An atrocity-pull

As I was “jogging” at the YMCA today I watched a CNN report about a Canadian adjunct professor being blamed for the radicalization of some students that seem to have traveled to Syria to join the “Islamic State.” Apparently he taught classes about Islamaphobia and injustice. I do not know much about his particular story. But I do know that, in general, teaching about injustice does not create a capacity for evil (or what we seem to be calling “radicalization”).

There is one thing that we should understand about humanity, because it has been shown and explained to us over and over again, demonstrated with depressing regularity: evil is ordinary. Every good villain has a compelling backstory. Maleficent and Elphaba were good girls once upon a time.  

Hannah Arendt gave to us the famous phrase: the banality of evil.

Milgram showed us that regular people, given permission and an order, will hurt  - even kill – other people. They will be drawn into complicity with, even active participation, in evil. History is replete with normal people engaging in crimes against humanity, in genocide, in causing pain and suffering. Given permission and a plausible story of injustice, of Nationalism, of deserved vengeance, of divine right - people can be draw into movements and actions and systematic expressions of evil causing pain and suffering of others. Regular people can enslave other people. Regular people can hand their neighbors over to genocide. Not only in the distant past, but also in the recent past and, yes, in the here and now. Regular kids from the USA and Britain and France and anywhere can leave home to join the “Islamic State.”

It is insincere to call the “Islamic State” and the evils they are willing to commit medieval. How many horrors have been committed in the modern age fueled by groups and nations and individuals ready to commit atrocities? But not everyone is complicit; not everyone participates. What is it that those who have protected the vulnerable from genocide, that assisted the escape of slaves, the kids who refused to push the button – what is it that they had? Whatever they had is the solution to the evil, and the cure that we need. The answer isn’t simply religion. Consider the two Catholic nuns convicted in Belgium of directly assisting in the murder of thousands of Rwandans. The answer isn’t simply education or economic means. Consider so-called “Jihadi John” with his middle-class childhood and University degree. Even kids from middle class America, from loving homes, can be drawn into a movement of atrocities.

But the answer to tearing down systems that create an atrocity-pull (not only the phenomenon of the “Islamic State” but the future yet-unknown groups acting for other sorts of causes) will be some combination of ideas, education and economic possibility all rooted in liberal freedoms, justice and compassion. Not ideas alone, but systems of justice liberty and compassion that protect individuals.

Because the capacity to be drawn into evil when handed a plausible reason, and permission, appears to be an endemic part of humanity, what we really need is to work proactively to tear down the stories that act as the fuel, and that give vulnerable people a sense of permission to be drawn into the atrocity-pull of hate or fear or vengeance or perceived righteousness. Teaching about injustice does not cause radicalization. Teaching about, and creating systems of, justice is one part of the solution to the ordinary problem of evil.

Evidence, Science, Rationality, Please!

Oh this riles me up. Science and rationality people!

The conversation should at least be civil. evidence based. Evidence!

Thank you Amy Wallace for the article and dealing with the vitriol that came after.

But how is it that so many people believe in a vast vaccination conspiracy? How could all scientists with children be lying to the public - what is the motive, greed? How can this be a sufficient explanation for the oppressiveness such a comprehensive lie would require? Is not a belief in science and evidence more satisfactory?
We have universally eradicated disease (smallpox) and nearly got there with Polio, but for pockets of vaccination resistance. Deadly disease has seemed so far from our safe protected lives in this usofa that people have no fear. But disease is a daily threat in much, most of the world. So would be, and will be, the case if we refuse science. I get angry because of the threat outbreaks cause for all of us. I am anxious to vaccinate my daughter for H1N1, as she has had the seasonal flu shot, which has a long track record of safety and effectiveness. But the issue is so much bigger than this flu epidemic.
I heard an interview with Ms. Wallace and she said that one sort of response she recieved that she had not considered and that was welcome (as opposed to the many decries of Whore! Murderer!) were those from individuals with Autism who said - I do not believe vaccination caused my autism, and I am tired of people equating autism with death, or treating it as a worst case scenario (worse than life threatening infectious disease). seriously.

a snippet from the article:
"Looking back over human history, rationality has been the anomaly. Being rational takes work, education, and a sober determination to avoid making hasty inferences, even when they appear to make perfect sense. Much like infectious diseases themselves — beaten back by decades of effort to vaccinate the populace — the irrational lingers just below the surface, waiting for us to let down our guard."

UN Week!

Climate change, nukes, and speeches galore. What to expect when Obama, Hu, Qaddafi, and 120 other world leaders descend on New York. From Foreign Policy magazine.

Courage Campaign

Watch this video from the Courgage Campaign, sign the letter to invalidate prop 8.
(you may need a tissue)

adicted to politics and palin brewhaha

Im always interested in the political back and forth and election coverage, but I do not sit down in front of the tv and watch pundit boxing back and forth coverage (except for the clips john stewart makes fun of), at least not until Sarah Palin. The crazy stories flying moments after we first heard her name, the shock that McCain would pick a running mate whose drama would take the campaign so far off message...so intriguing, so addicting, I had to turn on the tv. I found James Carville and Michelle Bachman yelling at each other. I couldnt turn it off. She says he's sexist for questioning her experience. I think, ridiculous! What a terrible horrible abuse of sexism and what a cheap lousy trick to pull on Americans. Grrr uurr rarr. But then I watched and listened some more and goddamnit the sexism started to fly, for real. To be fair, not from Carville (that I saw) and more importantly, not from Obama. But from women who started to question if she could possibly do anything but be a mother. Hello. This doesnt even need a reply. But even beyond these anachronistic few (im optimistic that there are not too many), sexism is present. Cafferty thought he was only knocking her inexperience, but he said, and I paraphrase, "That pretty little woman lady cannot stand up to big powerful strong men like Putin, who just killed a goddamn lion for christsake - these are not the kind of people you deal with in the PTA!" Is that what the debate would sound like if McCain picked a new novice male governor from Alaska? In that case we would likely debate his experience, but not with the same fervor and shock and dismay. So this is my appeal to Obama, who has generally stayed above the fray I think so far: keep it about policy. We do not want Sarah Palin because of her stand on policy - not because she is new to politics, not because she is a woman, but because she is on the wrong side of policy. period. I watched her speech. She was pretty good. She and Guliani terrified me. Yikes. So mean. Reminded me, who has been thinking this campaign should be a slam dunk for Democrats after the past 8 years of Republican disaster, that this is a real fight and Palin - a "hail mary" may she be - might just make it even harder. So we have work to do. Here are some hilarious buttons to show your support for the O.

Social Entrepreneurship, and an ode to Natalie Portman

The New York Times Magazine this week has a great article called The Celebrity Solution. Traub writes about the power that celebs have to get interviews, to raise awareness of issues, to raise money, and controversy. While it is may be absurd that being an actor should give one some authority that allows them audience with politicians, royalty, policymakers, movers and shakers, absurdity doesnt matter as much as truth. And in truth, a movie star can bring all sorts of money and influence with no more than a brief mention of a cause, the wearing of a t-shirt, or a life's dedication -- the spectrum of celebrity cause involvement is wide. I can not help but to love the portrayal of Natalie Portman,who is hollywood's sole microfinance celebrity promoter. Portman, as portrayed, knows that the extent of her influence is bizarre, and yet uses it. I am interested in the fact that she uses it to promote Finca, one of the many microfinance organizations. Microfinance, or microcredit, has seen a huge boom since its incarnation and success with Yanus, his winning of the nobel prize, the publishing of his book, and the UN' year of microfinance in 2005. The current debate in the microlending world is over its commercialization - the entrance of for-profit lenders into the game of credit for the poor. The whole topic is fascinating. Is giving credit to the poor a "human right" as Yanus argues, or a simple expansion of capitalism into a new market, taking advantage of and profit from, a sector that has the least to give? I believe that microcredit is an incredibly powerful development tool when done properly. The current question is whether or not for-profits can do it properly, as well as, or even better than non-profits do. Can you promote development while profiting? There are a ton of new businesses that seek to do so. These "fourth sector" organizations profit and promote, save the world and self sustain. I am currently (supposed to be) writing a conference paper on this very topic: the blending of non-profit and for-profits and the implications for International Politics.
This post has struggled to stay on point, there are just so many aspects of celebrity philanthropy, microfinance, fourth sector, social entrepreneurship, and Natlie Portman to talk about. The Ecorazzi regularly posts about Portman; her vegan shoes, how Toby Maguir veganized her, etc etc. And in a final note: I just watched The Darjeeling Limited (which I loved to pieces) and the pre-movie with Portman and Jason Schwartzman was fantastic too.
and in a final final note: if i wasnt writing a dissertation and raising a baby i would be one of the social entrepreneurs in the slide show in the NYT magazine (or like them). (or want to be anyway).

Coulter for Clinton? WTF?

I seriously do not know what to think about this.
Without trying to understand the actual thinking of the psycho who is always best to ignore, I am so curious if this would hurt Clinton with democrats, or boost her support among republicans...or maybe, just maybe, Ann Coulter has said enough crazy shit that no one pays attention to her anymore and it will make no difference whatsoever.
but, wow, bizarre.

Rebecca Walker response to Gloria Steinem

Just posting a link to Rebecca Walker, who is also "on the fence" about Clinton/Obama but has an interesting response to the Gloria Steinem op-ed I linked to before.

Obama or Clinton? Steinem's view.

I have to say, I was happy to see that Hillary Clinton took the New Hampshire primary. But at the same time I am a wee bit relieved that I havent had to choose yet - I am not sure which Democrat I want to see in the big race. Although Senator Edwards consistently harangues that he is the most progressive Democrat seeking presidency (besides poor Kucinich who seems to not really count in anyone's real estimation), the extent of his populist protective trade policies are suspect to me. But perhaps international political economy could be the subject of another post. The point here is that I am not sure if I would vote in a primary for Clinton or for Obama, but my reaction to Clinton's recent win makes things a bit more clear: I think Clinton it is. I also enjoyed Gloria Steinem's op-ed piece in the NYT today . (As she points out, "to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama" anyhow) Taking her cue, perhaps I should finally say that I support Senator Clinton because she would make a great president, and because she's a woman. Like many, I am just not sure about the big, most important race. Would Senator Obama be more likely to win over the entire (or enough of) the country? At least I feel reassured that the republicans look so lost right now that our chances, under any scenario seem good. But things change mighty fast.
Read that Steinem op-ed.

philly ends rent-free deal for homophobic boyscouts

Philadelphia has been battling with the boyscouts over their explicit denial of membership to homosexuals. The key issue is that the boyscouts have had rent free residence in a city building since the 1920s. This would be a good arrangement, as the boyscouts indeed offer services for many underprivileged kids in the city - its not all camping but after school programs and mentoring too - if the scouts were not also in the business homophobia. A private organization of course has the freedom of bigotry if it so chooses, but for a city government to heavily subsidize a policy of discrimination is flatly unacceptable. So I was pleased to read today that Philadelphia mustered up the strength to call the scouts out on their refusal to either change their policy or pay the rent of a non-subsidized tenant. While the consequence will be unfortunate for many kids, there is no justification for city support without scout policy change.

So, Im proud of you philly! But, Im still thrilled - elated - that my weekly commuting to your fine city ends next week.

fourth sector

yesterday was baltimore's ecofestival. i helped a friend at the co-op america table, and now im a happy new member. though i dont have much personal experience with co-op america yet, im a big fan of the fourth sector, and its a great tool for us consumers who want to find green businesses. so, check it out online.

and as long as im on the topic of sustainability once again, ill blab about my current fixation: did you know that something like 40% of most household's electricity usage is spent on appliances that are plugged in but turned off? how tragic! i want to take out a national tv ad campaign to tell people this so that they know to not leave their cell phone chargers plugged in when they are not using them, for example. a great solution is to plug everything into a strip that you can turn off and on. we do this in the office for all the lights, printer, stereo etc and it makes a big difference - can even see it in the electric bill. thats my eco-tip for the day.

dreaming politics (obamarama)

i have not decided who i would like to see as the democratic presidential contender. i have a "vote obama" button, as a gift, but i havent yet displayed it. i may want a "vote clinton" one instead. dontknow. pretty impressive options for us democrats this time. will be a tough one, but the great news and disconcerting news, is that the other team is so very...not impressive. so certainly i am a democrat who only votes democrat and has good reason to do so but i also am concerned for the leadership of the country if things do not go well for my team. i have had high hopes, as the country must shift back and we will certainly adjust for the horrible tenure of the shrub. and it is true that the ragged pack of contenders with the gop is in quite a few ways more moderate than he, but they also suck. in particular, i suppose, im actually speaking predominantly about this guliani ridiculousness, who is apparently their front runner. he cant be president. please. ridiculous. luckily our team is going to win this time around and so im back to what i intended to blog on: i had a dream about barack. well, not about him as much as he was there. in my dream he was for some reason even younger than now, this shinning star we were all talking about and i didnt actually talk to him, get this, i talked to his girlfriend. about him. while he was up on a hill.
who is in charge of my dreams? get some creativity ms boring dream designer! actually, it seems that the barack obama campaign crew may have designed this, and im wondering what crazy technology they are using. has anyone else had an ad placed in their sleeping brain?
so unless i have a dream featuring hillary, i think ill have to root for the obamarama.
thats the way it goes.
ps. i know there are other candidates, and they may woo me yet. but i cant help it, so far i only feel interested in these two. my dream ended with me watching some sort of light board (like light bright) that was lighting up and down showing the competition between them all and i was looking at obama cheering when it lit up. being interested in the clinton lights, and ignoring the rest. im such a dorky dorky dreamer.

shed a little light

"oh let us turn out thoughts today to martin luther king, and let us know that there are times between us, all men and women, living on this earth, times of hope and love sister and brotherhood" (shed a little light, james taylor)

if i could provide a link to this song, i would. but i dont think thats possible, certainly isnt with my techless skills. but its good and oh so perfectly appropriate for the anniversary of dr kings murder, a day we should all turn out thoughts to king and the repetitive historical, deadly push against the peacemakers.


(and on a lighter and more pathetic note: the announcement of a new series:)

The First Monthly .5Marathon Report!
months remaining: 7
current status: oh puh-leeas, like i could ever do this!
yesterday for the first time in a long time that i ran outside, that is, not on a treadmill. and, to boot, i was in a particularly hilly neighborhood. it was hard. so far i have never ran more than 4 miles, on the treadmill. but on the treadmill i get bored and need to share with other gym people. so i hoped id do better outside...didnt make two two miles outside where the cement hurt my puny wimpy knees. oh pathethic. i suppose i need new running shoes. but i find that a boring way to spend money, which is further evidence that...i am not a runner.
nope. why then, you may ask, am i "training" for a half marathon?
chocolate. the nike women's marathon has a chocolate mile, which means it must be fun and crazy and perfect for me. but, really when someone runs a marathon for chocolate the moral of the story is - they shouldnt be running a (.5)marathon!
(full disclosure: of course i dont expect to run the whole thing, but at least some of it! goodness)

international women's day

Happy International Women's Day!

Ill take the moment to turn our attention to Iran, where five women are charged with “acting against national security by participating in an illegal gathering” in order to peacefully protest laws that discriminate against women. Its important to keep the international struggle for women's equality in the forefront of our mind. Sexism, like most isms i suppose, varies from the subtle and insidious to the physical tangible and blatently criminal. In the US we are faced more commonly with the insidious and subtle, and I am afraid that young women growing up today are not always aware of the seriousness of the still-existing inequality women face, not only her at home but across the globe. Iran's actions violate both international law and, apparently, the Iranian constitution. But laws are never the full measure of justice. The women who have benefited from a previous generation's struggle must recognize that the struggle continues, and support it as they are able. One step in that direction is awareness, and one place to keep up on international news related to women and women's equality can be found here.

On a more positive note, today should also be about celebrating how far we have come! Leaps and Bounds and more leaps to come!

thinking about profit and public goods

in a class on research methods yesterday we were talking briefly about UNAIDS, the innovative new integration of several UN organizations (WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP and others) to tackle HIV/AIDS. i am starting research on global public-private partnerships and UNAIDS is a significant example, and so i mentioned that private organizations are also part of this project, like coke for example. as people expressed skepticism about the role of for-profit organizations joining public-policy projects, i threw out some of the reasons this happens not infrequently, but all the time. huge on the list is brand image and 'giving back'. but i also said that coke explains its attempt to rid africa of aids in rational homo-economicus terms - if AIDS (continues to) decimate the market in africa, coke loses that market. ooh, that caused quite a chill and exclamations of "wow thats callous." the truth is, well there are several truths. one truth is that coka-cola is the largest private employer in africa and it trully is in their economic best interest to provide treatment to their workers and systematically cure the continent of the decimating pandemic. another truth is that they, and other companies participating in their own projects for global improvement of some sort, have been pushed to do so by vocal demands by consumers. brand image is incredibly powerful but not impenetrable and their sensitivity to protest campaigns is a significant tool regularly and necessarily exploited those concerned about corporate (ir)responsibility. and because we raise hell the coca-colas of the world partner with projects as promising as UNAIDS. we shouldnt expect them to do it for reasons beyond economic rationality, instead we should continue to shape their incentives. that takes constant observation and pressure. with vigilant skepticism the for-profit world can be a powerful (indeed at many times necessary) partner in the pursuit of public goods.

(i am really happy with the direction my research is going! still a whole lot of ground work to do before i get anywhere near a full proposal, but im increasingly excited about the issue area, so im pretty sure i have at least that much right. thankgoodness.)

happy presidents day!

peace surge

Yesterday the House passed the two sentence nonbinding resolution recording disapproval for the surge. although it is nonbinding, politics is primarily about message, smoke and signals. 90% metaphor, if you will. and thus, in my opinion, it matters. surely, politics is simultaneously about getting shit done - about real policy that impacts lives. the charades and chatter are democratic action in process. i get annoyed when people whine that this or that is "only politics" - why deride political action as only political action? democracy necessitates deliberation and nonbinding chatter. the testing of waters and the pushing and pulling, testing of what is allowable, what can be done, is part of political discourse in a democracy. we have not had enough of this, we have not had enough questioning of one branch to another of our government. surely, questioning and chatter are not enough to change reality. but it is nonetheless important and of historical value. the pictures are from the march on washington a few weekends ago. living in baltimore is convenient in that i can decide in the morning that ill stop on over and participate. although i took a great number of pictures, i couldnt capture the size of it. but i certainly recommend a march on the mall with tensofthousands of people. passing congress and monuments with a throng of citizens with a message is pretty amazing. even if it gets a disappointing amount of news coverage.