Blog Action Day 2008: Poverty

I have been exploring the topic of poverty in recent days. The result is the following post.

Defining Poverty
What is poverty? According to the World Bank, poverty is characterized by lack of food and/or shelter, lack of education, lack of healthcare, but it is also “powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom.”
A large percentage of Americans are in debt. Which leads me to a question: is poverty the state in which one lives, or is it the amount of money and/or debt which one amasses?
I agree that extreme poverty is characterized by a lack of the very basics: food, shelter, medical care. But I also agree with the statement above that poverty is “powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom.” Obviously, there is a difference between being poor, i.e. trapped in one’s current situation but able to afford the basics, and poverty, which can be considered a lack of access to the basic needs of human beings in order to survive.

Poverty and Social Responsibility
What can we do about poverty, or should we do anything about poverty? Is each person responsible for him/herself, or do we have an obligation, if we are better equipped financially, to assist others? And along those lines, is it better to give or to teach?
There are many social welfare programs in the United States, but how many of them are bettering the needy? Should these programs be focused more on teaching and less on giving?
Is there a difference between living in poverty in a country like the U.S. and living in poverty elsewhere, such as in a developing nation? Are the poor in the U.S. richer (i.e. in social welfare programs available to them) than the poor in less financially stable countries?

Poverty and Homelessness in the U.S.
Poverty in the U.S. is very closely associated with homelessness.
According to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Coalition, 3.5 million people in the U.S. experience homelessness in a given year, and one-fifth of those are chronically mentally ill. I would like to further explore the topic of mental illness and homelessness at a later date.

The importance of body language and inner poise

How importance are charisma and confidence? How about body language and inner strength?

I noticed during the presidential debate that there was a great difference in the way the two candidates presented themselves. Particularly, I perceived a great variation in the body language of each. One stood tall, with arms wide, shoulders high. He seemed at ease. He looked directly at his opponent when the opponent spoke, and even addressed him directly at times. He smiled, but not too widely, he looked serious at times, but never did he appear cross or upset. He seemed relaxed and confident when answering questions. In other words, he kept his composure - inner poise.

The other candidate's body language was quite different. He did not look at his opponent when the opponent spoke; he mostly looked either down or straight ahead. To me, this projected either a lack of confidence or a lack of respect toward the opponent. Thinking about this person meeting with foreign leaders, one wonders if he would have a problem making eye contact with them if he disagreed with their policies. This candidate did not turn his body toward his opponent at any time. He frequently made reference to his opponent in the third person, as if he was not in the same room. It seemed a bit odd to me. This candidate's body language was more "closed," that is, his posture seemed more rigid and his facial expressions indicated a bit of tension.

Perhaps some would say that body language and poise are not important when choosing a candidate for president, nor important in any respect for that matter. However, I completely disagree. For example, what is the point of a job interview, if not to judge you by your body language and composure? The potential employer already has your resume and list of qualifications.

As a former student of Psychology and Sociology, I definitely feel that body language plays an important role in the way that we judge others. In addition, a person's body language can put us at ease or make us feel uncomfortable; it is that powerful.

Body language and poise go beyond an election. It affects the way others see us each day, and the way we view others as well, especially upon a first meeting. How important do you believe body language is in making an impression? Do you feel that it has an effect on the way others see you, or on how you perceive others?

Blog Action Day - Oct. 15th, 2008

Theme: Poverty
What is poverty? On October 15, 2008, bloggers who sign up for Blog Action Day are supposed to discuss the issue of poverty. The guidelines are fairly simple.

If you'd like to participate, you can go to Blog Action Day and sign up, then post an entry on your blog forewarning of the coming day (such as I am doing now), and include a link back to the blog where you learned about Blog Action Day. I first read about it on: Jack Mandora.

What is the age of innocence?

What if you could travel back to that moment in time before you saw the negative side of life, before you learned that bad things sometimes come into our lives, or even before you learned about the concept of death?
I think that most of us have layers of innocence, and as we grow older and experience more, these layers get stripped away. Each person's life is different; at the end, some are left with a few layers, some are stripped bare, and then there are those who seem impermeable to life's tragedies, those who appear unaffected or are perhaps unaware. You may call these people oblivious, you may call them lucky.
When we are young, we may have grandparents, pets, or neighbors who pass away. For most of us, this is our first encounter with death; this is the first time we experience a loss.
As we become teens, we develop a sense of invincibility; we can do whatever we want, we will never die, and nothing can hurt us (at least not physically, though our egos are quite easily bruised).
As we enter young adulthood, we have perhaps become slightly less invincible and slightly more human, but are ready to take on life nonetheless. We have things to prove and goals to achieve. We may have suffered mildly, maybe a broken heart or two, but perhaps having experienced these small tragedies has actually given us a false sense of wisdom.
As we attempt to conquer the world, we begin to face new challenges, such as work, dealing bosses and co-workers, fitting in, paying bills and having real relationships, we often find that life is not how we imagined it would be. It's harder. It does not look like the scenes we painted in our minds several years before. Maybe we begin to see that life, can at times, be cruel.
And another layer falls away.
As I ponder these things, I am reminded of the book Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger. In high school, I had to read this book. I remember my English teacher saying that Holden was trying to recapture his innocence, or was at least mourning the loss of it. At my young age, I did not understand exactly what she meant; how could I?
Lately, I have been thinking about censorship and what protecting the young really means (my thoughts were actually prompted by another blog I have recently begun to read).
Do we seek to preserve the innocence of our children (or children in general, i.e. the younger generation) in a futile attempt to recapture something which is impossible, that is, our own lost sense of innocence and naivety?

Is this necessary?

I was in the drug store tonight, when I happened upon this ridiculous display. What you may or may not be able to tell from the picture is that this is a full aisle of Christmas ornaments, Hallmark keepsakes, or whatever you want to call them. The fact is that this store has set aside an entire aisle for the display of Christmas ornaments - in August.

Lately, I have been thinking about the myths/lies that authorities peddle to us and that parents sometimes peddle to their children. Some of these myths are thought to be good for us - white lies told for our benefit or to protect us. In keeping with the holiday theme (in spite of the fact that they are still over four months away), I would like to explore the story of Santa Claus, and how people feel about the legend today. Are parents still passing this story down to their children, or has St. Nick become passe? If so, why do parents still propagate this myth, when it will only result in confusion, disappointment, and betrayal later on when they must tell their children that they lied?

When I was a kid, what first tipped me off was the fact that we did not have a chimney in our house; then everything else began to fall into place. I reasoned it out in my head, trying to convince myself that he was real, but in the end, logic won out. What was most difficult was that I did not know how to break it to my parents that I knew Santa was not real, so I pretended for a couple more years!

What were your beliefs regarding Santa Claus when you were young? How did you find out the truth and how did you feel? When you have children (or if you already have children), what will you tell them?

The return of Scripter...

Hello, I have been busy moving across the country for the past several weeks, so for the one and a half or so people who actually read this blog or navigate to it by accident (in any case, it counts!), I am back. I have actually moved to the San Francisco area (the fulfillment of a dream for some time), and have started another blog to chronicle my adventures here. It is called SF Bay Expressions, and contains photos of various things - landscapes, happenings, cultural events, etc. - which I am encountering as I explore the area.

Could billions spent on Olympics be put to better use?

What if all of the money spent on the Olympics went toward buying food for the hungry and poor? Or what if it was spent on better education?

What other uses could Olympic funds be put toward?

References (articles that discuss Olympic spending): GOP Spat Began with Olympics; McCain Backs Olympic Bid, but Watch Spending

Why I hate Wikipedia...

These are the reasons that I hate Wikipedia:

Ø Grammatical errors
Ø Explanations that lack thoroughness and simply do not make sense
Ø The false sense that there is some authority behind these explanations
Ø Lack of adequate references
Ø Inaccurate information (coupled with the false sense of authority)
Ø The fact that it is often the first search result to appear
Ø The fact that it claims to be an encyclopedia

I can even back up my hatred with an example: “All current methods involve heating a working fluid such as water, which is then converted into mechanical work for the purpose of generating electricity or propulsion.” So, according to this entry in Wiki, water is converted into mechanical work for generating electricity. I have several problems with this explanation. The first is that I’m not sure what the author means by “water … is then converted into mechanical work.” This does not make sense. Secondly, I believe the use of water to generate electricity is deemed hydroelectric power, and certainly does not produce radioactive side effects. (Now water is used in nuclear power plants, but certainly not in the way that the Wiki article implies. There is a much more thorough explanation here, and there is also a specific author attached to this article.)

Who can write for Wikipedia? According to Wiki itself, “Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge.” What is existing knowledge? Do they mean common knowledge? If so, why would anyone need to look up something if it is common knowledge? And I daresay, that there are many topics which are covered on Wikipedia which are not common knowledge and are in fact specialized. In addition, “Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link.” So even if there is accurate information displayed on a given topic, someone else can come along and change it to make it inaccurate. Brilliant!

Why do you hate Wikipedia? (If you like Wikipedia, why???!!!)

Yucca Mountain Discussion: Background Information

Yucca Mountain is the planned site of a massive nuclear waste dump. It is located in Nevada, approximately 100 miles Northwest of Las Vegas. Though you may not often hear about it in the news (especially if you live outside of Nevada), Yucca Mountain has been a hot topic in Congress for twenty-six years. The Las Vegas Review Journal provides excellent updated coverage of the Yucca Mountain Project. It is a very involved situation, but basically, the U.S. Department of Energy plans to use the site to bury at least seventy-seven thousand tons of radioactive waste. According to the LVRJ, the road to Yucca began in 1982 with the passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which called for the construction of a national nuclear waste storage facility. In 1987, it was decided that Yucca Mountain would be the site of this facility. (You can see a timeline of milestones here.)
In 2002, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recommended Yucca as the disposal site for "the nation's most lethal nuclear waste." President Bush promptly approved the recommendation. Originally the repository was due to be complete by 1998, but forseeing an inability to meet that dealine, the government moved the completion date to 2010. Recently, even the 2010 deadline has been deemed unlikely to happen, as the license to build the facility has not been approved yet. At this point, the Energy Department has just submitted their application for a license to physically build the Yucca facility.
Prior to 2001, the Dept. of Energy had to prove that Yucca Mountain itself could safely contain radioactive waste; in 2001, they were given permission to use storage containers to contain the waste. There has been additional controversy over the issue of the containers themselves, such as their durability and how likely they are to corrode, what might happen in the event of an earthquake, etc. Needless to say, severe doubt has been cast upon the adequacy of these containers to prevent radioactive leakage. (The very idea that at any point, the government was going to consider storing the waste directly in the mountain without the use of sealed containers seems absurd to me.)
If the waste is not stored properly, there could be serious environmental implications and negative impacts on the people who live in the surrounding area. There are additional implications with regard to the transport of this waste to the site, and the risks posed to anyone within a certain distance of the transportation routes, which would run throughout the entire U.S. (I will be following up on the potential environmental and health effects as well as the transport issue in a later post.)

What is your position on Yucca; is this an issue of which you were previously aware?

"Uncontacted" Amazon Tribe: Will they remain uncontacted, or will the world (and media) worm its way into these people's lives?

I have been reading a little bit about these uncontacted tribes in the Amazon, and yesterday another article about them on National Geographic's website caught my eye. I have been wondering: will these tribes be left alone, or will people from the outside penetrate the tribes, and irrevocably change the way of life for these people? As a sociologist (observer) and a lover of anthropology, I am more inclined to observe and study than to intervene and change.
In the June 3rd article, it states that the group Survival International "takes the position that uncontacted tribes should be allowed to live in their own way on their own land, as recognized by international law. " One of National Geographic's explorers/authors, Wade Davis, later states that contact with the tribes should only be made if necessary, i.e. they are in danger, and not solely out of curiosity.
What do you think will happen? Have the wheels already been set in motion for this tribe's way of living to change because this story has been much publicized? Or was the tribe's culture and lifestyle already doomed to change due to the possibility of deforestation and infringement by oil companies in the Amazon? Will the publicity actually serve to protect them from habitat destruction?

Humans are the only species that seek to keep their potential predators alive.

What are your thoughts?

The Art of Discussion: Conversation versus Domination

I sometimes try to avoid discussing social issues for fear of running the risk of offending someone. However, when discussing any issue that may be considered controversial or sensitive, one runs the risk of offending someone.
Discussion is a key element in learning and sharing. However, all too often, discussion, be it online, in person amongst two people, or in a group setting such as a classroom, turns into heated and sometimes angry debate when one party tries to dominate the other by speaking loudly (i.e. talking over the other person), using domineering body language, being nasty or insulting, or putting the other party down and being disrepectful.
I do not feel that such behavior is necessary. It is possible to express one's opinion without trying to dominate those who oppose it. I am wondering if gender plays a role in the outcome of such discussions. Do you feel, or have you experienced situations where, either men or women specifically try to dominate the discussion? Do you feel that gender does play a role in the turn these discussions take? How do you get your point across; are you guilty of these negative behaviors? Or do you avoid talking with co-workers and friends about sensitive issues, for fear the conversation may take an ugly turn?

Follow up to Question for Readers: What is the best way to combat ignorance?

Here is the immediate reason for my post. While living in the South, I have encountered a lot of ignorance, or what I deem anti-progressive thought. (See earlier post: Is the Southern U.S. in Need of a Cultural Revolution?) When I posted those questions, actually moments before I posted the questions, I had a heated argument with a work associate. During this argument, I was told to "go live in Iran, express my opinions, and see what happened to me as a woman." I can only assume that he was suggesting that I would be raped, killed, jailed, or otherwise assaulted (as opposed to being verbally assaulted, which is what happened to me during this conversation). I took what he said to mean that basically I was lucky to be able to be a woman and live in a country where I was allowed to speak my mind. Yes, it is called the first amendment. But I guess, as a man, he did not question his right to speak his mind. He went on to regurgitate propaganda which could have come directly from one of President Bush's pro-war speeches right around the time he began to send the military into Iraq.
In any case, needless to say, I was quite angry after this "conversation." But anger does not solve problems, resolve differences, or bridge knowledge gaps. In fact, it usually causes problems (when not channelled properly). So, I am trying to be the "bigger person" in this situation, and rise above my momentary anger to ask what it is I can do to combat such attitudes and ignorance. This attitude is one I have been subjected to many times during my two year stint in Florida (which I hope will be coming to an end soon). I have encountered a great deal of sexism and culturally-backward attitudes on many occasions. This situation has made me feel oppressed, sad, angry and powerless at times. But I am wondering if there is a way that I can turn all of these things into something positive. Here is my feeble attempt to do just that.
Previously, I was ignorant that so much sexism, racism and cultural bias still existed in the United States. I had thought this was a thing of the past. My eyes have now been opened to this ugliness. Now that I am aware of it, I have the opportunity to do something about it. You cannot attempt to make a change where you do not know that one is needed.
I have learned, or perhaps am learning, that the best way to combat ignorance is through knowledge, education and sympathy (certainly not with aggression or anger). At least, this is what I think.
What do you think?

Question For All Readers

What is the best way to combat ignorance?

(I have my opinions, which I will share later, but I would like to know yours.)

Dr. Jane Goodall provides some food for thought...

Dr. Jane Goodall is probably the most well-known and respected primate research expert in the world. This week, she has been campaigning for the elimination of animal testing in the European Union. This has made me more conscious of the fact that some of the household products I use may be manufactured by companies that test on animals. I have started doing some research, and I will be making some changes. I was relieved to find that some cosmetic companies that I favor (and can afford) do not test on animals. I guess this is an issue I have been aware of but have kind of pushed to the back of my mind. Even if Dr. Goodall is unsuccessful in her mission in the EU, I think she is accomplishing a great deal in drawing more attention to this issue and raising awareness of it.

Why must we possess what we admire?

I love, therefore I must own. In our society, love equals ownership. Is this an innate human fault, or a societal one? One possesses one's spouse, home, land, form of transportation, children. If I love the ocean, do I need to purchase beachfront property? This trait is hardly exclusive to the United States. Perhaps there is also an issue of power; I read an article today on BBC News' website which provoked these thoughts. In the BBC's article, Tibet is described as "the site of a mystical Utopia." Is imperialism by large and powerful nations just an extension of this human need to possess?

An Alien Idea

The Vatican (Roman Catholic Church) has stated that it is acceptable to believe in aliens. This is proof of a point which I was actually making earlier today, that the Catholic Church is a supporter of science. I attended Catholic high school in New York City, where I was taught about evolution for the first time. I was taught that it was the Church's policy that religious belief and scientific theory could co-exist. My biology teacher was actually a priest, and never contradicted science for the sake of religion. While my beliefs may have changed over the years, my respect for the Church's policy for supporting science and education has not. It seems as though some supporters of science would emphasize the divide between religion and science, when creating such a divide is what maintains ignorance. Perhaps these people are talking more of the Christian fundamentalists of the South (U.S.) and Midwest, but I still feel like Catholicism gets lumped in with that sect. Is it not possible for those of faith to open their minds to science, and for scientists to show a mutual respect for those who are religious? Religious institutions have historically attempted to hold back scientific progress; however, it is not necessary for the pendulum to now swing the other way. To me, this is more an issue of mutual respect and tolerance than of whose theories and beliefs are correct.
By the way, this is what I think aliens actually might look like if they exist:) Mexican Axolotl

A lesser Panda? I don't think so...

The Red Panda is on the brink of extinction. So why is this tiny, adorable Panda given so little attention? I was not aware of its existence until a couple of years ago when I watched a documentary about it on cable. It is a harmless, beautiful, little animal whose habitat is threatened by deforestation and to a lesser degree, hunters. And, according to the Smithsonian National Zoological Park website, there many be fewer than 2500 adult Red Pandas left in the wild.
For more information about the Red Panda and to see pictures, you can go to (on the first two sites, you can even adopt /sponsor one!):
Smithsonian National Zoological Park
The Red Panda Network
National Geographic

Acknowledgment for a candidate, endorsements and voting aside...

With so much attention focused on Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, it is sometimes diffcult to remember that there is a Republican in the race, i.e. John McCain. The focus has mainly been on the battle between Obama and Clinton, both hotly competing for the Democratic Nomination.
Whether you support Hillary Clinton or not, I think she is owed a credit for doing something few women before her have done [see link: Center for American Women & Politics]. While technically, women have equal rights in the United States, I think most women, particularly those who have ever lived in the South, can tell you that sexism is still very much alive. I have been living in the Tampa area of Florida for the past two years, and have experienced it firsthand, especially in the workplace. It is often not as blatant and obvious as someone saying, "woman, get me some coffee." That would be too easy. But it is subtle, and its ugly overtures are present everyday. I will not go into detail, but trust me, it is there. I can tell from insinuations that have been made that the idea of having a woman as president would be laughable to many of my male co-workers.
This is why I applaud Hillary Clinton. I may not agree with her completely nor support all of her policies. But whether you plan to vote for her or not, I think she deserves some recognition for her efforts. It is difficult to take on great challenges when the quiet voices of many are telling you that you are still the fairer sex.

Smokers, this means you!

First, let me say that I am someone who does not smoke and who detests cigarettes. I grew up with a father who smoked heavily, and I actually believe that it is he who is to credit for the fact that neither I nor my three siblings have ever smoked cigarettes. We developed an aversion to and even a hatred for smoking as a result of being couped up in cars, rooms, and other small spaces with fumes of the nasty stuff. My dad would light up after each meal, and would always smoke in the car. In his defense, he was fourteen when he started smoking, and back in his day, I think doctors were still telling people that nicotene was no more harmful than bubble gum. It took my father fifty years to quit, but he did it. I think that the higher the number of years you have smoked, the greater is the accomplishment of quitting.

However, since the 1970's or so, doctors, along with the Surgeon General, have caught onto the fact that cigarettes, are in fact, bad for your health. This is why I cannot understand why anyone around my own age, give or take fifteen years, would have started smoking in the first place. It does not make sense. Aside from being terrible for your health, it is just plain disgusting! Yes, I have tried a few cigarettes, just to see what the allure is, and I could not figure it out. What is the appeal - bad breath, smelly hair and clothes, yellowed teeth?

Not to mention those of you who flick your cigarette butts out of car windows, leaving them to land all over the road. Where do you think they go? Don't you have an ashtray in your car?

And the smokers who stand outside of buildings and when finished, throw their cigarettes on the ground, stamp them out, and leave them there! The world is not your trash can.

With all of my disgust with regard to cigarette smoking, there is a new element of repulsion which has come to my attention in recent years. Smokers, you are polluting the environment! If you want to make your lungs black and poison yourself slowly, go for it. But your actions are impacting others, in fact, the whole world. [Interesting articles: How Smoking Affects Our Environment, AHA: Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Cigarette Butts Cause Environmental Pollution]

On a side note, here is a link to images of cigarette warning in European Union countries. They are somewhat more detailed and severe than those found in the U.S.