Get Me Right

Last week, His Excellency Hem Heng, Cambodian ambassador to the U.S., gave a particularly uncomfortable lecture. I felt confident going in to his lecture because I knew about Cambodia, I was, at the very least, aware of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot’s reign of terror. But, the longer I sat there, the more uneasy I felt. I had no clue how much the United States had supported the Khmer Rouge, financially, politically, militarily. And here this man, who had lived through the Cambodian enslavement, was telling me that the United States was a main supporter, but nobody stood up and told him he was wrong, meaning, he must be telling the truth. It’s just that I, being particularly uninformed, had never known just how involved the U.S. became in Pol Pot’s killing spree. As I looked around me, I saw that the girl next to me had no clue what the Khmer Rouge was and instead was drawing pictures of the US bombing cattle in Cambodia and I realized that maybe the rest of my generation was just like me, wholly unaware. That’s about when I started feeling particularly uncomfortable. How many other situations have we (as a country) been in where we steamrolled over other countries, over other people, to put ourselves in a better position?

As the “most powerful country in the world” the U.S. exploits quite a lot of situations, we stick our opinions, our noses, our guns into places that they simply do not belong and we get away with whatever we’d like to do because other countries are less powerful than us, and thus have less say. Granted, we do our best to help countries that are revolting, starving, dying, but the fact is, we also do a lot of harm. Our politicians are intrusive, decisive and outright rude sometimes. Is this the way that our country would prefer to be? Do we as the citizens want a government who financially supports a dictator in Egypt simply because we need ties to the US, or should we start saying no? Should we start standing up for ourselves and saying “NO. I do not want other people in the world to suffer simply because I am part of a country so enormous that it does not know its own boundaries” Here’s to facing things that make us uncomfortable, to politicians who misrepresent the people, to a military that exploits, to a president who makes decisions that we the people would never make. Here’s to saying no.

Start with this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/world/asia/17pakistan.html?ref=us

Standard Lines

A week ago visiting professor Gideon Aran spoke at the Kennedy Center, commenting on the 9/11 attacks ten years after.

September 11th stunned America. We sat back, dazed and most of us wondered "how... why did this happen?" Lucky for us, the media was right there to soothe our insatiable curiosities and tell us exactly why America was under attack. A few years later, we learned to live with the facts and accept that Middle Easterners were all brainwashed to hate us because they didn't have a democracy like we did, they believed in people like Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein was limiting their ability to think correctly. Oh, and something about Al Qaeda too.

Not so, says professor Aran. He suggested that we collectively fell to the biases of the media and the politicians who desired to create a force and reason for retaliation. But in all reality, the reasons for Al Qaeda attacks were much deeper rooted in Middle Eastern history and U.S. relations with the Muslim people. Professor Aran emphasized the idea that the timeline for causation was almost endless. Where does the hate begin? How do we know which events to pinpoint?

To me, his musings highlighted a need for better history education. We live in the present and we plan for the future, but the past gets overlooked as quickly as it becomes the past. The human race as a whole marches forward, on to bigger and better things, hardly ever looking back - until something happens that sends us reeling. Suddenly Libya is in flames and we have no clue how it happened.
It is essential to know causation in order to find a solution.

History is essential in every field because it shows us what worked, what didn't and why. In the advances of science we build on the professionals before us who tested theories. In art we look at history to reflect upon social moods and means of expression. In political science we observe difference interactions between states to figure out why China is the way it is.

It is necessary to be well-versed in history so that when you have an opinion on the war in Iraq, your opinion counts for something. When you talk about the revolution in Egypt, you understand truly what is going on. When you joke about Kim Jong-Il, you know exactly what you're saying.

And in life, we need history to know where we're going next.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/education/30advanced.html?scp=12&sq=education+history&st=nyt

Secret's in the Telling

In 1996, during the Clinton Administration passed a law called the Defense of Marriage Act. It has two main components, the first implies that same-sex marriage was not federally recognized and that states have the ability to allow for civil unions within their own states (and/or territories), but that other states do not have to recognize or accept those unions. 
To me, this makes sense, if one state is wholly opposed to gay marriage, they should not have to accept the decisions of another state with entirely different people living in it. That seems fair, and vice versa as well, if one state is particularly desirous to allow civil unions within their state, then they should not be limited by what other states want. 


The second portion defines the term Marriage. It explicitly states that "the word `marriage' means

only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, 
and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is 
a husband or a wife.'

The act text in its entirety

This particular section is the most controversial (or celebratory, if you're me). Because it excludes marriage to goats. kidding.

At any rate, the Act passed both the house and the senate with a landslide majority (342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate). But has been challenged heavily since its inception. 

Most recently, the Obama Administration has announced that they will no longer defend the DOMA because they question the constitutionality of the act and find it horribly unpopular to defend an act tthat upholds marriage. 

However, with that statement came Obama's personal opinion that, “support for actual marriage is not bigotry, but instead an eminently reasonable, common judgment affirming the foundational institution of civil society.”

That sounds like a man who is being swayed by the loudest voices. 
In every single poll I was able to find, there has always been a higher percent opposed to gay/lesbian marriage that those in favor.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-continue-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx

Why then, are we letting the loudest voices dictate the way we live? 

At the end of February, Attorney General Eric Holder sent this note to Speaker of the House John Boehner informing him of Obama's decision that the DOMA was unconstitutional. Since when was it this one man's job to decide that? Presidents of the United States have never had that power. 


On Friday, March 4th the Republican party announced that they would continue to support the DOMA and uphold it against critical review. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/us/politics/05marriage.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

Never have I been more proud of the men and women who legislate for our country. It was incredibly brave for them to take a stand for the people of America. To listen to the voices who are not nearly as loud. To be firm even when it was uncomfortable.


Not as much can be said for the President of our country. 


Let me explain why I believe that marriage and protecting the definition of marriage is important. 


I firmly believe that marriage is a religious ceremony representing a joining of a man and a women with God. Together they three form a union where both the man and the women can grow, develop and become more like their Heavenly Father. 
I understand that not everyone believes this and not everyone treats marriage the way it deserves to be treated. There are plenty of straight couples who disrespect the intentions of marriage, this does not make gay marriage okay, it simply makes violating good marriages wrong. 


The purpose of marriage is to create families that will also learn and grown and (hopefully) make good decisions as they strive to become good people like their father in Heaven. 
Gay marriages cannot fulfill this purpose because they cannot create. In truth, they can adopt and adoptions are good but in actuality adoptions are not creation. The ability to create bodies and give life to them is one of our Heavenly Father's most treasured abilities. It is his supreme ability and his fondest hope is that we become like him; thus he has given us that ability as well. 


In truth, I know without a doubt that my religious convictions have everything to do with the way I feel about gay marriage. This is not a bad thing. No one ever said that we have to separate the two and I prefer not to.


The Mormon church does not hate the gay community. We do not hate people who are gay. We do not label them as sinners and outcasts. We do love them and we do want them to be happy. However, we do firmly believe that acting on gay tendencies is not appropriate. I  firmly believe that. I believe that same-sex marriage mocks the purpose of marriage, which is to create families. Thus I am grateful that Congress is willing to protect the definition of marriage so that it may remain sacred to those of us who believe in its sanctity.


The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are outspoken about gay marriages. But just listen to them. They aren't mean spirited, they are good and loving, but very clear. 


“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are" - Gordon B. Hinckley


 "We do not reject you… We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you" - Boyd K. Packer

"Not long ago I received a letter from a man in his early 30s who struggles with same-gender attraction. His struggle has not been easy, and he has not yet married. But, he wrote, 'the Lord has helped me face my current circumstances, and I am content to do my best and leave my life in His hands.'

<sup>I weep with admiration and respect at the faith and courage of such a man who is living with a challenge I have never faced. I love him and the thousands like him, male or female, who “fight the good fight” (1 Timothy 6:12). I commend his attitude to all who struggle with—or who are helping others who struggle with—same-gender attraction" - Jeffrey R. Holland


http://lds.org/ensign/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng</sup>
http://lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng

It cannot be said any better than that.

Little Bombs

"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far"
-West African proverb (made famous by Theodore Roosevelt)

United States defense secretary Robert Gates took a trip to China early January. His intentions were to improve "defense ties" between the U.S. and China. Essentially, the US wants to maintain a cooperative friend in China as we worry about hostile countries in its neighboring areas (read: North Korea). Furthermore, with China's size, economy and power growing at such a rapid rate, it simply wouldn't do to have them as an enemy. Particularly when it comes to China's military. China has the second largest military force in the world (behind only the U.S.), a force which cannot be reckoned with and must, instead, be appeased through false grins of friendship. But rest assured, China could put up a good fight if they wanted to.

In general, the United States subscribes steadfastly to the Democratic Peace Theory, which is the idea that democracies fight significantly less with other democracies and thus, in order to increase the likelihood of world peace, as many countries as possible should be democratic. As an unspoken agenda, US leaders push democracy. (Case in point, during the peak of the Egyptian revolutions both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed Egypt and urged that they move swiftly to democracy.) However, the US has been known to ignore their quest for democracy in favor of finding an ally among in a tense area. (Case in point, though Egypt was not at all a democracy but, in fact, a dictatorship, the US was willing to fund nearly all of Egypt's military in attempt to gain an ally in the volatile Middle East countries). China is not a democracy, but instead a Communist country. Thirty years ago communists were among the United States' greatest enemies, but now with bigger (or perhaps just different) fish to fry, China is a great friend to the US. We interact with China on a relationship of friendship, but also of avarice and uncertainty.

However the one most troubling aspect about U.S.-China relations is that we simply do not take China seriously.  News articles come out daily about the threat of China's growth in technology, military and GDP. Because those growths are so substantial and so rapid, the US is willing to take note. But because China is not a democracy, we have the tendency to believe that their success is illegitimate. We say "oh, its China, what could they possibly do to us?" Former Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice, in her January address at BYU illustrated that there was no way that China could surpass the United States with their government in such a state. And we all cheered. "Yay! We're number one!"

It may not be a democracy, but who could argue that China's system is working for them?
It may be imperfect, but who would say that the United States' government is perfect?
Growth like this is hard to ignore.

And because we ignore China so easily, the people of China feel the need to display their power for all the world to see. Hours before President Hu Jintao received Secretary Gates in the Great Hall of the People, the Chinese military launched a test flight of its latest stealth fighter. A move that said "Wake up, U.S. We're here!" China wants the world and especially the United States to see its big stick.
President Hu informed Gates that he wasn't aware of any test flights scheduled for that day and that may very well be true, but it doesn't change how the Chinese military feels. Their move may have been undiplomatic, but it spoke volumes about what they wanted from the US. Respect. Fear. Recognition of the legitimacy of the People's Republic of China as a global state with just as much power as the United States.

They've earned their keep. They aren't like us in a lot of ways, but they are successful. For that, we must give China credit and we must recognize them as a key player in the international world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/world/asia/12fighter.html