Detroit's Ghetto
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Pay it Forward
From "Entitlement or Etiquette"
A kind, giving, openhearted and openhanded attitude puts you in the mindset of being generous, whether in expressing thankfulness to others or in giving of yourself to others when the occasion arises. The beauty of developing such an attitude is that the benefits move in two directions. When you’re generous, it benefits those that you are thankful for or who you’re helping, and at the same time it benefits you. When you bless others, you are blessed. When you give, you receive.[3] When you help others, others help you.
Here’s a beautiful story which illustrates that principle.
One day a man saw an old lady, stranded on the side of the road, but even in the dim light of day, he could see that she needed help. So he pulled up in front of her Mercedes and got out. His Pontiac was still sputtering when he approached her.
Even with the smile on his face, she was worried. No one had stopped to help her for at least an hour or so. Was he going to hurt her? He didn't look safe; he looked poor and hungry. He could see that she was frightened, standing out there in the cold. He knew how she felt. It was those chills which only fear can put in you. He said, "I'm here to help you, ma'am. Why don't you wait in the car where it's warm? By the way, my name is Bryan Anderson."
Well, all she had was a flat tire, but for an old lady, that was bad enough. Bryan crawled under the car looking for a place to put the jack, skinning his knuckles a time or two. Soon he was able to change the tire. But he had to get dirty and his hands hurt.
As he was tightening up the lug nuts, she rolled down the window and began to talk to him. She said that she was from St. Louis and was only just passing through, and she couldn't thank him enough for coming to her aid.
Bryan just smiled as he closed the trunk. The lady asked him how much she owed him. Any amount would have been all right with her. She already imagined all the awful things that could have happened had he not stopped. Bryan never thought twice about being paid. This was not a job to him. He was helping someone in need, and God knows there were plenty who had given him a hand in the past. He had lived his whole life this way, and it never occurred to him to act in any other way.
He told her that if she really wanted to pay him back, the next time she saw someone who needed help, she could give that person the assistance they needed, and Bryan added, "Think of me." He waited until she started her car and drove off. It had been a cold and depressing day, but he felt good as he headed home, disappearing into the twilight.
A few miles down the road the lady saw a small café. She went in to grab a bite to eat, and to take the chill off before she made the last leg of her journey home. It was a dingy-looking restaurant. Outside were two old gas pumps. The whole scene was unfamiliar to her. The waitress came over and brought a clean towel to wipe her wet hair. She had a sweet smile, one that even being on her feet for the whole day couldn't erase. The lady noticed the waitress was nearly eight months pregnant, but she never let the strain of the aches and pains change her attitude. The old lady wondered how someone who had so little could be so giving to a stranger, and then she remembered Bryan.
After the lady finished her meal, she paid with a hundred dollar bill. The waitress quickly went to get change for her hundred dollar bill, but the old lady had slipped right out the door. She was gone by the time the waitress got back. The waitress wondered where the lady could have gone. Then she noticed something written on the napkin.
There were tears in her eyes when she read what the lady wrote: "You don't owe me anything. I have been there too. Somebody once helped me out, the way that I'm helping you. If you really want to pay me back, here is what you can do: Do not let this chain of love end with you."
Under the napkin were four more $100 bills.
Well, there were tables to clear, sugar bowls to fill, and people to serve, but the waitress made it through another day. That night when she got home from work and climbed into bed, she was thinking about the money and what the lady had written. How had the lady known how much she and her husband needed it? With the baby due next month, it was going to be really hard.
She knew how worried her husband was, and as he lay sleeping next to her, she gave him a soft kiss and whispered soft and low, "Everything's going to be all right. I love you, Bryan Anderson." (Author Unknown)
Isn’t that beautiful?
We are the beneficiaries of Jesus’ giving of Himself. Because He gave, we have received. His call to us is to give to others, to give Him, and to give of ourselves. We’re called to emulate Him, and part of that is becoming more like Him in our interaction with others. We’re called to be loving—to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to do to others what we would want them to do to us,[4] and this includes being generous with our appreciation, and finding the right ways of expressing it so that others know that we are thankful for their efforts, and their hospitality, and their giving. It also means showing love through giving of ourselves, through helping those in need. It means being open to giving our time and resources to help those whom God has brought across our path. God is loving, merciful, and compassionate.
Jesus was the incarnation of the attributes of God. He showed us what God is like, through the life He lived on earth. We emulate God’s love and compassion when we develop a generous attitude. And when we do, we put a face on God. People see the love and care, the generosity of spirit, the thankful and grateful hearts that we as Christians have, and when they do, they are getting a glimpse of the nature and character of God.
We’re called to bring Jesus to others, and one of the most powerful ways to do so is to let His light shine through us in the love we show and in the loving actions we perform. It’s the face of Christianity because it’s the face of Christ.
The Gifts of the Spirit, Part 2
The Heart of It All: The Holy Spirit
This article is a continuation of the brief explanations of the various gifts of the Spirit which began in Part 1.
Distinguishing Between Spirits
Distinguishing between spirits is a gift of the Spirit which is mentioned only once in the New Testament. This gift is the ability to recognize the presence or influence of the Holy Spirit, or of a demonic spirit, in a person’s life.[1] In 1 John we are told to test the spirits to see if they are from God or not.
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.[2]
Besides distinguishing between good and evil spirits, this gift can also be used to distinguish between types of evil spirits. Biblical examples include spirits of disability, divination, deafness and muteness, and of error.[3]
He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath. And there was a woman who had had a disabling spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not fully straighten herself. When Jesus saw her, He called her over and said to her, “Woman, you are freed from your disability.”[4]
As we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners much gain by fortune-telling … Paul, having become greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour.[5]
When Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.”[6]
Tongues and Interpretation
The gift of tongues was first manifested on the day of Pentecost, when the apostles—all Jews, and mostly Galileans—were filled with the Spirit and spoke in other tongues. There is no scriptural evidence that speaking in tongues occurred before the day of Pentecost.
They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.[7]
In this instance, the apostles were speaking in tongues, and those present, who were from all over the known world, heard what the apostles were saying in their own language. Generally speaking, this manner of speaking in tongues and others understanding what was being spoken was rare. While throughout history there may have been other instances similar to this one, from what we know of recorded history, it was not a normal occurrence.
Paul had and wrote about the gift of tongues. He used this gift often and expressed that point by saying he used it more than all the members of the Corinthian church to whom he was writing. At the same time he counselled the believers about their use of tongues in their meetings, due to the fact that when one speaks in tongues, others do not understand what is being said.
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.[8]
One who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.[9]
Paul writes about the use of tongues in a united praise or worship session with other believers, and about its use by individuals in private prayer.
When used in a praise or worship setting, Paul explains that it’s best to not speak in tongues unless there is someone present who can interpret them; because with an interpretation of what is being said, the assembly is edified, whereas if there is no interpretation of the tongues, those listening aren’t.
Author Wayne Grudem defines speaking in tongues as follows:
Speaking in tongues is prayer or praise spoken in syllables not understood by the speaker.[10]
As the verse quoted above says, the person who speaks in tongues usually speaks to God, which would mean that tongues is most often a means of prayer or praise to the Lord. When one prays in tongues, their spirit prays and communicates directly with God, even though the individual doesn’t understand what is being said, as they are bypassing their mind and understanding.
If I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don't understand what I am saying.[11]
When we pray and praise in tongues, we are personally edified.
One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.[12]
I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.[13]
Praying in tongues individually edifies those who use this gift, and it edifies the church when there is someone to interpret the tongues. The apostle Paul obviously thought it was important and encouraged its use.
Now I want you all to speak in tongues …[14]
Teaching
The gift of teaching is the ability to explain Scripture and the godly principles, knowledge, and wisdom found in Scripture, and help people apply these to their lives.[15] In the New Testament there are examples of people teaching others God’s Word, and exhortations to do so.
Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.[16]
[Paul] stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.[17]
Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.[18]
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.[19]
Teaching the Word and its application in one’s life is a key element in making disciples. When speaking of going into the world and making disciples, Jesus spoke of teaching them. After the day of Pentecost, we see that the apostles were teaching the new converts, in obedience to what Jesus had said.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.[20]
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.[21]
The gift of teaching is crucial to sharing the faith with those we win to the Lord, to grounding them in their faith and helping them to become disciples. It’s important to have knowledge and understanding regarding one’s faith, and those with the Spirit-given ability to read and study, and then to teach, offer a great service to those who are hungry to learn and become disciples. Teaching helps change lives as it brings better understanding of the Bible and how to apply it.
Not much is said about the following gifts, but they are mentioned in the various lists given in the New Testament.
Administration
The gift of administration is included in the list of gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:28. Various translations render the original Greek word as governments, managing, administrating, orforms of leadership. This gift can be seen as the ability and anointing to govern or manage the affairs of the church, to plan, organize, and implement the work that needs to be done so as to accomplish tasks and reach goals.
Helping
The gift of helps is the ability to help others in a variety of ways. In a church, fellowship group, or witnessing ministry, it is often seen in those who are especially gifted in offering assistance in a variety of practical ways. People with this gift are invaluable and are often the unsung heroes, those who do the hands-on, behind-the-scenes work that is the backbone of every work of God. They have a joy in doing whatever is necessary to assist in the Lord’s work.
Evangelizing
Every Christian is called to share the Gospel with others and is empowered to do so by the Holy Spirit, so every Christian is equipped to evangelize to some extent.
While all Christians can and should evangelize, some are called to make evangelization their ministry and are given the gift of evangelizing or specific power and effectiveness in sharing the message of salvation with others. In the early church, when a great deal of preaching the Gospel was being done, those who were especially gifted by the Holy Spirit to evangelize were seen as evangelists.
On the next day we departed and came to Caesarea, and we entered the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, and stayed with him.[22]
A Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures … he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.[23]
The gift of evangelism isn’t limited to those whose calling is to become an evangelist or a full-time witness. It is seen in those who have a Spirit-given ability to share the Gospel in specific types of situations or in different or unusual ways—such as witnessing to large crowds, or through music or skits. Some excel in witnessing one on one to the people they meet. Some have a particular gift for witnessing to certain types of people, such as young people, gang members, or the elderly. For some, this gift is seen in their desire to minister to those of other cultures, to be missionaries in foreign lands. The gift of evangelizing goes hand in hand with the Great Commission of winning others to the Lord.
Serving
Serving can be understood in different ways. One is in showing hospitality to others, such as in opening your home to those in need of lodging, food, or fellowship. It’s showing love through making others feel welcomed, valued, and cared about. People with this gift can cause others to feel at ease, to feel loved and secure. They have the ability to make newcomers to a fellowship or community feel comfortable and accepted.
Another way to see this gift is being in or putting oneself into a role of serving others in God’s work. It is the gift of a willingness to gladly accept a role that isn’t at the forefront, but rather is one that serves in a behind-the-scenes manner. One’s desire is to serve rather than be served, to help in any way necessary; there is a willingness to do the humble but crucial jobs.
Contributing or Giving
In Romans 12:8, when writing about the gifts, Paul mentions “the one who contributes.” This gift of the Spirit is a gift of giving, of generosity. It is the motivation to share your material resources with others in order to further God’s work. It has to do with giving beyond a tithe by giving gifts and offerings, by helping fellow Christians and others who are in need, such as the poor and needy. It’s giving unselfishly, often anonymously, in a manner that helps others and glorifies the Lord.
Leadership
The gift of leadership enables men and women to lead others through the setting of goals which are in alignment with God’s desires, and to communicate these goals in a manner which motivates others to work together toward reaching them. Leaders inspire through articulating a vision; they stir the hearts of those who feel called to serve the Lord. They are able to inspire others to do their best in God’s service, to work hard to achieve the collective goals.
Mercy
The gift of mercy is the ability to feel compassion and empathy for those who suffer and to take action to relieve their suffering. Those with this gift often feel called to minister by visiting the sick, the elderly, those in prisons, the shut-ins. They are often able to comfort the grieving, those who have lost loved ones. They minister to those in need through their help and love, by transforming their compassion into action as they work to alleviate the pain others suffer. They are a good reflection of the love and compassion of God.
Closing Points
The degree to which a person exercises the gifts of the Spirit can grow stronger or weaker over a person’s lifetime. Once a gift is given, it often takes time for the recipient to develop it and strengthen it by using it. When speaking of the gift of prophecy, Paul referred to using it in proportion to our faith.[24] This indicates that spiritual gifts can be more or less developed in different individuals.[25] Paul also wrote about not neglecting one’s gift,[26]and about rekindling the gift,[27] which shows that a gift can weaken through disuse.
The gifts are given to each one according to how the Spirit wills.[28] Therefore, not everyone has the same gifts. This was expressed by the apostle Paul, who wrote:
Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?[29]
The way the Greek text is written, the expectation is that each question will be answered with a no. Not all have the gifts of healing, or speak with tongues, or are prophets, etc. The gifts are given according to the will of the Holy Spirit.
The gifts of the Spirit are given to us as Christians to help in our witness, in our spiritual lives, and in the strengthening of the spiritual community—the church, fellowship, or mission work to which we belong. The Holy Spirit dwells in believers, and the gifts are a manifestation of the Spirit in our lives. They are the Spirit of God working within us for our benefit and that of others. Having been given such precious gifts, it is up to us to allow God’s Spirit to be manifested in our lives. We should use them, stir them up within ourselves, and not neglect them.
[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 1082.
[2] 1 John 4:1.
[3] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1082.
[4] Luke 13:10–12.
[5] Acts 16:16–18.
[6] Mark 9:25.
[7] Acts 2:4.
[8] 1 Corinthians 14:18.
[9] 1 Corinthians 14:2.
[10] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1070.
[11] 1 Corinthians 14:14 NLT.
[12] 1 Corinthians 14:4 NAU.
[13] 1 Corinthians 14:15.
[14] 1 Corinthians 14:5.
[15] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1061.
[16] Acts 15:35.
[17] Acts 18:11.
[18] Romans 15:4.
[19] 2 Timothy 3:16.
[20] Matthew 28:19–20.
[21] Acts 2:42.
[22] Acts 21:8.
[23] Acts 18:24, 27–28.
[24] Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith (Romans 12:6).
[25] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1022.
[26] Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you (1 Timothy 4:14).
[27] For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands (2 Timothy 1:6 NASB).
[28] All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills (1 Corinthians 12:11).
[29] 1 Corinthians 12:29–30.
Monday, August 12, 2013
George Saunders's Advice to Graduates
By Joel Lovell, NY Times, July 31, 2013
It’s long past graduation season, but we recently learned that George Saunders delivered the convocation speech at Syracuse University for the class of 2013, and George was kind enough to send it our way and allow us to reprint it here. The speech is well worth reading, and is included below.
Down through the ages, a traditional form has evolved for this type of speech, which is: Some old fart, his best years behind him, who, over the course of his life, has made a series of dreadful mistakes (that would be me), gives heartfelt advice to a group of shining, energetic young people, with all of their best years ahead of them (that would be you).
And I intend to respect that tradition.
Now, one useful thing you can do with an old person, in addition to borrowing money from them, or asking them to do one of their old-time “dances,” so you can watch, while laughing, is ask: “Looking back, what do you regret?” And they’ll tell you. Sometimes, as you know, they’ll tell you even if you haven’t asked. Sometimes, even when you’ve specifically requested they not tell you, they’ll tell you.
So: What do I regret? Being poor from time to time? Not really. Working terrible jobs, like “knuckle-puller in a slaughterhouse?” (And don’t even ASK what that entails.) No. I don’t regret that. Skinny-dipping in a river in Sumatra, a little buzzed, and looking up and seeing like 300 monkeys sitting on a pipeline, pooping down into the river, the river in which I was swimming, with my mouth open, naked? And getting deathly ill afterwards, and staying sick for the next seven months? Not so much. Do I regret the occasional humiliation? Like once, playing hockey in front of a big crowd, including this girl I really liked, I somehow managed, while falling and emitting this weird whooping noise, to score on my own goalie, while also sending my stick flying into the crowd, nearly hitting that girl? No. I don’t even regret that.
But here’s something I do regret:
In seventh grade, this new kid joined our class. In the interest of confidentiality, her Convocation Speech name will be “ELLEN.” ELLEN was small, shy. She wore these blue cat’s-eye glasses that, at the time, only old ladies wore. When nervous, which was pretty much always, she had a habit of taking a strand of hair into her mouth and chewing on it.
So she came to our school and our neighborhood, and was mostly ignored, occasionally teased (“Your hair taste good?”—that sort of thing). I could see this hurt her. I still remember the way she’d look after such an insult: eyes cast down, a little gut-kicked, as if, having just been reminded of her place in things, she was trying, as much as possible, to disappear. After a while she’d drift away, hair-strand still in her mouth. At home, I imagined, after school, her mother would say, you know: “How was your day, sweetie?” and she’d say, “Oh, fine.” And her mother would say, “Making any friends?” and she’d go, “Sure, lots.”
Sometimes I’d see her hanging around alone in her front yard, as if afraid to leave it.
And then—they moved. That was it. No tragedy, no big final hazing.
One day she was there, next day she wasn’t.
End of story.
Now, why do I regret that? Why, forty-two years later, am I still thinking about it? Relative to most of the other kids, I was actually pretty nice to her. I never said an unkind word to her. In fact, I sometimes even (mildly) defended her.
But still. It bothers me.
So here’s something I know to be true, although it’s a little corny, and I don’t quite know what to do with it:
What I regret most in my life are failures of kindness.
Those moments when another human being was there, in front of me, suffering, and I responded…sensibly. Reservedly. Mildly.
Or, to look at it from the other end of the telescope: Who, in your life, do you remember most fondly, with the most undeniable feelings of warmth?
Those who were kindest to you, I bet.
It’s a little facile, maybe, and certainly hard to implement, but I’d say, as a goal in life, you could do worse than: Try to be kinder.
Now, the million-dollar question: What’s our problem? Why aren’t we kinder?
Here’s what I think:
Each of us is born with a series of built-in confusions: (1) we’re central to the universe (that is, our personal story is the main and most interesting story, the only story, really); (2) we’re separate from the universe (there’s US and then, out there, all that other junk—dogs and swing-sets, and the State of Nebraska and low-hanging clouds and, you know, other people), and (3) we’re permanent (death is real, o.k., sure—for you, but not for me).
Now, we don’t really believe these things—intellectually we know better—but we believe them viscerally, and live by them, and they cause us to prioritize our own needs over the needs of others, even though what we really want, in our hearts, is to be less selfish, more aware of what’s actually happening in the present moment, more open, and more loving.
So, the second million-dollar question: How might we DO this? How might we become more loving, more open, less selfish, more present, less delusional, etc., etc.?
Well, yes, good question.
Unfortunately, I only have three minutes left.
So let me just say this. There are ways. You already know that because, in your life, there have been High Kindness periods and Low Kindness periods, and you know what inclined you toward the former and away from the latter. Education is good; immersing ourselves in a work of art: good; prayer is good; meditation’s good; a frank talk with a dear friend; establishing ourselves in some kind of spiritual tradition—recognizing that there have been countless really smart people before us who have asked these same questions and left behind answers for us.
Because kindness, it turns out, is hard—it starts out all rainbows and puppy dogs, and expands to include…well, everything.
One thing in our favor: some of this “becoming kinder” happens naturally, with age. It might be a simple matter of attrition: as we get older, we come to see how useless it is to be selfish—how illogical, really. We come to love other people and are thereby counter-instructed in our own centrality. We get our butts kicked by real life, and people come to our defense, and help us, and we learn that we’re not separate, and don’t want to be. We see people near and dear to us dropping away, and are gradually convinced that maybe we too will drop away (someday, a long time from now). Most people, as they age, become less selfish and more loving. I think this is true. The great Syracuse poet, Hayden Carruth, said, in a poem written near the end of his life, that he was “mostly Love, now.”
And so, a prediction, and my heartfelt wish for you: as you get older, your self will diminish and you will grow in love. YOU will gradually be replaced by LOVE. If you have kids, that will be a huge moment in your process of self-diminishment. You really won’t care what happens to YOU, as long as they benefit. That’s one reason your parents are so proud and happy today. One of their fondest dreams has come true: you have accomplished something difficult and tangible that has enlarged you as a person and will make your life better, from here on in, forever.
Congratulations, by the way.
When young, we’re anxious—understandably—to find out if we’ve got what it takes. Can we succeed? Can we build a viable life for ourselves? But you—in particular you, of this generation—may have noticed a certain cyclical quality to ambition. You do well in high-school, in hopes of getting into a good college, so you can do well in the good college, in the hopes of getting a good job, so you can do well in the good job so you can….
And this is actually O.K. If we’re going to become kinder, that process has to include taking ourselves seriously—as doers, as accomplishers, as dreamers. We have to do that, to be our best selves.
Still, accomplishment is unreliable. “Succeeding,” whatever that might mean to you, is hard, and the need to do so constantly renews itself (success is like a mountain that keeps growing ahead of you as you hike it), and there’s the very real danger that “succeeding” will take up your whole life, while the big questions go untended.
So, quick, end-of-speech advice: Since, according to me, your life is going to be a gradual process of becoming kinder and more loving: Hurry up. Speed it along. Start right now. There’s a confusion in each of us, a sickness, really: selfishness. But there’s also a cure. So be a good and proactive and even somewhat desperate patient on your own behalf—seek out the most efficacious anti-selfishness medicines, energetically, for the rest of your life.
Do all the other things, the ambitious things—travel, get rich, get famous, innovate, lead, fall in love, make and lose fortunes, swim naked in wild jungle rivers (after first having it tested for monkey poop)—but as you do, to the extent that you can, err in the direction of kindness. Do those things that incline you toward the big questions, and avoid the things that would reduce you and make you trivial. That luminous part of you that exists beyond personality—your soul, if you will—is as bright and shining as any that has ever been. Bright as Shakespeare’s, bright as Gandhi’s, bright as Mother Theresa’s. Clear away everything that keeps you separate from this secret luminous place. Believe it exists, come to know it better, nurture it, share its fruits tirelessly.
And someday, in 80 years, when you’re 100, and I’m 134, and we’re both so kind and loving we’re nearly unbearable, drop me a line, let me know how your life has been. I hope you will say: It has been so wonderful.
It’s long past graduation season, but we recently learned that George Saunders delivered the convocation speech at Syracuse University for the class of 2013, and George was kind enough to send it our way and allow us to reprint it here. The speech is well worth reading, and is included below.
Down through the ages, a traditional form has evolved for this type of speech, which is: Some old fart, his best years behind him, who, over the course of his life, has made a series of dreadful mistakes (that would be me), gives heartfelt advice to a group of shining, energetic young people, with all of their best years ahead of them (that would be you).
And I intend to respect that tradition.
Now, one useful thing you can do with an old person, in addition to borrowing money from them, or asking them to do one of their old-time “dances,” so you can watch, while laughing, is ask: “Looking back, what do you regret?” And they’ll tell you. Sometimes, as you know, they’ll tell you even if you haven’t asked. Sometimes, even when you’ve specifically requested they not tell you, they’ll tell you.
So: What do I regret? Being poor from time to time? Not really. Working terrible jobs, like “knuckle-puller in a slaughterhouse?” (And don’t even ASK what that entails.) No. I don’t regret that. Skinny-dipping in a river in Sumatra, a little buzzed, and looking up and seeing like 300 monkeys sitting on a pipeline, pooping down into the river, the river in which I was swimming, with my mouth open, naked? And getting deathly ill afterwards, and staying sick for the next seven months? Not so much. Do I regret the occasional humiliation? Like once, playing hockey in front of a big crowd, including this girl I really liked, I somehow managed, while falling and emitting this weird whooping noise, to score on my own goalie, while also sending my stick flying into the crowd, nearly hitting that girl? No. I don’t even regret that.
But here’s something I do regret:
In seventh grade, this new kid joined our class. In the interest of confidentiality, her Convocation Speech name will be “ELLEN.” ELLEN was small, shy. She wore these blue cat’s-eye glasses that, at the time, only old ladies wore. When nervous, which was pretty much always, she had a habit of taking a strand of hair into her mouth and chewing on it.
So she came to our school and our neighborhood, and was mostly ignored, occasionally teased (“Your hair taste good?”—that sort of thing). I could see this hurt her. I still remember the way she’d look after such an insult: eyes cast down, a little gut-kicked, as if, having just been reminded of her place in things, she was trying, as much as possible, to disappear. After a while she’d drift away, hair-strand still in her mouth. At home, I imagined, after school, her mother would say, you know: “How was your day, sweetie?” and she’d say, “Oh, fine.” And her mother would say, “Making any friends?” and she’d go, “Sure, lots.”
Sometimes I’d see her hanging around alone in her front yard, as if afraid to leave it.
And then—they moved. That was it. No tragedy, no big final hazing.
One day she was there, next day she wasn’t.
End of story.
Now, why do I regret that? Why, forty-two years later, am I still thinking about it? Relative to most of the other kids, I was actually pretty nice to her. I never said an unkind word to her. In fact, I sometimes even (mildly) defended her.
But still. It bothers me.
So here’s something I know to be true, although it’s a little corny, and I don’t quite know what to do with it:
What I regret most in my life are failures of kindness.
Those moments when another human being was there, in front of me, suffering, and I responded…sensibly. Reservedly. Mildly.
Or, to look at it from the other end of the telescope: Who, in your life, do you remember most fondly, with the most undeniable feelings of warmth?
Those who were kindest to you, I bet.
It’s a little facile, maybe, and certainly hard to implement, but I’d say, as a goal in life, you could do worse than: Try to be kinder.
Now, the million-dollar question: What’s our problem? Why aren’t we kinder?
Here’s what I think:
Each of us is born with a series of built-in confusions: (1) we’re central to the universe (that is, our personal story is the main and most interesting story, the only story, really); (2) we’re separate from the universe (there’s US and then, out there, all that other junk—dogs and swing-sets, and the State of Nebraska and low-hanging clouds and, you know, other people), and (3) we’re permanent (death is real, o.k., sure—for you, but not for me).
Now, we don’t really believe these things—intellectually we know better—but we believe them viscerally, and live by them, and they cause us to prioritize our own needs over the needs of others, even though what we really want, in our hearts, is to be less selfish, more aware of what’s actually happening in the present moment, more open, and more loving.
So, the second million-dollar question: How might we DO this? How might we become more loving, more open, less selfish, more present, less delusional, etc., etc.?
Well, yes, good question.
Unfortunately, I only have three minutes left.
So let me just say this. There are ways. You already know that because, in your life, there have been High Kindness periods and Low Kindness periods, and you know what inclined you toward the former and away from the latter. Education is good; immersing ourselves in a work of art: good; prayer is good; meditation’s good; a frank talk with a dear friend; establishing ourselves in some kind of spiritual tradition—recognizing that there have been countless really smart people before us who have asked these same questions and left behind answers for us.
Because kindness, it turns out, is hard—it starts out all rainbows and puppy dogs, and expands to include…well, everything.
One thing in our favor: some of this “becoming kinder” happens naturally, with age. It might be a simple matter of attrition: as we get older, we come to see how useless it is to be selfish—how illogical, really. We come to love other people and are thereby counter-instructed in our own centrality. We get our butts kicked by real life, and people come to our defense, and help us, and we learn that we’re not separate, and don’t want to be. We see people near and dear to us dropping away, and are gradually convinced that maybe we too will drop away (someday, a long time from now). Most people, as they age, become less selfish and more loving. I think this is true. The great Syracuse poet, Hayden Carruth, said, in a poem written near the end of his life, that he was “mostly Love, now.”
And so, a prediction, and my heartfelt wish for you: as you get older, your self will diminish and you will grow in love. YOU will gradually be replaced by LOVE. If you have kids, that will be a huge moment in your process of self-diminishment. You really won’t care what happens to YOU, as long as they benefit. That’s one reason your parents are so proud and happy today. One of their fondest dreams has come true: you have accomplished something difficult and tangible that has enlarged you as a person and will make your life better, from here on in, forever.
Congratulations, by the way.
When young, we’re anxious—understandably—to find out if we’ve got what it takes. Can we succeed? Can we build a viable life for ourselves? But you—in particular you, of this generation—may have noticed a certain cyclical quality to ambition. You do well in high-school, in hopes of getting into a good college, so you can do well in the good college, in the hopes of getting a good job, so you can do well in the good job so you can….
And this is actually O.K. If we’re going to become kinder, that process has to include taking ourselves seriously—as doers, as accomplishers, as dreamers. We have to do that, to be our best selves.
Still, accomplishment is unreliable. “Succeeding,” whatever that might mean to you, is hard, and the need to do so constantly renews itself (success is like a mountain that keeps growing ahead of you as you hike it), and there’s the very real danger that “succeeding” will take up your whole life, while the big questions go untended.
So, quick, end-of-speech advice: Since, according to me, your life is going to be a gradual process of becoming kinder and more loving: Hurry up. Speed it along. Start right now. There’s a confusion in each of us, a sickness, really: selfishness. But there’s also a cure. So be a good and proactive and even somewhat desperate patient on your own behalf—seek out the most efficacious anti-selfishness medicines, energetically, for the rest of your life.
Do all the other things, the ambitious things—travel, get rich, get famous, innovate, lead, fall in love, make and lose fortunes, swim naked in wild jungle rivers (after first having it tested for monkey poop)—but as you do, to the extent that you can, err in the direction of kindness. Do those things that incline you toward the big questions, and avoid the things that would reduce you and make you trivial. That luminous part of you that exists beyond personality—your soul, if you will—is as bright and shining as any that has ever been. Bright as Shakespeare’s, bright as Gandhi’s, bright as Mother Theresa’s. Clear away everything that keeps you separate from this secret luminous place. Believe it exists, come to know it better, nurture it, share its fruits tirelessly.
And someday, in 80 years, when you’re 100, and I’m 134, and we’re both so kind and loving we’re nearly unbearable, drop me a line, let me know how your life has been. I hope you will say: It has been so wonderful.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Across Forbidden Border, Doctors in Israel Quietly Tend to Syria's Wounded
By Isabel Kershner, NY Times, August 5, 2013
NAHARIYA, Israel—The 3-year-old girl cried “Mama, Mama” over and over as a stranger rocked her and tried to comfort her. She had been brought from Syria to the government hospital in this northern Israeli town five days earlier, her face blackened by what doctors said was probably a firebomb or a homemade bomb.
In the next bed, a girl, 12, lay in a deep sleep. She had arrived at the pediatric intensive care unit with a severe stomach wound that had already been operated on in Syria, and a hole in her back.
Another girl, 13, has been here more than a month recovering from injuries that required complex surgery to her face, arm and leg. She and her brother, 9, had gone to the supermarket in their village when a shell struck. Her brother was killed in the attack.
As fighting between Syrian government forces and rebels has raged in recent months in areas close to the Israeli-held Golan Heights, scores of Syrian casualties have been discreetly spirited across the hostile frontier for what is often lifesaving treatment in Israel, an enemy country.
Most are men in their 20s or 30s, many of them with gunshot wounds who presumably were involved in the fighting. But in recent weeks there have been more civilians with blast wounds, among them women and children who have arrived alone and traumatized.
Israel has repeatedly declared a policy of nonintervention in the Syrian civil war, other than its readiness to strike at stocks of advanced weapons it considers a threat to its security. Officials have also made clear that Israel would not open its increasingly fortified border to an influx of refugees, as Turkey and Jordan have, given that Israel and Syria officially remain in a state of war.
But the Israeli authorities have sanctioned this small, low-profile humanitarian response to the tragedy taking place in Syria, balancing decades of hostility with the demands of proximity and neighborliness.
"Most come here unconscious with head injuries," said Dr. Masad Barhoum, the director general of the Western Galilee Hospital here in Nahariya, on the Mediterranean coast six miles south of the Lebanese border. "They wake up after a few days or whenever and hear a strange language and see strange people," he said. "If they can talk, the first question is, ‘Where am I?’ "
He added, “I am sure there is an initial shock when they hear they are in Israel.”
The identity of the patients is closely guarded so they will not be in danger when they return to Syria. Soldiers sit outside the wards where the adults are to protect them from possible threats and prying journalists. But doctors granted access to the children in the closed intensive care wing, on the condition that no details that could compromise their safety were published.
Like many Israeli hospitals, this one serves a mixed population of Jews and Arabs; its staff includes Arabic-speaking doctors, nurses and social workers. In the lobby, a glass display case contains the remnants of a Katyusha rocket that was fired from Lebanon and hit the hospital’s eye department during the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. The rocket penetrated four floors but nobody was injured because all the north-facing wards had been moved underground.
With more than 100,000 people estimated to have died in the Syrian civil war, Dr. Barhoum, an Arab Christian citizen of Israel, acknowledged that the Israeli medical assistance was “a drop in the ocean.”
But he said he was proud of the level of treatment his teams could provide and proud to be a citizen of a country that allowed him to treat every person equally. He said the cost of the treatment so far had amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars and would be paid for by the Israeli government.
Little has been revealed about how patients get here, other than that the Israeli military runs the technical side of the operation. The doctors say all they know is that Syrian patients arrive by military ambulance and that the hospital calls the army to come pick them up when they are ready to go back to Syria.
The Israeli military, which also operates a field hospital and mobile medical teams along the Syrian frontier, has been reluctant to advertise these facilities, partly for fear of being inundated by more wounded Syrians than they could cope with.
Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a military spokesman, said that “a number of Syrians have come to the fence along the border in the Golan Heights with various levels of injuries.”
He added that the military has, “on a purely humanitarian basis, facilitated immediate medical assistance on the ground and in some cases has evacuated them for further treatment in Israeli hospitals.”
Now, efforts are under way to bring over relatives to help calm the unaccompanied children.
When the 13-year-old arrived, she was in a state of fear and high anxiety, according to Dr. Zeev Zonis, the head of the pediatric intensive care unit here.
"A large part of our treatment was to try to embrace her in a kind of virtual hug," he said.
Days later, the girl’s aunt arrived from Syria. She began to care for the Syrian children here, living and sleeping with them in the intensive care unit. The staff and volunteers donated clothes and gifts.
The aunt, her face framed by a tight hijab, said a shell had struck the supermarket in their village suddenly, after a week of quiet. A few days later, she said, an Arab man she did not know came to the village.
"He told us they had the girl," she said. "They took me and on the way told me that she was in Israel. We got to the border. I saw soldiers. I was a little afraid."
But she added that the hospital care had been good and that “the fear has passed totally.” She was reluctant to speak about the war back home, saying only, “I pray for peace and quiet.”
Sitting up in bed in a pink Pooh Bear T-shirt, the niece, who was smiling, said she missed home. She and her aunt were expected to return to Syria later this week.
Asked what she will say when she goes back home, the aunt replied: “I won’t say that I was in Israel. It is forbidden to be here, and I am afraid of the reactions.”
NAHARIYA, Israel—The 3-year-old girl cried “Mama, Mama” over and over as a stranger rocked her and tried to comfort her. She had been brought from Syria to the government hospital in this northern Israeli town five days earlier, her face blackened by what doctors said was probably a firebomb or a homemade bomb.
In the next bed, a girl, 12, lay in a deep sleep. She had arrived at the pediatric intensive care unit with a severe stomach wound that had already been operated on in Syria, and a hole in her back.
Another girl, 13, has been here more than a month recovering from injuries that required complex surgery to her face, arm and leg. She and her brother, 9, had gone to the supermarket in their village when a shell struck. Her brother was killed in the attack.
As fighting between Syrian government forces and rebels has raged in recent months in areas close to the Israeli-held Golan Heights, scores of Syrian casualties have been discreetly spirited across the hostile frontier for what is often lifesaving treatment in Israel, an enemy country.
Most are men in their 20s or 30s, many of them with gunshot wounds who presumably were involved in the fighting. But in recent weeks there have been more civilians with blast wounds, among them women and children who have arrived alone and traumatized.
Israel has repeatedly declared a policy of nonintervention in the Syrian civil war, other than its readiness to strike at stocks of advanced weapons it considers a threat to its security. Officials have also made clear that Israel would not open its increasingly fortified border to an influx of refugees, as Turkey and Jordan have, given that Israel and Syria officially remain in a state of war.
But the Israeli authorities have sanctioned this small, low-profile humanitarian response to the tragedy taking place in Syria, balancing decades of hostility with the demands of proximity and neighborliness.
"Most come here unconscious with head injuries," said Dr. Masad Barhoum, the director general of the Western Galilee Hospital here in Nahariya, on the Mediterranean coast six miles south of the Lebanese border. "They wake up after a few days or whenever and hear a strange language and see strange people," he said. "If they can talk, the first question is, ‘Where am I?’ "
He added, “I am sure there is an initial shock when they hear they are in Israel.”
The identity of the patients is closely guarded so they will not be in danger when they return to Syria. Soldiers sit outside the wards where the adults are to protect them from possible threats and prying journalists. But doctors granted access to the children in the closed intensive care wing, on the condition that no details that could compromise their safety were published.
Like many Israeli hospitals, this one serves a mixed population of Jews and Arabs; its staff includes Arabic-speaking doctors, nurses and social workers. In the lobby, a glass display case contains the remnants of a Katyusha rocket that was fired from Lebanon and hit the hospital’s eye department during the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. The rocket penetrated four floors but nobody was injured because all the north-facing wards had been moved underground.
With more than 100,000 people estimated to have died in the Syrian civil war, Dr. Barhoum, an Arab Christian citizen of Israel, acknowledged that the Israeli medical assistance was “a drop in the ocean.”
But he said he was proud of the level of treatment his teams could provide and proud to be a citizen of a country that allowed him to treat every person equally. He said the cost of the treatment so far had amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars and would be paid for by the Israeli government.
Little has been revealed about how patients get here, other than that the Israeli military runs the technical side of the operation. The doctors say all they know is that Syrian patients arrive by military ambulance and that the hospital calls the army to come pick them up when they are ready to go back to Syria.
The Israeli military, which also operates a field hospital and mobile medical teams along the Syrian frontier, has been reluctant to advertise these facilities, partly for fear of being inundated by more wounded Syrians than they could cope with.
Lt. Col. Peter Lerner, a military spokesman, said that “a number of Syrians have come to the fence along the border in the Golan Heights with various levels of injuries.”
He added that the military has, “on a purely humanitarian basis, facilitated immediate medical assistance on the ground and in some cases has evacuated them for further treatment in Israeli hospitals.”
Now, efforts are under way to bring over relatives to help calm the unaccompanied children.
When the 13-year-old arrived, she was in a state of fear and high anxiety, according to Dr. Zeev Zonis, the head of the pediatric intensive care unit here.
"A large part of our treatment was to try to embrace her in a kind of virtual hug," he said.
Days later, the girl’s aunt arrived from Syria. She began to care for the Syrian children here, living and sleeping with them in the intensive care unit. The staff and volunteers donated clothes and gifts.
The aunt, her face framed by a tight hijab, said a shell had struck the supermarket in their village suddenly, after a week of quiet. A few days later, she said, an Arab man she did not know came to the village.
"He told us they had the girl," she said. "They took me and on the way told me that she was in Israel. We got to the border. I saw soldiers. I was a little afraid."
But she added that the hospital care had been good and that “the fear has passed totally.” She was reluctant to speak about the war back home, saying only, “I pray for peace and quiet.”
Sitting up in bed in a pink Pooh Bear T-shirt, the niece, who was smiling, said she missed home. She and her aunt were expected to return to Syria later this week.
Asked what she will say when she goes back home, the aunt replied: “I won’t say that I was in Israel. It is forbidden to be here, and I am afraid of the reactions.”
A family dynasty gives up The Washington Post
By Calvin Woodward, AP, Aug 6, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP)—The newspaper forever known for Deep Throat and the unraveling of a presidency had a quieter distinction, too: a family’s ownership through thick and thin, seemingly as immutable as the Washington Monument.
But just as an earthquake cracked the tower of stone, the ground now has shifted for The Washington Post.
Facing questions about the future of the newspaper business “to which we have no answers,” Don Graham, whose grandfather bought the paper at a 1933 bankruptcy sale, announced to staff Monday that the paper had been sold to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, closing the book on the storied paper’s history as a family dynasty after seven straight years of declining revenue.
It’s another watershed moment for an institution that first published in 1877, with a circulation of 10,000, bounced among owners both Democrat and Republican in its young life and encountered near-death experiences along the way.
Then Eugene Meyer, a California investor and member of the Federal Reserve, took the reins in the midst of the Depression, burnishing the paper’s reputation and tripling its circulation before handing control in the 1940s to son-in-law, Philip L. Graham, a brilliant, brooding and mercurial figure who killed himself with a shotgun at his Virginia farm in 1963.
Control fell to his widow, Katharine Graham. And it was she who stirred the full fury of all the president’s men when young reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein began unwrapping the Watergate saga that would destroy Richard Nixon’s presidency—and inspire legions to take up investigative journalism for years ahead.
In one landmark revelation, the paper published a front-page story describing the 1972 burglary at Democratic headquarters at the Watergate offices as part of a massive campaign of spying and sabotage directed by White House officials and members of Nixon’s re-election committee.
As told in Graham’s memoir, “Personal History,” then-Attorney General John Mitchell, one of the implicated officials, let out a “primal scream” when told the story was coming, followed by an obscenity that The Post cleaned up for its readers. Graham, the amended quote read, is “gonna get caught in a big fat wringer.” Nixon himself vowed The Post “is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of this one.” Ultimately, he did.
Before the cascade of Watergate reporting and throughout that episode, The Post was—as it remains—in pitched competition as a voice of national influence with The New York Times, still a survivor in the dwindling list of powerful family-owned organs.
In 1971 The Times, then The Post, published explosive stories on the leaked Pentagon Papers, revealing the government’s lies about the Vietnam War. Both fought attempts to suppress publication of the material. The case led to a First Amendment victory in the Supreme Court and a Pulitzer Prize for The Times one year before The Post won honors for its Watergate scoops.
In 2008 alone, the paper won six Pulitzers, recognized for exposing mistreatment of wounded veterans at Walter Reed Hospital, for its Virginia Tech massacre coverage, its series on private security contractors in Iraq, and more. Perhaps its darkest hour also involved a Pulitzer, won in 1981 for a Janet Cooke story that was fake.
Despite the awards of recent years, there was trouble brewing for the business.
Buckling from pressures felt throughout the industry in the digital age, the paper saw its paid weekday circulation drop 37 percent from 2002 to last year. Newsroom staff was repeatedly trimmed and some bureaus closed. The newspaper ran an operating loss of $54 million last year.
"We had innovated and to my critical eye our innovations had been quite successful in audience and in quality, but they hadn’t made up for the revenue decline," Don Graham said in his announcement of the sale. "Our answer had to be cost cuts, and we knew there was a limit to that."
"This has been, this is, and this will continue to be, a family operation," Katharine Graham said.
Her words remain true in one sense: The Post goes now to a family, but not hers.
Snowden's Asylum: 'It's the law, stupid'
By Richard Falk, Al Jazeera, 5 August 2013
The most influential media in the United States has lived up to its pro-government bias in the Snowden Affair in three major ways: firstly, by consistently referring to Snowden by the demeaning designation of ‘leaker’ rather than as ‘whistleblower’ or ‘surveillance dissident,’ both more respectful and accurate.
Secondly, they are completely ignoring the degree to which Russia’s grant of temporary refugee status to Snowden for one year was in full accord with the normal level of protection to be given to anyone accused of nonviolent political crimes in a foreign country, and pursued diplomatically and legally by the government that is seeking to indict and prosecute. In effect, for Russia to have turned Snowden over to the United States under these conditions would have been morally and politically scandalous considering the nature of his alleged crimes.
Thirdly, the media’s refusal to point out that espionage, the main accusation against Snowden, is the quintessential ‘political offense’ in international law, and as such is routinely excluded from any list of extraditable offenses. That is, even if there had been an extradition treaty between the United States and Russia, it should have been made clear that there was no legal duty on Russia’s part to turn Snowden over to American authorities for criminal prosecution, and a moral and political duty not to do so, especially in the circumstances surrounding the controversy over Snowden.
If the world were composed of equal sovereign states and a global rule of law existed, the United States would have meekly apologised and, at the very least, promised to refrain from such behaviour in the future.
If these elements had been clearly articulated, the United States government would have seemed ridiculous if it complained about the willingness of some foreign governments to give Snowden asylum. The Obama administration, and senate hot heads could bemoan Snowden’s unavailability for prosecution to their heart’s content, but it would be then seen for what it is: a petulant empire exhibiting its rage and anger because it’s hard power global presence is of no use, and its policy options are constrained by the rule of law.
Under these conditions to be threatening foreign countries with adverse diplomatic consequences if they refuse to play ball is not only exhibiting a child’s frustration, but it is self-defeating. If properly presented, those countries that offered asylum or refused Washington’s demand for the transfer of Snowden to American custody did the only decent thing.
What should be surprising is that more governments were not forthcoming, leaving it to such small countries as Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to withstand the strong arm tactics of the United States, perhaps signaling a welcome new resolve throughout Latin America to no longer accept a regional identity of being the backyard of the colossus of the North.
If anything, President Vladimir Putin, considering the nature of the Snowden disclosures about the global reach of American surveillance systems, acted with exceptional deference to the sensitivities of the United States. Instead of merely pointing out that Snowden could not be transferred to the United States against his will, Putin went out of his way to say that he did not want the incident to harm relations with the United States, and even went so far as to condition Snowden’s asylum on an unusual pledge that he refrain from any further release of documents damaging to American interests.
Such a constructive approach to a delicate situation hardly merits the hyperbolic aggressive words of the supposedly liberal Democratic senator from New York, Charles Schumer: “Russia has stabbed us in the back…Each day that Mr. Snowden is allowed to roam free is another turn of the knife”.
We should ask these deeply aggrieved senators for honest answers, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, never ones to shy away from a good fight, what they would have done had a comparable Russian whistleblower revealed a Russian surveillance system that was listening in on secret government deliberations in Washington as well as invading the privacy of ordinary Americans. The righteous indignation surrounding such revelations and the gratitude that would be bestowed on a Russian Snowden would know no bounds.
It would seem that a genuinely democratic government would not wish that the commission of war crimes and invasions of the privacy of citizens were kept secret, and beyond procedures of accountability.
Washington seems to be casting around for tangible ways to express its displeasure with Russia. The American presidential press secretary, Jay Carney, talks of ‘extreme disappointment’ leading to the possible cancellation of the Obama/Putin summit scheduled for September where such issues as Syria, reduction of nuclear arsenals, and Iran would be on the agenda.
Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, reminiscent of Cold War days, issued an inflammatory joint statement urging the United States to view Russia through an optic of conflict. It impetuously proposed reacting to Snowden’s asylum by beefing up the commitment to deploy missile defense systems in Europe and expanding NATO in ways that the Kremlin would find antagonistic.
Of course, Putin’s new identity as ‘human rights defender’ lacks any principled credibility given his approach to political dissent in Russia, but that does not diminish the basic correctness of his response to Snowden. There is a certain obtuseness in the American diplomatic shrillness in this instance. Snowden’s acts of espionage are pure political offense. Beyond this, the nature of what was disclosed revealed sustained threats to the confidentiality of government communications throughout the world.
If anything, rather than being intimidated by American inappropriate demands, the more natural and healthier international response would have been to cry ‘foul play!’ If the world were composed of equal sovereign states and a global rule of law existed, the United States would have meekly apologised and, at the very least, promised to refrain from such behaviour in the future. Snowden would have been chastised for breaking American law, but commended for bringing to the surface some ugly encroachments on freedom and constitutional order, including within America, that shows how dangerous it is to leave the balancing of security and civil liberties to the good faith and judgment of bureaucrats and politicians.
It would seem that a genuinely democratic government would not wish that the commission of war crimes and invasions of the privacy of citizens were kept secret, and beyond procedures of accountability.
In the age of digital wonders, more than ever we are dependent upon the vigilance of citizens of conscience to protect us against Orwellian scenarios of those many wannabe Darth Vaders lurking in the murky depths of the governmental bureaucracy in Washington. It is such individuals that have repeatedly taken the United States to the dark side in places like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Force Base, as well as arranging those infamous ‘black sites’ and devising depraved procedures such as ‘extreme rendition’ to ensure that a suspect will be duly tortured with no consequences if it turns out that he is innocent.
We, as citizens of the world, should be thankful for the sacrifices made individuals such as Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, and Edward Snowden, surely deserving heroes of our time! And if we are ever to achieve legitimate government, then even our elected leaders and representatives would be grateful for such a check on the abuses of government.
Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.
The most influential media in the United States has lived up to its pro-government bias in the Snowden Affair in three major ways: firstly, by consistently referring to Snowden by the demeaning designation of ‘leaker’ rather than as ‘whistleblower’ or ‘surveillance dissident,’ both more respectful and accurate.
Secondly, they are completely ignoring the degree to which Russia’s grant of temporary refugee status to Snowden for one year was in full accord with the normal level of protection to be given to anyone accused of nonviolent political crimes in a foreign country, and pursued diplomatically and legally by the government that is seeking to indict and prosecute. In effect, for Russia to have turned Snowden over to the United States under these conditions would have been morally and politically scandalous considering the nature of his alleged crimes.
Thirdly, the media’s refusal to point out that espionage, the main accusation against Snowden, is the quintessential ‘political offense’ in international law, and as such is routinely excluded from any list of extraditable offenses. That is, even if there had been an extradition treaty between the United States and Russia, it should have been made clear that there was no legal duty on Russia’s part to turn Snowden over to American authorities for criminal prosecution, and a moral and political duty not to do so, especially in the circumstances surrounding the controversy over Snowden.
If the world were composed of equal sovereign states and a global rule of law existed, the United States would have meekly apologised and, at the very least, promised to refrain from such behaviour in the future.
If these elements had been clearly articulated, the United States government would have seemed ridiculous if it complained about the willingness of some foreign governments to give Snowden asylum. The Obama administration, and senate hot heads could bemoan Snowden’s unavailability for prosecution to their heart’s content, but it would be then seen for what it is: a petulant empire exhibiting its rage and anger because it’s hard power global presence is of no use, and its policy options are constrained by the rule of law.
Under these conditions to be threatening foreign countries with adverse diplomatic consequences if they refuse to play ball is not only exhibiting a child’s frustration, but it is self-defeating. If properly presented, those countries that offered asylum or refused Washington’s demand for the transfer of Snowden to American custody did the only decent thing.
What should be surprising is that more governments were not forthcoming, leaving it to such small countries as Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to withstand the strong arm tactics of the United States, perhaps signaling a welcome new resolve throughout Latin America to no longer accept a regional identity of being the backyard of the colossus of the North.
If anything, President Vladimir Putin, considering the nature of the Snowden disclosures about the global reach of American surveillance systems, acted with exceptional deference to the sensitivities of the United States. Instead of merely pointing out that Snowden could not be transferred to the United States against his will, Putin went out of his way to say that he did not want the incident to harm relations with the United States, and even went so far as to condition Snowden’s asylum on an unusual pledge that he refrain from any further release of documents damaging to American interests.
Such a constructive approach to a delicate situation hardly merits the hyperbolic aggressive words of the supposedly liberal Democratic senator from New York, Charles Schumer: “Russia has stabbed us in the back…Each day that Mr. Snowden is allowed to roam free is another turn of the knife”.
We should ask these deeply aggrieved senators for honest answers, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, never ones to shy away from a good fight, what they would have done had a comparable Russian whistleblower revealed a Russian surveillance system that was listening in on secret government deliberations in Washington as well as invading the privacy of ordinary Americans. The righteous indignation surrounding such revelations and the gratitude that would be bestowed on a Russian Snowden would know no bounds.
It would seem that a genuinely democratic government would not wish that the commission of war crimes and invasions of the privacy of citizens were kept secret, and beyond procedures of accountability.
Washington seems to be casting around for tangible ways to express its displeasure with Russia. The American presidential press secretary, Jay Carney, talks of ‘extreme disappointment’ leading to the possible cancellation of the Obama/Putin summit scheduled for September where such issues as Syria, reduction of nuclear arsenals, and Iran would be on the agenda.
Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, reminiscent of Cold War days, issued an inflammatory joint statement urging the United States to view Russia through an optic of conflict. It impetuously proposed reacting to Snowden’s asylum by beefing up the commitment to deploy missile defense systems in Europe and expanding NATO in ways that the Kremlin would find antagonistic.
Of course, Putin’s new identity as ‘human rights defender’ lacks any principled credibility given his approach to political dissent in Russia, but that does not diminish the basic correctness of his response to Snowden. There is a certain obtuseness in the American diplomatic shrillness in this instance. Snowden’s acts of espionage are pure political offense. Beyond this, the nature of what was disclosed revealed sustained threats to the confidentiality of government communications throughout the world.
If anything, rather than being intimidated by American inappropriate demands, the more natural and healthier international response would have been to cry ‘foul play!’ If the world were composed of equal sovereign states and a global rule of law existed, the United States would have meekly apologised and, at the very least, promised to refrain from such behaviour in the future. Snowden would have been chastised for breaking American law, but commended for bringing to the surface some ugly encroachments on freedom and constitutional order, including within America, that shows how dangerous it is to leave the balancing of security and civil liberties to the good faith and judgment of bureaucrats and politicians.
It would seem that a genuinely democratic government would not wish that the commission of war crimes and invasions of the privacy of citizens were kept secret, and beyond procedures of accountability.
In the age of digital wonders, more than ever we are dependent upon the vigilance of citizens of conscience to protect us against Orwellian scenarios of those many wannabe Darth Vaders lurking in the murky depths of the governmental bureaucracy in Washington. It is such individuals that have repeatedly taken the United States to the dark side in places like Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram Air Force Base, as well as arranging those infamous ‘black sites’ and devising depraved procedures such as ‘extreme rendition’ to ensure that a suspect will be duly tortured with no consequences if it turns out that he is innocent.
We, as citizens of the world, should be thankful for the sacrifices made individuals such as Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, and Edward Snowden, surely deserving heroes of our time! And if we are ever to achieve legitimate government, then even our elected leaders and representatives would be grateful for such a check on the abuses of government.
Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is also the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights.
Keeping the Spark
By Anna Perlini
They say you are old when you stop dreaming. Or even moving. Or a number of other paralyzing and static symptoms, depending on the life you lead.
When I was a child I remember bursting into tears thinking of my parents growing old. I loved them so much, and just the thought that one day they could lose some hair and get a few wrinkles was so hard for my child’s heart! In those days Peter Pan was my favorite movie, ha! Thinking about it now, something in me was dreading the aging process. Everything beautiful should never end or lose its spark.
As time went on, that particular fear slowly disappeared. I started accepting the physical aspect of aging, at least in my parents, who, by the way, have been aging very well. I can’t honestly say I’m excited about growing physically old—no, that would be a lie—but besides feeling stronger now than when I was in my twenties, I’m starting to realize that what I actually dread the most is becoming old inside: losing my enthusiasm, my ideals, and the desire to learn and move forward. I’ve seen this happening to others, especially to many belonging to my generation, the generation who in their young years fought for change and for a better world with such passion. For this reason I’m glad every time I have a chance to stretch and in some way start anew and remain young inside. I’m a hopeless idealist, that’s all.
One quote that has challenged and motivated me whenever I’ve been tempted to quit is: “Some people sell themselves out too cheap, they quit too soon! It is so easy to make excuses—legitimate, logical, reasonable, acceptable excuses why you couldn’t make it, why you shouldn’t be expected to make it—and in most cases most people will accept your excuses because most people don’t have faith either, and in excusing you they’re excusing themselves! But is God going to excuse you?”1
A few years ago I had the chance to participate in a school reunion, and I saw many of my school friends that I hadn’t seen in over 30 years. I had been a very good student, one of the tops in my high school, and a mover and leader in political and social causes. I was only 18 when I decided to dedicate my life to missionary and humanitarian causes, and I spent the next 38 years doing that, often in very difficult fields, never accumulating much for myself in terms of material goods. In contrast, quite a few of my friends are now accomplished professionals—doctors, lawyers, and businessmen.
At one point at the reunion, all eyes were on me and someone dared to ask the hot question: “But ... do you have any regrets? You were such a brilliant student—the best. We all admired you and thought you would become some great doctor or writer.”
I simply answered that, no, I didn’t have any of that sort of regret. I knew that I’d found and followed my calling, and that is the highest form of reward. My only regret is not to have given and helped others more, but I’m still working on that, ha!
Everyone breathed a sigh of relief and almost unanimously exclaimed: “We are so glad to hear that and to know that you are still fighting for the ideals you gave up so much for! You can keep being a role model for us.”
I realized then that I wasn’t the only one who hates quitting. It’s not a matter of always appearing strong and never making mistakes. That is impossible anyway, and there are many falls along the way, and even times when one is forced to take a break. What I’m talking about is not quitting for good, but instead continuing to believe, to give, to move and change.
Someone said, “A heart that loves is a heart that never grows old.” That alone will ensure you’ll keep that spark in your eyes till the end of this earthly life.
