The Right to Democracy

The need for new, democratic government is constantly growing and gaining support amongst Islamists as well as a select number of liberals in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood currently holds approximately fifty percent of seats in Parliament, more than any other political group. Their spokesman, Mahmoud Ghozlan, spoke recently about the Brotherhood’s desire to appoint a prime minister. They believe that the SCAF has not been successful in controlling violence and facilitating progression into democracy. They want to appoint a prime minister who will take the next step and provide security for the Egyptian people.The only catch is that they want the official to be a member of the Brotherhood.

Symbol of the Muslim Brotherhood

While instating a new prime minister would ensure the SCAF has less power, the prime minister would then have the ability to form a new government. Plus, if the prime minister can only be chosen from a pool of Muslim Brotherhood members, is this real democracy? The Brotherhood had the clear upper hand in parliamentary elections because of previous experience in politics/elections and also had connections to the Egyptian people. Therefore the Brotherhood needs to recognize that it is not fair to the people to only be able to choose from the Brotherhood members.

Also, the thinking of the Brotherhood is not completely correct in their assertion that instating a new prime would automatically bring about more control and peace. Putting a person in a high powered position with large responsibility could lead to disaster if the person has little experience or undemocratic motives. While it may seem like a good idea, there are underlying factors that the Muslim Brotherhood needs to consider before appointing a new prime minister.

Although the Muslim Brotherhood does seek democracy, when they speak of appointing a member of their party, they "other-ise" the rest of the Egyptian population who isn't Muslim. While Egypt is a predominately Muslim country, they do have a large Christian population (as well as other religious sects). And with the recent clashes between Copts and Muslims, this idea is not one that will sit well with the Christians. Differences in religion will always separate Egyptians to some degree, but policies a predominately Muslim government will make will increase the differences between them. In this time of change, the last thing Egypt needs is further tension.  

What's up with the weather?

For those of you who do not live in Chicago, the weather over here has been rather odd. Usually in February and January the grounds are fluffed with white snow. Traffic is backed up by piles of snow blocking the roads. People complain left and right about the cold weather.

But this year, and this week especially, winter in Chicago has barely been winter. Tuesday was in the 60s. In years past we have had awful snow storms and multiple snow days. So what exactly is up with the weather? Is it global warming, or is it simply a phase?


Having read a lot about global warming, whether it be in a biology class or on my own, there is no denying that things are changing. Whet Moser on Chicagomag.com referenced an interesting explanation by Dr. Jeff masters about what is happening:

"The natural weather rhythms I've grown to used to during my 30 years as a meteorologist have
become significantly disrupted over the past few years...We're used to seeing the slugger hit the ball out of the park, but not with the frequency he's hitting them now that he's on steroids. Moreover, some of the home runs now land way back in the seats where no one has ever been able to hit a home run before. We can't say that any particular home run would not have occurred without the steroids, but the increase in home runs and the unprecedented ultra-long balls are highly suspicious. Similarly, Earth's 0.6°C (1°F) warming and 4% increase in global water vapor since 1970 have created an atmosphere on steroids."

While changes in weather are expected over time, and it is necessary to consider that humans haven't been able to record and analyze most of the weather that has occurred over the lifetime of the planet, these changes Dr. Masters presented cannot be overlooked. And although the weather and global warming affects each and every one of us, most countries are not doing enough to significantly slow down the effects. We know there is a problem. But governments have so many other problems to deal with currently, such as the economic crises and recent social uprisings, that the environment is put second. This is understandable, but the future of our planet does depend on our current actions, and if we don't make changes soon, the situation, even in Chicago, will only worsen.

Kurdish Protesters?

Today as I was walking down Upper Wacker Drive at Michigan Avenue, I was greeted by Kurdish protesters outside Turkey's embassy trying to raise awareness about the raids by the Turkish government into Kurdish villages. On December 28, 35 people were killed, most of them children. As I approached the protesters, I was handed an informatory letter describing the issue:

"Current Turkish government, Mr. R.T. Erdogan's cabinet, claims to be a democratic and liberal Islamic country in the Middle East, lectures Syria and Libya for democracy, and accuses Israel of being cruel against Palestinians."

This clearly speaks to the hypocrisy of the Turkish government; the saying "practice what you preach" comes to mind. Certainly this is not the first time in history this has occured. The U.S. government advocated for democracy across the globe, but at the same time did not offer all it's citizens equal rights, for example African Americans were not granted equal rights until 1964.

As I crossed paths with the protesters, I couldn't help but wonder, how does one even begin to get the government to change? Is protesting enough to get the government to recognize the problem and do something about it?

The protesting Kurds would argue yes. The first step to solving a problem is to recognize there is a problem in the first place. What about protesting in the U.S.? Does this help their cause back in Turkey?

It is interesting to see what the media emphasizes and what it does not. As my classmates and I read the signs of the protesters, we were confused as to what the issue was. But us simply being there and recognizing the issue is part of the process of solving it. As I stated above, recognizing the problem and raising awareness is just as important as solving the issue itself.

Teaching Both Sides

Most of what students learn about is what their teachers force them to read.  If a teacher assigns a reading on how Columbus discovered America, they are most likely to believe that Columbus was the first one to reach America and completely ignore the fact that there were previous inhabitants. Of course when students get older and wiser, they learn to think for for themselves. But what happens when students only learn one side of the story?

What teachers choose and choose not to show there students greatly affects how students perceive the world and history. One issue that I have with school is that usually only one side is showed (not to say that this is always the case). Recently, I was assigned to read The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean B. Carroll for my AP Biology Class. This book focuses on evolutionary history and provides factual evidence as to how natural selection allows for evolution to occur over time.

While I really enjoyed reading this book and learned more about evolution, I can hear the other side of me crying out, "Hey! What about the side that says evolution doesn't exist?" I do believe in evolution, and can see how evolution fits in with the history of the world. But I am simultaneously interested in the other side. Why can't evolution exist? What are the counter examples to evolution?

I understand that it is a science class and my teachers job isn't to present the other side. But religion does play a role in science, just as ethics does. I can't help but wonder if we lived in a predominantly/extremist Christian or even deeply religious area if the curriculum would be different. Would I even be allowed to read this book in school? To what degree does the majority religion influence education?

This also speaks to how society has become more liberal. Society is changing, evolution is more widely accepted, but this doesn't mean only one side should be taught.

Mitt Romney: Religion in Politics

Religion is something that everyone chooses to believe or not to believe in. By not making a choice, you are inevitably making a choice. Because it affects all of us in some way or another, to what degree should religion influence politics and elections? This is an extremely wide and controversial topic, so I am going to try to condense it down to a few recent issues throughout several blog posts.

1. Mitt Romney and Mormonism

As many of you already know, Mitt Romney is running for the GOP presidential candidate in the 2012 elections. He was raised a Mormon, which is not resonating with a group people in America. Mormonism is not widespread throughout the U.S. at all, constituting a mere 1.7 percent of adults in America, and because of the lack of knowledge of Mormons America has difficulty understanding them through any other lens besides that of the people who practice polygamy. As seen in this picture, some people do not even connect Mormonism to Christianity:

So why are Americans so quick to judge? Personally, living in the Midwest, I have never met a Mormon, and if I have I wouldn't know it. The only preconceived notions I have of them are seeing reality shows on TV of men who have multiple wives.

The great majority Mormons do not practice polygamy, including Mitt Romney. As previous president of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Gordon B. Hinckley stated,

“This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church.... If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.”

It is important that we judge Romney based on his political views and aspirations as president, not on his religious principles or stereotypes we hold against his religion.

As can be seen from the map, Mormons constitute a small group in the U.S.— more than one would expect. They are the second fastest growing religion. While highly concentrated in Utah, Mormons have recently spread out. This speaks to the tolerance and more widespread amount of freedom in the U.S. There are currently 15 Mormons in Congress. So what makes Romney so different? Because he is a front runner in the election and has a serious chance of being elected, people feel the need to scritinize him more than other previous Mormons running for political office.

My issue with people being so critical of Romneys religion is that if we can have an African American president, a female secretary of state, what is so wrong with having a Mormon presidential candidate? Isn't America all about freedom and acceptance? If we can put aside our issues with race and gender, shouldn't we be able to do the same with religion?

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/mormon.gif

Is the world ready for Hillary Clinton's LGBT policy?

Hillary Clinton 12/6/11 in Geneva giving a speech on Human Rights Day




Two days ago Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared in front of the United Nations that discrimination against people because of their sexuality is a violation of their human rights, and that the United States will now have a "Global Equity Fund" aimed at helping human rights groups fight prejudice against this minority. I first read about this event in an article by James M. Lindsay in the Global Public Square blog, and he cited some interesting points by Republican Candidate Rick Perry on Clinton’s latest policy:

“Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money. But there is a troubling trend here beyond the national security nonsense inherent in this silly idea. This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americas of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong.”

Perry raises some valid points, and a few questions come to mind:

1. Is it America’s duty or place to try to promote its own values in other countries?
2. How will Americans react to this policy? Will it be well received because it coincides with our values about equality and freedom of expression, or will the conservatives balk and complain?
3. How will other countries perceive this?
4. And finally, however they decide to promote LGBT rights, will it be successful? What defines success in this realm, and how can one measure it?

Although America’s acceptance and tolerance of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people has generally increased, this same feeling is not true around the world. I can understand where Clinton is coming from; her intentions are good at heart. The policy they have laid out appears to be substantial and well thought out. But looking at this issue from the inside out, many countries are simply not ready to take the step towards acceptance, and American intervention is not going to make the process go any smoother.

Be Thankful

Every year at the Thanksgiving table, salivating at the succulent turkey, mashed potatoes, and cranberry sauce, welcoming each person into the family, whether a divorced friend or distant cousin, my family and I go around and reflect on what we are thankful for. Each year the meal changes slightly and the people are different, but what we are thankful for is usually similar. Health, opportunity, friends, family, and food seem to be the big ones.

But this year was different for me. In English we have been reading Reading Lolita in Tehran, and before the big feast I had finished my reading for the following class. The story is centered on women living in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the challenges they face as being women in a society that persecutes them and deprives them of their freedom in nearly every way. A group of women are selected by a female teacher, Azar Nafisi, to meet on Thursdays to discuss literature. A particular passage from the book struck me:

"I raised my glass of water to him and said, who would have thought that such a simple meal would appear to us like a kingly feast? and he said, We must thank the Islamic Republic for making us rediscover and even covet all these things we took for granted: one could write a paper on the pleasure of eating a ham sandwich."

The man is highlighting the difference between society before and after the strict law enforcements, and how once common objects and daily rituals seem foreign and suddenly special. The contrast between this society and our own is huge. Freedom is often taken for granted in America, and I have been reminded of this through Reading Lolita in Tehran. I feel so lucky to be a woman living in America: to be able to voice my opinions, go to whatever school I desire, and simply be blogging right now.

While many people complain about their issues with the United States and the government, I am thankful. Sure, there are many things that need to be fixed, corruption and the economy as a whole for example. But we are so lucky to even be able to voice our opinions on what we think is wrong. As we say our thanks this Thanksgiving, it is imperative that we are thankful for what we have, and not contemplate what we want to have.