Sometimes I feel guilty about getting to go to such a nice school. I mean we get to walk around on a beautiful sixty acre campus, and work in aesthetically pleasing buildings. Yes we are fortunate to have the money to go Catlin Gabel, and I think most of the students realize that. There are snobs to be sure but they are not representative of the larger portion of the student body.

This is why I get really pissed off by the commentsh on the article, "Students watch history unfold" on the Portland Tribune. The article discussed our schools upcoming trip to Cuba, and discusses our reasons for going there. Immediately after the Tribune published their article several people lept on the comments section to rant about one of two things: either how naïve we were to visit a communist country or how spoiled we were to go to $21,000-a-year school.

Let's talk about the first comment:

Why in the world is Catlin Gable sending students to a totalitarian dictatorship like Cuba? What's next North Korea? Iran?

This is utterly inappropriate.

"Topper"

North Korea doesn't let people in, and parents would never send their kids to Iran for fear they would get blown up.
One person, who became one of the main contributers to the blog latter on, had this question to ask:

It is wonderful that you think that a dialogue with Cuba will improve the situation. A dialogue with whom, Anna? Elian Gonzales, perhaps? He would likely tell you that the specially picked and funded school he has attended these last few years is really nice. People who have been turned into tools for propoganda often give glowing reports of the things they are supposed to give glowing reports about.

Will you be able to open lines of communication with political opposition leaders? Given that the Cuban government has prohibited home stays, I don't think the likelyhood of that is very high, do you? So your dialague will be limited, controlled, screened, and very likely scripted. Other than that, a free and open exchange of ideas. Somehow, I doubt your teacher has mentioned that much.

"Chris"

Seriously, Chris? You really think we don't know this? How could anyone go to a top-notch school, spend months preparing for the trip and not be acutely aware of the political situation in Cuba? How could anyone with access to internet, TV, and reality in general not be aware of this? Of course the kids going there are aware that they are visiting a heavily regulated society and will not be given accurate facts. They'll make up a ton of crap about how the United States is evil, and expect us to buy it.

Our kids are going their knowing full well that they will get inaccurate information. That's why they're traveling around the country instead of just going to Cuba's state run Granma. They control the press, but not direct communication.

Cozying up to communist dictatorships...swell. maybe Catlin Gable Admin can take their kids to Gaza next so they can be dupes of Hamas, and lay down in front of an IDF bulldozer. That worked out real well the last time.

Leftist stupiidity and a skewed world view, is what passes for a high school education these days?

Don't be suprised why the military arrests up your kid in some third world dung heap chanting Koranic verses.

This is flirting with treason.

"Veteran"

I don't consider this particular poster to be particularly representative of the average Joe, but his "cozying up to communist dictatorships" comment sounds a lot like the shit you hear from our administration, namely that it somehow makes us look tough to turn our nose up at dictators, and that any attempt to improve relations with their people is a sign of weakness.

Look, this is a humanitarian mission, not a diplomatic one. They aren't trying to forge bonds with the government, they are trying to understand the people.

Despite my disappointment with the views of commenters on the website, I mostly got pissed off at the negative attitude toward Catlin Gabel:

I just hope the Cuban people don't think all Americans are like this group of self absorbed rich kids. I bet while they're there they'll all have a private room and bath, be chauffeured around in an air conditioned motor coach and talk about how their government gives people the shaft while mommy and daddy counts the hundreds of thousands of dollars filched from unsophisticated investors and home owners who have gotten screwed by the Enron, WorldCom, S&L, subprime, etc., etc. etc. debacles.

Question authority! And the first question should be "where did Mom and Dad get all that money and at whose expense?"

Strange, when I visited Costa Rica in eighth grade, I stayed in a house the size of my living room, walked down unmaintained roads with grey water flowing along the sides, and we did work for the school. We had a couple of days of relaxation at La Playa de Manuel Antonio, and we took a zip line ride through the Monteverde Canopy, but other than that, it was work.

I find it ironic that students from a school whose annual tuition is more than many families in Oregon earn in a year are going to Cuba on a "humanitarian mission." You want to be a humanitarian? Take that $21,000 annual tuition and give it to a poor family in Oregon and attend a public school.

Put another way, Catlin Gable's 700 students' tuition totals about $15 million a year - the total income of about 1,100 families trying to get by on minimum wage.

When the kids come back to their McMansions in the 'burbs they can pat themselves on the back while ordering their favorite beverage at the club and laugh at the pool boy trying to work his way through community college.

Freakin' hypocrites.

Yes, it costs $21,000 to attend Catlin; that's why roughly a third of the student body requires financial aid from the annual Rummage Sale we put on in the Expo Center every year. Catlin gives its students a superb education, and the students who don't agree generally do end up going to schools like Lincoln or Riverdale. Education is a worthy thing to spend money on, and most parents have to work pretty hard to afford it. As one student said:

This is a stereotype I've run across too often in the community, and it really disappoints me. Yes, I go to a private school with a $20,000 tuition fee. But that doesn't mean I go home to a "McMansion." Actually, I go home to a three-acre farm in rural Oregon where my family raises herds of sheep. I don't pay for my schooling. Catlin does. I'm on a scholarship and financial aid, and while my parents do pay a few thousand a year, that doesn't make us rich or wasteful. Both of my parents are retired military veterans who donate a lot of their funds to the VFW to support other veterans who weren't so lucky as to return home with all their limbs. My mom's a teacher and my dad's a 12-hour shift maintenance worker in an electronics facility. Those aren't exactly high-paying jobs. But my parents believe that education is an important asset, especially an education like Catlin's where community service and philanthropy is THE foundation to the school, and so they've sacrificed a lot to put me here. Perhaps you're familiar with I Corinthians 13, a passage in St. Paul's letters that emphasizes charity. Corinthians is Catlin's school chapter, and every student learns and recites it-- every year.

None of the students at Catlin is a stuck-up rich person. There are a few, I'm sure, who go home to huge houses with maids and things like that. But the majority of the students are here on financial aid that they earn through their academic achievements and dedication to school projects like the Rummage Sale, which raises money for financial aid every year. All of my friends have average-sized houses in the suburbs, like many of their friends, who go to Lincoln, Westview, Southridge, and other public schools. Just because we don't go hungry at night doesn't mean we don't care about those who do. There are tons of clubs and groups at school dedicated to community and charities like the Blanchett House, Portland Rescue Mission, Habitat for Humanity, and A Child's Place. Catlin has endowments from rich families in the area, not necessarily rich families who send kids to school there.

"Dakota"

Catlin Gabel doesn't shy away from the fact that we are fortunate to go to this school, and yes, I believe that the last verse of I Corinthians 13 does epitomize the Catlin spirit: "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." Our school and its students are not predominately religious, yet we hold this as fundamental guideline to how we treat others in the community.

First Geraldine Ferraro says this:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

In response to the inevitable backlash, she defended herself:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

It's stupid, that's what. How does saying people only like Barack Obama because he is a black man equate to "let's address reality reality and the problems we're facing in this world"?

For the record, I do not deny that mainstream media's coverage of this election has been heavily biased, and I do not deny that society has been unfairly critical for aspects of Clinton's character that, if she were male, would be largely ignored. But I think people calling Ferraro out on this one are largely accurate. She should really know better.

With regards to New York Governor Spitzer's revelation that he was involved in a prostitution ring, the Director of the Republican Governors Association, Nick Ayers made this astute comment:

"The governor of New York should immediately resign from office and allow the people of New York to pursue honest leadership. The American people are tired of corrupt and hypocritical politicians. The governor of New York is just another in the long list of politicians that have failed their constituents"

We are very tired of corrupt and hypocritical politicians. Remind me again what happened in 2006.

Here's an offer for Ayers: I'll denounce mine if you denounce yours.

This article was crossposted on The Daily Kos

I recently had what to seemed to me an epiphany about foreign policy.  After watching this old video of Jon Stewart reacting to the September 11th attacks, I started thinking about his closing argument (transcript here):

You know, all this talk about "These guys are criminal masterminds. They got together and their extraordinary guile and their wit and their skill. . ." It's all a lie. Any fool can blow something up. Any fool can destroy. But to see these guys, these firefighters and these policemen and people from all over the country, literally with buckets, rebuilding. . . that’s extraordinary. And that's why we have already won. . . they can't. . . it's light. It's democracy. They can't shut that down.

Jon Stewart is arguing that the terrorists cannot destroy us because we choose not to be destroyed, which got me thinking.

Let me explain. In World War I, the Allied Forces defeated the Second Reich in 1918. The Weimar Republic was established in its place, intending to function as a democracy in America's Image. We defeated the German Empire, and established the fruits of democracy in central Europe. President Wilson declared it to be "the War to end all Wars."

Only fifteen years later, Adolph Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. A month later, the Reichstag was burned, giving Hitler's government an excuse to clamp down on German civil liberties. German unhappiness with the inferior status placed upon them by the victorious powers, coupled with a crippled economy (it took 1 trillion Marks to equal one U.S. Dollar,) allowed the charismatic Hitler to convince the Germans they needed a nationalist leader, and they gladly accepted him as Führer of the Third Reich.

A Milkman walks through ruble to deliver milk. Image from JAMD

Hoping to destroy the most powerful naval power in the world, Hitler began a four-month bombing campaign on Great Britain, targeting both air force bases and later, civilian targets. Hitler hoped to destroy the Royal Air Force to allow for a naval invasion, but he also hoped to break the morale of the British people, who were struggling as the last European power opposing Hitler. Undaunted, the Brits went about their daily lives, refusing to be torn down by the Germans and handing them their first major military defeat. They went on to become our closest ally in the war.

After we defeated the Third Reich in 1945, we learned from our mistakes of World War I, and did not cripple the Germans. They saw the horrors of World War II, and chose to not travel down that road again, and unlike the interwar years, the Allies helped them rebuild their troubled economy. Fascist sentiment died, and the German people did not recreate the Nazi government. In other words, the Germans stayed peaceful and democratic only because they chose to, not because of our military victory.

Fast forward 46 years, when Al-Qaeda pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack in history. Terrorists have never succeeded in destroying our nation, or any nation, because the people have always determined to remain united. The best they can hope for is that the people will be so afraid that they will give up their civil liberties in the hopes of security, otherwise, people will dig themselves out of the ashes and rebuild themselves.

We are doing the same thing in Iraq. We crushed the Iraqi military with absurd ease, but now face a stubborn and corrosive wave of militants determined to establish a conservative theocracy. Our biggest mistake was to think we could waltz in, dispose of Saddam Hussein, and the freedom-loving intellectuals in Iraq would rise up and establish a happy, peaceful democracy in America's image. Our failure to engage in any sort of diplomacy with middle-eastern countries has allowed nationalist sentiment to continue fueling anti-Americanism, preventing our soldiers from accomplishing anything beyond stasis. We've been here before. Let's try and learn this time.

I admit I laughed pretty hard at this one.

Photo from the The Associated Press

There's been a lot of talk about the photos of Barack Obama wearing traditional Somali while on a visit to Kenya. Most of the controversy is focused on whether the emails were forwarded by members of Hillary Clinton's campaign as a smear. I doubt Clinton had anything to do with it, and if she did, then shame on her, but that isn't my point here.

What scares me about this is that people still consider this to be such a negative thing. That Americans still consider association with Islam to a negative factor in 2008 shows how vulnerable our nation is to racial and religious prejudices. We marginalize gays, wax misogynistic about the first potential female president, and think references to lynching African-Americans can be made casually. Have the lessons of the Civil Rights Era been lost on us already?

Remember back when Keith Ellison wanted to be sworn in on the Quran and the conservatives had a fit over it because it somehow "undermines American civilization?" Remember when Barack Obama had to struggle to defend himself against allegations that he was a Muslim? He stood by his Christian convictions, and the controversy has largely died away, but it still angers me that people feel such hatred toward Muslims that the idea of him being a Muslim would even be a issue.

Women, gays, and minorities have suffered so much under our system of prejudice, and we learn nothing. Instead of ending the injustices, we blame rape victims and downplay the dangers gay youth face every day, and I'm getting sick of it. It's time we grew up.

This was from the Associated Press:

NEW YORK (AP) — Even though Mike Huckabee is still battling for the Republican presidential nomination despite long odds, he said Saturday he won't "overstay his welcome." Then he did precisely that, lingering on the "Weekend Update" set of "Saturday Night Live" despite repeated cues to leave the stage.

The former Arkansas governor appeared in a "Weekend Update" segment in which he described his confusion over whether it is mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination over front-runner John McCain. After anchorman Seth Meyers explained the numbers, Huckabee responded: "I'm not a math guy, I'm more of a miracle guy. So at this point I'm gonna focus on the miracle part."

However, he said: "Mike Huckabee does not overstay his welcome. When it's time for me to go, I'll know. And I'll exit out with class and grace."

Then he remained seated at the "Update" desk even though Meyers made it clear it was time for him to leave.

This was published after SNL aired on the East Coast and before I got to watch it here in Portland. The article made it seem as though Huckabee had actually not understood he needed to leave the stage, when the sketch made it pretty clear that it was scripted. Did the AP actually fail to pick up on this? They could have fooled me.

Speaking of Huckabee, the guy scares the crap out of me, but he did a pretty good parody of his religious rhetoric.

You know, I am starting to think that American's are becoming a tad overconfident in our implementation of the "American Dream." You know the old American sentiment that in our nation, anyone can come from almost nothing and, through hard work and determination, be succesful and happy citizens. It's a great notion, but we aren't quite there yet. We haven't gotten to the point where some of our most impoverished citizens can break out. Why? Because of the belief in the American dream. Since everyone can be succesful and happy through hard work, the logical extension of that argument is that anyone who stuck sleeping under bridges or on park benches is lazy and lacks work ethic. Instead of trying to help homeless people, we pass laws that turn them into criminals, and find that we cannot legislate people out of existence any more than conservatives can eliminate gays.

This focus on the rags-to-riches tale in American culture prevents us from understanding that these stories are inspirational because they are so improbable. If it wasn't so difficult to escape poverty, people would do it all the time, because I guarantee that homeless people don't relish sleeping in freezing temperatures all night. This actually reminds me of an essay I read in English last semester. The late Marjorie Williams, a former Washington Post columnist, tells about her last few years of life after being diagnosed with an incurable form of liver cancer. Despite the depressing tone of the essay, her writting intrigued me like nothing else in that course, as she described the hollow encouragements of those around her:

We think our culture lauds the stubborn survivor, the one who says, "I will beat this cancer," and then promptly wins the Tour de France. But the truth is that there is a staggering vulnerability in asserting one's right to hope. (262)

...

Americans are so steeped in the message that we are what we think, and that a positive attitude can banish disease. (You'd be amazed how many people need to believe that only losers die of cancer.) (263)

The same thing goes on in discussions about immigration. We angrily rally against illegal immigrants for not coming in the legal way and then run a system stacked against immigrants living in impoverished conditions, many of whom have families to keep alive. We don't try and improve the economic situation in Mexico, we try and box them in.

I am tired of this. Americans need to recognize that our country has flaws, and that we need move away from criminalizing those whose presence is inconvenient, to helping them.

Works cited

Williams, Marjorie. "A Matter of Life and Death." The Best American Essays. The Best American Ser. 2006. Ed. Lauren Slater. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2006

I'm having a little moral dilemma here. It started with protestors at the 2007 Annual Rose Festival Parade downtown. The parade included delegations from the military, who decided to bring along giant tank with them. I suppose I shouldn't be so surprised that some people would be upset by this, but it still really irked me when people showed up carrying signs with pictures of burnt villages and proclaiming "Tanks Kill." I mean, I oppose the war and all, but I was enjoying the festivities, and I didn't really appreciate having them interrupted.

Fast forward to today, when I take a look at the protests that occurred at the 2007 commencement ceremony at UMass Amherst in response to the decision to award Andrew Card an honorary degree. In the days leading up to the ceremony, students, faculty, and other members of the UMass Amherst community staged massive protests calling for the Board of Trustees to rescind the offer to Card. Despite the vast majority of students and faculty opposing Andrew Card's degree, the Board would not back down and went ahead with the commencement.

Up to this point, I agree completely with the protestors. I am at a loss to explain why the board would consider awarding Bush's right-hand man with a degree meant for people "of great accomplishment and high ethical standards." Card has not demonstrated high ethical standards, nor has he really done any notable amount of public service. The university was never able to come up with any real reason for honoring him, and the community clearly did not want him at the commencement. I believe the Board of Trustees should have given more thought to the wishes of the community before sending him the letter.

However, I take issue with the decision to protest during the ceremony itself. When Card's name was announced, hundreds of students and faculty rose holding signs and booed Card continuously for at least a minute and a half, drowning out the provost's remarks. As angry as I would be to see this man honored at my university, the protests would really sour my enjoyment of what should otherwise be a happy occasion. Do people really need to spoil this occasion for everybody? I mean, I encourage people who disagree with something to work for change, but this just seems so...pointlessly rude? Could they not have simply turned their backs or something less disruptive?

Perhaps I get so riled at these people because of my thoughts toward conservative activists who picket pride rallies or stand outside schools with pictures of mutilated fetuses. It just seems so intrusive, not to mention distasteful. I really wish these people would stop it, but I don't think it's really fair to do the same thing.

Am I being too stubborn? Am I a hypocrite for criticizing the lack of political participation and then getting annoyed with protestors? Or perhaps I have grown too timid, too afraid of offending anyone with differing opinions from my own.

Other links

• Full video of the protests, taken from the audience.

Sometimes I get offending listening to conservatives. Other times I just laugh:

This is Leslee Unruh, President of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, a pretty big Evangelical organization promoting abstinence-only education. She is also an idiot, apparently.

BONUS VIDEO!!!!

Cool, I can make the player change colors!