United States of America is a biracial man with roots in Kenya and in the U.S.  We live in a country led by someone who, under the newly-enacted Arizona law, could be approached and arrested for looking the way he does and acting in ways deemed illegal immigrant-like....whatever that means. What is our world coming to?! Or, since it seems like our world is already "there," what has our world become?

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is Austrian-born, ardently opposes illegal immigrants and their being in the U.S.  But, it seems that, once again, an elected official boasts a notable disparity between his theory and practice.  After all, he may have violated the terms of his own visa more than three decades ago.  I realize that laws are laws and it is important to be mindful citizens who abide by the law.  However, when the law itself goes against the well-being of all people [what ever happened to equal opportunity?], it makes me wonder why we should have to abide by the decisions that these elected leaders make...especially when they are elected without disclosing important information that would undoubtedly affect the voters' choice.  It hardly seems fair.

I think I might be belaboring my point, so I'll try to wrap this up...just after I point out a couple of fallacies in Ms. Brewer's (lack of) logic.  After reviewing the complete text of the governor's statement regarding SB1070, it seems that a game of "She says/She means" is in order.

She says:   This bill, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, strengthens the laws of our state. It protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully. And, it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona remain solid -- stable and steadfast.
She means: Constitution Shmonstitution.

She says: There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life.
She means: All Americans [which, clearly, only include the North Americans from the U.S.] are good.  Americans don't participate in drug cartels or take drugs at all. All immigrants are bad.  They are responsible for all the drop houses, kidnappings and violence in the U.S.  So, if we kick them out, life will be perfect...but wait? Who will mow my lawn?  Hmm...
She says: Let me be clear, though: My signature today represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law — both AGAINST illegal immigration AND against racial profiling. 
She means: So what if I didn't declare the three cases of Jose Cuervo I bought on my last Mexican getaway? That doesn't make it illegal...[um, lady, that's exactly what it means.]

She says: I will NOT tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona. 
She means:...unless people start running out the back door of Chipotle before they finish making my burrito.

She says: Importantly, this training will include what DOES – and DOES NOT – constitute “reasonable suspicion” that a person is not legally present in the United States.
She means: If you order a taco with extra hot sauce, you better watch out. If you breathe while undocumented, you better think twice.

Ms. Brewer, you contradict yourself. You tell people one thing and you do another. You say you've thought long and hard about what you signed into law, but can you discuss what you actually considered? It seems like you have created a much bigger problem than there actually was beforehand.  Can we knock a little sense into you?  Can we actually treat the immigrants -- illegal and legal alike -- *not* as aliens?  Just as Stephen Colbert says, the answer should be, "No problemo."

Making sense out of cents

As of today (April 18, 2010), the estimated number of humans in the world is 6,815,500,000, according to the United States Census Bureau.  Among them are academics, doctors, lawyers, farmers, teachers, business owners, parents, researchers, beggars, sweatshop workers, idealists, realists, etc.  And, yet, no matter how many different professions are represented among those 6,815,500,000 people, no one person has been able to come up with a way for everyone to just get along. Of course, it's hard to get a classroom of kids to get along on any given day, so why should we expect nearly 7 *billion* people to get along? I have a theory.  It's all in the education.

It's not in the learning of 1+1 or of how DNA works. It's not in the learning of how to diagram sentences.  It's in the learning of human interaction. It's in learning about the past to make more informed decisions in the present in order to better the future. It's in the learning of how to communicate with each other, both within and across groups -- cultural, ideological, political, linguistic, etc.  In studying and learning another language, one not only learns the words to express his thoughts (vocabulary), but the thoughts that are conveyed by his words.  In other words, one learns the way a set of people belonging to a particular linguistic group collects their thoughts; one learns how to "think" in that language.  For example, there are words that, in one language, require only one word to articulate a particular thought whereas, in another language, a longer explanation is necessary.

The question then becomes not how to save the world or how to achieve world peace but, rather, how to enable everyone to have access to education -- both academic and social.  If everyone had the capacity to understand where their perceived enemies (as well as allies) come from, both literally and figuratively, then I think numerous gaps would be bridged and would yield more understanding than undermining.

So, then, how do we enable access? It's not like you can go online and just Google "buy access to education for everyone" [which I actually did, the first result of which yielded a House of Representatives-sponsored bill related to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)], so we must all do a little bit of research to figure out how to level the playing fields, how to make a globalized world truly be, in fact, global.  If $1 per person could buy access to education for everyone (and subsequently lead to world peace), would you look for the 100 cents? Even if you already had a degree and an extensive professional background (and, therefore, didn't technically *need* any more formal education), would you donate 100 cents of your maybe/maybe-not hard-earned money to contribute to the well-being of the rest of the world?

Wikipedia defines world peace in various ways, including as an "ideal of freedom, peace, and happiness" and as something that is "theoretically possible" but is inherently prevented by human nature. It also states that, "This belief stems from the idea that humans are naturally violent, or that rational agents will choose to commit violent acts in certain circumstances."  How does one measure a universal idea (such as the aforementioned) that asserts that it is human nature to be violent?

Farther down in this Wikipedia entry, we learn that, "Some proponents of Cobdenism claim that by removing tariffs and creating international free trade, wars would become impossible, because free trade prevents a nation from becoming self-sufficient, which is a requirement for long wars."  Now, I'm not the most well-versed person in the world's economic goings-on, but if this theory has been voiced to the point that it actually has a name (Cobdenism) and a proposed method (international free trade), then I wonder why people don't work harder to test out the theory.  What's to lose?

I thus ask all of you what you think. Is access to education for everyone just an unachievable "ideal"? Does Cobdenism seem like a worthwhile "ism" that could actually create world peace and eliminate wars? Does humankind need wars in order to exist?  Could the same goals sought by war be achieved by other means?  As this goal could never be met by one person, I, too, need your input.  So, go ahead -- put in your two cents...and 98 more if you so choose.

I guess it's "la vista, baby" because I'm back

I wasn't expecting to take a two-month hiatus from blogging. In fact, if you were to see the Post-Its on my wall, you would see that I haven't, in fact, taken any break whatsoever from brainstorming. But, when I blog, if I don't have time to do justice to my post, I'd rather not post at all. Then, the post-its stay on the wall until their time comes around. Now that I have finished the capstone project for my two-year Master's program, I am slowly getting back into the groove of taking care of all the things that have fallen to the backburner. But, hey, now as you read the posts, you should consider them with even higher esteem than before.  Why, you ask? Well, because their author is a master.

Ohmygod, that's horrible... bon appetit

I get it.  30+" of snow is *not* something everybody likes to experience...especially at the expense of losing electricity and heat.  What are people in this predicament supposed to do for a weekend or -- if they're "really unlucky" -- a week of no internet and no warm, cozy homey feeling?

It bothers me to see all of those Pepco numbers and whatnot on the news, seeing how many thousands of people are without power.  It bothers me *more* to know that there are people in the world who don't have those luxuries normally and it never shows up on the news.  People here complain to no end about how they are missing this and needing that, and perhaps after a few phone calls, the repair truck drives up the block.  In the midst of all of these hourly news reports, I think people need to take a step back and remember that they *have* a home, that they *have* the resources to be safe and comfortable year-round and save a blizzard or two that might jeopardize a few nights of email-checking or television-watching, they don't stop to appreciate what they *do* have.

The rest of the world is not as lucky to have every amenity at their disposal, and these kinds of events (whether large-scale like the earthquakes in Haiti or smaller-scale, like not having electricity (although, even then, those scales are all relative)) cannot continue to go unacknowledged.  It makes me think of a chilling truth eloquently stated by Joaquin Phoenix in the 2004 movie Hotel Rwanda, which you can watch here (the whole clip is 46 seconds, though the message itself starts at about 30 seconds in).

I'm just a little LOST

The survivors of Oceanic Flight 815 have been on the island for maybe 120 days, and Jin (Daniel Dae Kim) has gone from zero English to executing complicated English phrases perfectly. Maybe it's the language teacher in me that recognizes that, but that is just not realistic whatsoever.  Then again, I suppose that's not the first thing that's fictional about that show...

I would give it a Nine

I just finished watching the movie Nine and I can't type nearly as fast as I came up with things to discuss.  Having spent a great portion of my undergraduate career studying Italian film -- including an entire course on Federico Fellini (a good start, but not nearly enough time to capture his full essence) -- the parallels were all too evident in the 2009 movie musical, one that could easily have followed from Fellini's 1963 spectacle, 8 1/2.  I'm not even quite sure where to begin, so I'll go chronologically through the film with my observations.

1)  Guido Contini: The name of the main character already comes laden with history, as Guido was also the name of the main character in 8 1/2, famously played by Marcello Mastroianni.  Guido in Nine, however, was brought to you by Daniel Day-Lewis, who actually looked more like Fellini than he did Marcello Mastroianni.  Still, even channeling Fellini gave the film a smooth segue from 8 1/2 to Nine.  Guido, as a character in the former movie, however, has adopted a different last name in this recent version.  The attachment of Contini as the last name may just be a way to reinvent the character, a way to prove that it is *not* the same Guido from before (that, after all, was Guido Anselmi).  But the name Contini brings with it a heavy connection on its shoulders.  In 1977, author Giorgio Bassani wrote a novel called Il Giardino dei Finzi-Contini (The Garden of the Finzi-Continis), a piece that was later turned into a movie of the same name.  The story took place during World War II and told of a Jewish family who tried to maintain their extravagant lifestyle while outside the walls enclosing their estate, Mussolini was imprisoning the Jews.  The wall that created this garden thus offered the Finzi-Contini family protection from the outside world, a way to escape all of the turmoil that they would undoubtedly be exposed to on the other side.  While Nine makes no direct reference to Bassini's work, the name Contini conveys the idea of an inside and an outside, in the same way that it highlights the idea of the spectator and the spectacle.

2) Sophia Loren's role as Mamma in Nine is also extremely telling.  She often starred with Marcello Mastroianni (for example in Una Giornata Particolare (A Special Day) (1974)) and, while Mastroianni himself doesn't appear in Nine, the character he personified in 8 1/2 (Guido) does.  Thus, even though Sophia Loren was not in 8 1/2, her connection to Mastroianni helps her serve as a credible matriarch of Nine, rightly named Mamma.

3) The usage of the number 9 in Nine has two notable meanings that I have found so far.  First, 8 1/2 was Fellini's ninth film.  The fact that this film uses the nearest whole number after 8 1/2 as its title suggests that Fellini's earlier version is now complete.  (Fellini even ends 8 1/2 with a large dance circle, demonstrating not only the importance of grandeur, but also the symbolism embedded in the circle, a representation of the cyclical nature of life and its absurdities.  Even creating this Part Two of 8 1/2 shows that events and people often come full circle.) Second, Guido is 9 years old when he appears in flashbacks.

4) Despite the fact that Nicole Kidman does not play a major role in Nine, she bears a striking resemblance to Anita Ekberg, the Swedish actress who dramatically splashed around in the Trevi Fountain in La Dolce Vita (1960), flirting with Marcello Mastroianni (playing a character named Marcello) and declaring, "Marcello, come here!"  Nine has Kidman occupying a similar role (even with a fountain in the background at one point) with this Guido (not played by Marcello...is this confusing yet?).


5) In Nine, La Saraghina makes her presence known, even if albeit somewhat briefly, and is particularly symbolic of Fellini's work.  She embodies the idea of the spectacle, of the maternal, of dance.   In 8 1/2, Saraghina serves as further personification of the essence of the gaze.  According to Millicent Marcus, a former professor of mine, "Because the dance frees La Saraghina from her role as passive object of the gaze, elevating her to the status of active and emancipated subject, she can, in turn, direct a formative gaze upon the audience of young boys who have served as the enablers in this process of self-idealization" (page 4).  One could actually look upon the ideas of the gaze, the spectacle, and the self throughout both of these films.  Paying attention to each of these elements alone would surely give you a vastly different perspective of the film.  In Nine, Fergie took on the role of La Saraghina as if they shared a bloodline.  A line in 8 1/2 describes her as the devil reincarnate: "Ma non lo sai che La Saraghina e  il diavolo?" ["But you don't know that La Saraghina is the devil?"]  Fergie, in fact, made La Saraghina transition seamlessly from her prior dance on the beach of Rimini in 8 1/2 to her performance later in Nine.  All in all, I'd say a great casting decision.

6) Another throwback to Fellini, Kate Hudson (as Stephanie, a film critic) says, "Every frame is like a postcard."  This one-liner would bring any Fellini fan back to 1952's Lo Sceicco Bianco (The White Sheik), in which the main character, Ivan, brings his virginal bride to Rome for a honeymoon, and while he's sleeping, she goes off in search of the protagonist of her favorite soap opera photo strip.  At her hotel, however, she becomes mesmerized by the postcards at the reception desk, and it is easy to see how much she appreciates these glimpses into other scenes, much like what would appear in the photo strips she adores.

7) Fellini often liked to include a picture within a picture -- or, in other words, people within his broader movie also participating in the watching of a production.  Nine director Rob Marshall preserved this characteristic and had the "inner movie" also titled Nine, thereby making the audience wonder which one was the actual production, the broader story or the story within the story.

8) In Nine, Nicole Kidman's and Daniel Day-Lewis' characters are zooming out of Cinecitta in Day-Lewis' car, reminiscent of a sequence depicted in Fellini's 1972 film Roma [starting in this clip at 2:06].  It could be interpreted in a number of ways (such as a beginning or end of a chapter).  [Something interesting to note is that as they are driving out of Cinecitta to escape the paparazzi, they pass by promotional posters of Australia, Nicole Kidman's 2008 film with Hugh Jackman, clearly having nothing to do with Fellini's work, although a subtlety that Fellini himself may have even opted to include.]

9) At the end of 8 1/2, the audience is given access to the other side of the displays -- the back of the backdrop, if you will -- thus showing that behind every spectacle, there is an extravagant set-up, and that everything is perfectly orchestrated in order to create a final product.  Fellini plays with that idea because he doesn't let his viewers know the difference between the set-up and the product.  Maybe in that way, he makes everything the set-up and everything the product.  In Nine, toward the end of the movie (no spoiler ahead), the audience can see the breakdown of the set in a very similar fashion.

10)  In addition to the aforementioned, Nine pays homage to Fellini in other unobtrusive ways.  While the cameras pan past the outside of Cinecitta (a major film studio in Rome), they show a car pulling up to Soundstage 5.  This soundstage, located on the grounds of Cinecitta, was Fellini's favorite, and was even named in his honor after he died in 1993, adopting the name Teatro Federico Fellini (see page 180 of this book (as well as the other pages, too) for more of the inside scoop).

----------
When I set out to write this blog, I didn't mean for it to come out as a film review.  (If it did, I apologize; I never trust other people's film reviews since everyone has different tastes in movies and also judges them based on varying criteria, so by no means to I wish to impart my own assessment of the movie.)  I just wanted to highlight several items that I noticed and to invite you to comment on other parallels I may not have identified here.  In watching a movie, there is so much more that goes into it than storyline, actors, etc. -- in this case, it was all of this film's intricacies that would go unrecognized by a non-Fellini-phile that, to me, made it a nine.

Maybe Bill and Lois were right all along

Merriam-Webster defines the word "religion" as the following:

1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
 ----------
You have all these people who believe in different higher powers, different "beings" that guide their daily principles.  Of course, when considering religion, people might think of God, G-d, Jesus Christ, or Allah (or a number of others), but when it comes down to it, can't any "cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" be considered a religion?

In the last ten years, I have attended two Alcoholics Anonymous meetings -- both times for a school project.  Once was in high school and the second time was a few months ago.  At the most recent meeting, I picked up a four-page wallet-sized pamphlet detailing the mission, steps, and traditions of A.A. I'd like to share it with you here, so allow me to reproduce the text for you, followed by my own ruminations...

Page 1: A.A.: Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength, and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism.  The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for A.A. membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions. A.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes.  Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.

Page 2: The 12 Steps of A.A.:
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol -- that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Page 3: The 12 Traditions of A.A.:
1. Our common welfare should come first; personal recovery depends upon A.A. unity.
2. For our group purpose, there is but one ultimate authority -- a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience.  Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
3. The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking.
4. Each group should be autonomous except in matters affecting other groups or A.A. as a whole.
5. Each group has but one primary purpose -- to carry its message to the alcoholic who still suffers.
6. An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance, or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.
7. Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.
8. Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever nonprofessional, but our service centers may employ special workers.
9. A.A., as such, ought never be organized; but we may create service boards or committees directly responsible to those they serve.
10. Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.
11. Our public relations policy is based on attraction rather than promotion; we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films.
12. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.

Page 4: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.

----------
When I think about religion, what comes to mind is people spanning the spectra of their respective faiths, from reform to orthodox, from observant to extremist and the overarching controversies that take place both within and across religions.  Each one possesses its own set of beliefs, which are often laid out in books much larger than a four-page wallet-size pamphlet.  From what I can tell (and I never studied religion religiously...pun not really intended), every commonly acknowledged religion has experienced controversy in some form or another.  They have these hundred-page manifestos of the tenets of their philosophy, and they still end up fighting.  Meanwhile, in four pages, this A.A. pamphlet identifies 24 principles (summed up in 2 pages), among them avoidance of public controversy and maintenance of anonymity.  And have you ever heard of a major conflict having to do with A.A.?  I mean, it's not like Overeaters Anonymous and A.A. have ever had a dispute over territory resulting in security checkpoints going from one zone to the other.  What, then, makes these groups so successful?  According to that last definition of religion, I would venture to say that these and other like groups serve as religions.  After all, if their members live according to the respective principles of their group and do so with ardor and faith, isn't that the definition of religion?  Subsequently, can't a person have more than one religion if they subscribe to beliefs of more than one system?  Perhaps it is the anonymity itself -- the act of deliberately *not* preaching one's own values to others in an attempt to convert them -- that allows the members to focus on the mission they strive to achieve.

Does that mean that religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. should dissolve in favor of sects like A.A.?  No, not necessarily, but perhaps people need to take a second look at their reasons for claiming membership of a religious group.  Is it because that's what their ancestors were?  What the spouse is?  (Why do we even talk about religion as being something that someone is, rather than something the person believes in?)  The point of a religion should be the union of people who believe in common principles.  They should not force their mission on others who express no desire to participate but they should instead be made up of people who have the same -- productive -- aspirations.  Of course, everything is relative (no pun intended on this one, either).  That is, who makes up the jury that decides what's productive and what isn't?  Why should any group believe its members are in a position to claim superiority over another?  People could belong to multiple "religions" based on the ideas supported -- but not overtly promoted -- by that faith.  Anonymity wouldn't *need* to be a requirement, though probably there would emerge a greater sense of group unity if the roster of the in-group is known only by the in-group itself.  Kind of along the same lines as, "The first rule of Fight Club is that you don't talk about Fight Club."

On cruises, a daily list of activities is distributed to passengers to make them aware of the goings-on on the ship.  A couple of months ago, I saw that every day at 5:00, there was an activity called "Friends of Bill and Lois."  Being that there were lots of older people on the ship, I thought to myself, "How come Bill and Lois get their own slot in the announcements?  Why don't other people get to advertise for their friends? Is this some special family reunion or something?"  I promptly found out, however, that it stands for Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, meetings that would cease to be anonymous if advertised so directly on a ship in open seas, with no place for people to go in search of anonymity.  I was confused as to how the names Bill and Lois were chosen and, furthermore, how everyone who wanted to participate would know what that meant.  Was there someone on the ship named Lois who might see that and think that someone was throwing a surprise party in her (and Bill's, whoever that is) honor?  It turned out, though, that Bill and Lois were actually real people (not on the ship).  Bill W. was the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous and Lois was his wife, who founded Al-Anon, an organization that offers support to friends and family of alcoholics.  I did not attend any of these meetings on the ship, so unfortunately, I cannot comment on the nature of them.  Nor would I even if I had -- not in detail, anyway -- because that would defeat the purpose of the anonymity.  At the same time, maybe it is this "don't ask, don't tell" approach that preserves the sanctity and the goals -- both individual and collective -- of the group and its members, people who actively try to better themselves and improve the lives of those around them.  Why can't everyone live by the same principles, striving to achieve goodness in the world and in themselves?  Maybe then, we might all get along?

A temporary "solution" to an ever-present problem

The other day, in the midst of all of the recent Haiti chaos [disclaimer: many of these images are graphic], I happened to catch a news segment on TV discussing the idea that Haitians should be granted temporary legal status in the United States. It would be for 12 to 18 months, and after that, they would have to return to Haiti. One caller -- an unemployed man from Middle America -- vehemently opposed that the offer even be extended. He said that he has been without work for two years, and if all of those Haitians were to come to the U.S., then "they would be taking away the jobs that currently aren't even here for the American citizens." While I do see what the guy is saying, I don't really agree: if jobs are available at all, then any qualified person should be eligible for hiring.

My main issue with making this generous offer to Haitians affected by the earthquake (which would likely be more Haitians than fewer) is that, essentially, the U.S. is waiting for disaster to strike before lending a hand to those in need. I realize that the U.S. isn't big enough for everyone in the world to emigrate here (though wouldn't that make international travel cheaper? hmm..), but I do think everyone should be given a fair chance. During the Civil War in El Salvador, which took place between 1980 and 1992, many people received permission to emigrate to the United States, just as they should have. Likewise, after Hurricane Mitch occurred in 1998, Hondurans and Nicaraguans received similar privileges. While I agree with Obama's decision to provide Haitians with this temporary solution, I wonder why immigrants from elsewhere (that is, from places besides Haiti) who have independently taken it upon themselves to flee their respective countries are not afforded the same opportunity.

The main source of income for El Salvador is remittances, or money sent back from friends and family in the United States. Prices of goods there are not drastically different from those in the United States, but the salaries that some people earn in one year are much less than many Americans make in a week. Why, then, do these "temporary solutions" have to follow natural disasters and tragedy? Nearly half of the people in the world -- more than three billion people -- live on less than $2.50 a day. Almost a billion people entered the 21st century without knowing how to read or write. What these statistics suggest [not even suggest but, rather, demand] is that the world lend its support before matters get worse. Maybe countries could grant temporary status to applicants who can demonstrate that they will contribute in some way to the American economy (thereby enabling the same opportunity to be available to others). If, after however long, the recipients have not established themselves as productive residents, then their status could be reviewed and reconsidered.

The United States is fortunate to have such plentiful opportunities, high standards, and a notable caliber of excellence to go along with all of it. Of course, while many within the U.S. borders lack the resources (both financial and otherwise) to be successful, that does not mean that the chance to better the country -- and, therefore, the rest of the world -- should be denied to those born on different soil. It all boils down to the transitive property: if the U.S. helps immigrants, and those immigrants help their families in their own countries, then the U.S. is helping those other countries by arming the immigrants with the skills to succeed, rather than by merely sending money. Sounds to me that by being more accepting of immigration, the U.S. would essentially be hosting a work program yielding lifelong benefits for everyone. There is, after all, no substitute for education. Is it the kids' fault that quality of education in many places is not enforced and, thus, they will grow up even more uneducated than the generations of people that preceded them? Perhaps it is the world leaders who have not done their jobs effectively and need help in order to equalize the playing field.

I have often heard the phrase that "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link." How do you explain, then, how those proverbial stronger links try to maximize their power without helping to increase that of the weaker links? Isn't it true that if part of a chain is weak and breaks, then the whole chain is divided? While we're on the proverb train, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." In other words, if the U.S. were to help other "individuals" to succeed, then I firmly believe the world would be a stronger entity -- both as a whole and as individual parts. And oh, while I'm at it, since I've never been (and never will be) part of some cheesy beauty pageant, I suppose this would be my moment to push for world peace. So, come on, everyone and give yourself and those around you a push for world peace. Just make sure you push the right people and you push them hard.