Still more randomness
1. I've been thinking some more about yesterday's post and how Americans tend to use resources very inefficiently (at best) or simply waste them in obscene amounts (all too commmon). Recently in Sri Lanka, there have been increasing numbers of clashes between the government and Tamil rebels, with each side accusing the other of trying to restart the civil war there. Its hard to tell what is really going on with this, but the primary conflict has centered around a resoivor and the needs of nearby farmers for reliable access to water. I can't help wondering if water, something we tend to take for granted to such an extent in America, will increasingly be the focal point of armed conflict. That is quite an astounding thing when you really stop to think about it--something that all too few people actually do.
2. Another thought on the same line: It occurs to me that I've been getting quite an education in the practical side of political questions lately. I had the luxury of a lot of time to spend on theory, but the thing is, most questions about resources are political and these questions tend to be very basic. Not so much about things like abstract theories of governance, but basics like food, water, energy, jobs, and transportation. After the victory of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over the reformer Hashemi Rafsanjani in the most recent Iranian elections, many analysts discussed how Ahmadinejad's campaign focused a great deal of attention on issues such as helping the poor. The reformers, on the other hand, after Khatami's long term as president, had little to show as far as actually improving people's daily lives. In the end, that counted more than all the promises of the reformers, in spite of the large numbers of Iranians who were fed up with rule by the clerics. I think there has to be a lesson there for progressive movements around the world. Americans tend to not see how politics affects their daily lives. But perhaps that is because Americans have the luxury of taking so much for granted, where the rest of the world does not.
3. I can't help but feel hopeless most of the time about the news out of Iraq and the tragedy of how Iraqi society has become caught between so many different groups that consider violence their only means to their objective. But there does seem to be a small glimmer of hope in the creation of the Iraqi Freedom Congress (IFC), which bills itself as the secular resistance to American occupation. Although the IFC is of course opposed to the American occupation, they do not seem to be opposed to America itself and in fact, in one recent interview, Samir Adil, co-founder and president of IFC, expresses a lot of sympathy with the goals of the US anti-war movement and urges that movement to look beyond the current situation and toward the creation of a truly worldwide human progressive movement. In fact, the beliefs of the IFC seem to be not all that different from those America was founded on: the building of a progressive secular society that expresses a diversity of views and the right of everyone to live in peace and security.
Of course, I don't expect to ever hear the U.S. media report much about a faction of the Iraqi resistance, since the media seems quite content to go along with the government's line that all resistance to American occupation amounts to terrorism. But I would urge everyone to take a look at this interview (its quite lengthy). For me, I found the words of Samir Adil very uplifting and inspiring and not at all different from the true American ideal. In googling more information about the IFC, I also found an enlightening interview by another IFC cofounder, Houzan Mahmoud, who also co-founded the Iraqi Women's Rights Coalition.
**NOTE: Readers should not confuse the Iraqi Freedom Congress (IFC), with the organization I work with locally in Chapel Hill which is also called IFC. Our local organization's acronym stands for Interfaith Council for Social Service. I'll try to make sure to be very obvious in distinguishing the two in future posts.
4. Speaking of poverty and the effect of politics on people's daily lives: In case anyone has been keeping track, there has been a total of $31,600 in Congressional pay raises since the last minimum wage increase (which came in 1997 and has long been wiped out in real terms by inflation).
2. Another thought on the same line: It occurs to me that I've been getting quite an education in the practical side of political questions lately. I had the luxury of a lot of time to spend on theory, but the thing is, most questions about resources are political and these questions tend to be very basic. Not so much about things like abstract theories of governance, but basics like food, water, energy, jobs, and transportation. After the victory of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over the reformer Hashemi Rafsanjani in the most recent Iranian elections, many analysts discussed how Ahmadinejad's campaign focused a great deal of attention on issues such as helping the poor. The reformers, on the other hand, after Khatami's long term as president, had little to show as far as actually improving people's daily lives. In the end, that counted more than all the promises of the reformers, in spite of the large numbers of Iranians who were fed up with rule by the clerics. I think there has to be a lesson there for progressive movements around the world. Americans tend to not see how politics affects their daily lives. But perhaps that is because Americans have the luxury of taking so much for granted, where the rest of the world does not.
3. I can't help but feel hopeless most of the time about the news out of Iraq and the tragedy of how Iraqi society has become caught between so many different groups that consider violence their only means to their objective. But there does seem to be a small glimmer of hope in the creation of the Iraqi Freedom Congress (IFC), which bills itself as the secular resistance to American occupation. Although the IFC is of course opposed to the American occupation, they do not seem to be opposed to America itself and in fact, in one recent interview, Samir Adil, co-founder and president of IFC, expresses a lot of sympathy with the goals of the US anti-war movement and urges that movement to look beyond the current situation and toward the creation of a truly worldwide human progressive movement. In fact, the beliefs of the IFC seem to be not all that different from those America was founded on: the building of a progressive secular society that expresses a diversity of views and the right of everyone to live in peace and security.
Of course, I don't expect to ever hear the U.S. media report much about a faction of the Iraqi resistance, since the media seems quite content to go along with the government's line that all resistance to American occupation amounts to terrorism. But I would urge everyone to take a look at this interview (its quite lengthy). For me, I found the words of Samir Adil very uplifting and inspiring and not at all different from the true American ideal. In googling more information about the IFC, I also found an enlightening interview by another IFC cofounder, Houzan Mahmoud, who also co-founded the Iraqi Women's Rights Coalition.
**NOTE: Readers should not confuse the Iraqi Freedom Congress (IFC), with the organization I work with locally in Chapel Hill which is also called IFC. Our local organization's acronym stands for Interfaith Council for Social Service. I'll try to make sure to be very obvious in distinguishing the two in future posts.
4. Speaking of poverty and the effect of politics on people's daily lives: In case anyone has been keeping track, there has been a total of $31,600 in Congressional pay raises since the last minimum wage increase (which came in 1997 and has long been wiped out in real terms by inflation).