Reflections on the DOMA decision

I don't remember when DOMA was passed; it's not one of those etched-into-my-memory-forever moments. But I do remember the debate leading up to it. I graduated high school in June 1996, and DOMA was signed a few months later. During my senior year psychology class, we were asked to debate whether gay people should be allowed to adopt children. In a class of 30, I was the only person who said yes. The gay students in my class were too afraid of being outed to speak up. I am, almost sadly, very heterosexual and therefore had no such fears. I also don't care if people think I am gay. 

And of course, that is what happened. After a robust (and, obviously, amazing) defense, someone said I must be gay. I replied - and apparently rightly so - that if I were, there's no way I would have been willing to speak up on this issue. I would have been so afraid of what was being said, I'd have just remained quiet. When the class was sent away, one of my classmates came out to our teacher. It would take her a few more years to come out to me but when she did she reminded me of this story.

The freedom that comes when you're unafraid of discrimination can be a powerful one, if it's channeled correctly.

It's easy to look back to that day, though, and say "I also don't care if people think I am gay." In truth, in 1996, being gay wasn't just a sin in the eyes of some Americans. It was a justifiable reason for discrimination in the eyes of most Americans. My parents, who were my first teachers of equality and who have each been powerful voices for the underprivileged and voiceless, had always encouraged me to speak my mind and to fight for fairness. They taught me the lessons of Martin Luther King, Jr., and yet on the issue of gay rights, they feared my outspokenness would lead people to discriminate against me. There was a clear fear that by associating with gay rights, I would be assumed to be gay. If that were the case, I risked being ostracized. Not by my parents, who made it clear they would love me no matter what, but by pretty much everyone else in my life.

In law school I was taught the same thing. People encouraged me to leave off my CV both the Christian Legal Society, of which I was co-President as a 2L, and Out & Allies, of which I was a member (admittedly, not very active) for all three years. Having both on my CV would make no sense to anyone, I was told, and choosing one or the other would inevitably offend someone who wouldn't give me an interview because I was too conservative or too liberal. If I actually was gay, perhaps I would want to signal that so I didn't end up at a place where I had to answer too many questions, but as I wasn't gay, there was no point to it. While I didn't listen to my parents in high school, I did cave to the pressure in law school and chose to leave off all extracurricular activities that weren't a journal or Honor Council.

Fear can quell even the outspoken, if it isn't forcefully rebuked.

I failed myself back then. 

Today's decision on DOMA will not change my life in any meaningful, personal way. I will not suddenly have a marriage recognized on next year's taxes. I will not be entitled to bring my spouse in from overseas. Or have my spouse recognized as a dependent for my federal health care. In my extended family, there is still not a single out person, so I won't even have someone extra joining my family. The most personal that this gets for me right now is that I won't feel guilty when I do eventually marry. And I'll likely have a lot more weddings to attend in the near-ish future, both for my gay friends and for the straight ones who have vowed not to marry until gay people could. (This does actually mean more presents to buy for other people, and less money for presents for myself, so I'm feeling pretty self-sacrificial in my joy today.) [The last part of that parenthetical was sarcasm, by the way.]

Yet, today, as my news feed filled with pink equal signs - for the second time this year, and with people who sat in my senior year psychology class joining the cause - I felt an intense sense of pride at what the Supreme Court did today, and at what it means for my lifetime. Because while my life will not change, my lifetime has become something more. When I am old and grayer than I am, I will tell my grandchildren about how in my lifetime, I saw people move from a position of hate and exclusion to a position of love and acceptance. I saw the fear lose the war, even if it sometimes still wins a battle.

Like "Don't Ask Don't Tell," DOMA was a product of the time in which we were living.  It was a time filled with fear.  A time to fear discrimination if you were gay, a time of fear of those you didn't understand if you weren't.  In less than twenty years, though, the balance shifted. And it shifted so heavily that a group of 5 Justices whose average age is 68 years old felt it untenable to treat homosexual people differently than heterosexual people. 

If fear was not still tangible, we would not have as many children committing suicide because they were bullied on the basis of sexual orientation.  But the institutional acceptance of fear is being chipped away. I think back to how black school children were treated in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, and know that bullying based on sexual orientation will be socially - and possibly legally - unacceptable in my nephew's classrooms. That is what my lifetime now means. 

The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

Yet, if we're measuring the moral arc of the universe - and not just the US - there is still a lot more bending that needs to be done. I can't help but think of my friends who fight for LGBT rights in other countries. The conversations that have been had, the trials that have been fought, the fear that still permeates their daily lives.  Fear of persecution; arrest; death. Fear that their family will reject them, either for being gay or for being supportive of gay rights. 

It is a fear I have never known. But it's one I look forward to being defeated. 

In. My. Lifetime.

On Graham and the FBI's Failed Fortune Telling

Lindsey Graham could make the Obama's adopting an additional puppy a political issue, so it's not surprising that he has decided to latch on to the fact that the Russian government raised an issue of the older Tsarnaev brother with the FBI as evidence of the FBI's failure.  Several twitterers have also claimed that the Boston bombing was Obama's fault.  I don't have time to deal with the crazies in this world, but I do have some thoughts on the FBI and its treatment of the older Tsarnaev.

First, we as a country can't predict everything that everyone will do.  It's the price of freedom.  There are countries where people fear talking badly of the President / Prime Minister / King / Supreme Leader.  In such places, people have a reason to fear.  They have seen their family members, their neighbors, their friends taken from homes because of whispered rumours about who supports who, who is sufficiently "patriotic" or sufficiently "good" or sufficiently "helpful" to the regime.  Doing human rights, you can spend years reading such stories.  For my LLM dissertation, I spent 6 months reading torture cases - what evil man can do to another man is detailed in such cases, and many of those cases start with a supposed threat one poses to the ruling regime.

Living in a free society - a truly free society - means the government doesn't monitor every conversation or email we have.  It doesn't monitor our every purchase, our every visit, our every change in belief.  This means we can't always know when something will happen.  This is as true of what Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did as it is of what the Boston bombers did.  Freedom means you cannot predict every attack, and you cannot prevent every attack.  The only alternative is to up the monitoring we are all subject to, and it is, of course, necessarily reminds us of what Ben Franklin said: those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

But, the FBI was given information from Russia on Tsarnaev, so it is legitimate to ask what weight should have been given to this inquiry.  There are disputes about how often or who was given information, but let's be clear: the information was from Russia involving a Chechen who was in the US because as a child his family needed to seek asylum.  The brutality of the conflict in Chechnya is well documented.  But the brutality did not stop when the war did.  Amongst those most likely to be targeted and harmed are human rights defenders.  The conflict is wrapped up in both ethnic and religious issues, particularly discrimination and self-determination, though these are not the only issues.

Discrimination against Chechens by the Russian government is widespread, and was cited in at least some news reports as one of the reasons.  For Russia to have concerns about an ethnic Chechen - particularly one that travels between the US and Russia - is not particularly surprising.  Any strengthening of Islamic faith could be seen as a threat.

The US cannot accept without question the call for investigation by countries like Russia.  To do so would be to import discrimination from another state and utilise it in the US. If the same logic was applied to Iraq, the US would have to accept any discriminatory calls against the Sunni minority.  For China, this would lead to heightened surveillance by the US against Uyghurs.  For Myanmar, this could force the US to discriminate against ethnic Rakhine or Kayin people.  The list could go on and on.  The very people who need us most - those who seek refugee status because of intense discrimination - would have that discrimination re-inflicted on them.

And make no mistake - to gain asylum in the US is not an easy thing.  It's a high standard and every year we deport a large number of asylum seekers.  It's a high burden to cross and it is specific to the individual's risk if they were to return home.

To inflict on such refugees the discrimination they faced back home without cause - a serious showing by the home country that there is reason for concern and that it is not simply discriminating - is immoral and unethical.

When the FBI was tipped off by Russia, Tsarnaev was treated as others on the watch list are.  He stayed on the list for one year and because nothing further suggesting concern occurred in that time, he was dropped.  To expect the FBI to do more simply because a discriminatory regime targeted someone in the ethnicity against which they discriminate is to do a disservice to the American dream, that one can escape persecution and seek freedom.  To ask the FBI to predict such abhorrent behavior in the absence of significant evidence is to ask them either to erode our freedoms or to become fortune tellers. And I, for one, don't believe fortune telling is an appropriate means of conducting national security.

I also don't think eroding our freedom is an appropriate means either.  I'm tired of people like Lindsey Graham saying they love America and it's freedom when what they mean is they loving being priviledged in America with its great privileges.  To love American freedom is to love the absence of discrimination, to love the equal treatment we enjoy, and to love the idea that you can talk to your brother in your own house without anyone listening.  This is both a great privilege (though it should be a universal human rights) and a great threat to the security of others.  It allowed Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold to plan the Columbine attacks, for Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols to develop the Oklahoma City bombs, and for the Boston bombers to plan last week's attack.

But unless you're willing to give up the right to privacy - that right to private conversations in one's own home without government monitoring and interferrence when they deem a conversation insufficiently patriotic - there's little in evidence that suggests the FBI could have done anything predict or prevent the Boston bombings.

Graham is trying to make a political issue out of a great tragedy because he has nothing else to offer the American public.  And that is, perhaps, the greatest disservice a politician can offer our country.

My 30 second rant on the Laws of Armed Conflict Discussion

Update:  Because I only had 3 minutes the last time I wrote this blog, I left off a necessary discussion of the National Defense Authorisation Act 2012. That is now included below.

I don't have very long to do this, but I had to quickly address Lindsey Graham's criticism of the Obama Administration.  Graham claims Obama should hold Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the Boston bombers, as an "enemy combatant." This, according to Graham, would allow for better questioning.

This is like the "Cliff's Notes" version of what could be a much more detailed answer to Graham's criticism.

Here's the thing, that category doesn't exist under international law and its domestic codification - which is actually "unprivileged enemy belligerent," and the very existence of which may violate the US's international obligations - isn't applicable to Tsarnaev, who is a US citizen.

The applicable US domestic law is the Military Commissions Act of 2006, an attempt to legitimize the very illegitimate Bush Administration's treatment of alleged members of al Qaeda and other random people they were certain were the "worst of the worst" despite the fact that they've now let most of them go without trial.*  There, the law makes it clear that an enemy combatant is an unprivileged enemy belligerent." This is actually a non-sensical category if you consider this is supposed to somehow align with international law.

The Military Commissions Act provides for the establishment of military commissions (it is rather shocking that the US law name actually does relate to what the US law does).  The law provides two separate definitions to create an "alien unprivileged enemy belligerent."  The first is "alien" meaning an "individual who is not a citizen of the United States."  and the second is an "unprivileged enemy belligerent" which means a non-privileged belligerent who

(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;(B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or(C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter.

Who are "privileged belligerents"?  Well, the domestic law doesn't actually define that.  International law does, though, kind of.

Technically, belligerents are the parties to a conflict.  It's supposed to refer to the states. The belligerents in World War II were Germany, Japan, the US, Russia, France, the UK, etc.  Applying it to a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) like that of the US and al Qaeda, one would assume the belligerents were the US and al Qaeda.  So, one has to assume that the US legislature actually meant to mean the people fighting because you can't try a category of people - just individuals.

Combatants under international law is a specific category. It refers to the people who fight in an international armed conflict. In a non-international armed conflict - like that between the US and al Qaeda or between Colombia and FARC - the designation for the non-state fighters is that of civilians directly participating in hostilities.

Now, combatants get special privileges under international law. They have the right to kill without being tried (as long as that killing is in line with international law, so no killing civilians or surrendered or injured people). They also get special protection if captured - the prisoner of war or POW protections - like specific pay for their work and an allotment of cigarettes while being detained.

But someone who would normally be entitled to these privileges can lose those extra protections.  For example, if they are caught while engaged in spying, they don't get POW protection. Importantly for this case, if they are fighting against their own state, they are not protected as POW.

People who fight against their own state are operating outside their protection. They can be tried for things they did in the conflict.  But (a) this whole category and discussion of POWs and immunity for killing only applies in international armed conflict, and (b) losing the POW protection doesn't mean that the person has no protection; they just don't have the special protection.

For non-international armed conflicts, those engaged in fighting against the country don't ever lose their protection.  For starters, they don't have special protections.  There's no immunity for killing; there's no guarantee of cigarettes; and obviously, because it's often between a state and its own citizens (think Syria and Colombia for more traditional forms of non-international armed conflict), it is specifically designed to apply to people who fight against their own country.

The guarantees for the non-government actors in a non-international armed conflict include the right to not be tortured and the right to the guarantees of a fair trial.  This requires, at least, a presumption of innocence, an independent, impartial and regularly constituted court, information on their accusation, right to a speedy trial (or a "trial without undue delay"), the right to examine eyewitnesses. and the right to, and means of, defending themselves. This last one includes a right to legal assistance.

Their rights also include the right to remain silent and to not be compelled to testify against themselves or to confess guilt.

So that's what international law of armed conflicts is supposed to look like. Under domestic law, though, we've just ignored the international realities and created an "unprivileged enemy belligerent." A non-sensical category that mixes legal terms to create something specific we want that isn't supposed to exist.

The scope of IHL is limited, though. It applies only where there's ongoing armed conflict.  There's a physical and geographical scope to armed conflict.  You can't actually declare a global war - on anything - and have these laws applicable.  There's some technicality to this issue, but I'm not going into it.  But for the laws of armed conflict in this area to be applied in the US, an armed conflict would have to be ongoing in the US.

But this "alien unprivileged enemy belligerent" category now means that the US can try people by military commission, like those most famously used at Guantanamo Bay.  And it's this that Graham wants the Obama Administration to apply to Tsarnaev.

But more or less only alien unprivileged enemy belligerents can be tried like this.

If you're a US citizen - and Tsarnaev is as of last year - you cannot be tried by military commission, with one potential brief exception that is massively constitutionally dubious. The one brief exception comes from the National Defense Authorisation Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA, see section 1021-1022).

If you are associated with al Qaeda, Taliban, "or associated forces" the statute says that you can be held without trial "pending disposition under the law of war." The problem with this in relation to Tsarnaev is two-fold. First, you have to know someone is associated with al Qaeda.  You can't make that presumption, operate under it, and then later go, "Ooops - but we're gonna introduce all that information at trial anyhow."  So the idea that you first treat him as an enemy combatant and then later come back to it and change his status has no basis in law.

Second, the constitutionality of this law hasn't been tested, but it's unlikely to be constitutional.  It would not be unconstitutional to an American captured in Yemen or Afghanistan, but it would be unconstitutional to someone in the US.

The only way for this to be constitutional to an American captured in the US - and then it's still slightly dubious - would be for the US to be declared in a constant state of emergency. If you don't want us to be a constant state of emergency, the only way for this to be constitutional - to be able to strip an American citizen of their constitutional rights when they are on US territory - would be to declare an individual in the state of emergency.  That doesn't make any sense.  It's a legally vapid concept.

So Graham now wants the Obama Administration to ignore the Constitution, the laws of war, and the statutes he passed.  Why?  Because he wants information.  But (a) torturing people or questioning them without a lawyer doesn't necessarily mean you'll get that, and (b) that's pointless because he can still give information.

There is a provision in US law that would allow the government to accomplish what Graham wants  (questioning without a lawyer) independent of Graham's choice of action (illegal and unconstitutional treatment of a US citizen). There is a "public safety" exemption that allows for the government to delay telling a suspect their Miranda rights. I'm not going to really get into this because there's a lot out on there on this issue, but the DOJ indicated they would utilize this exemption (it appears there is a challenge coming on that from the Boston Federal Public Defender's Office**).

But  it is worth noting that the Miranda rights - which are actually the Constitutional guarantees in the 5th and 6th Amendments - exist independent of whether the person is informed of them. By being an American on US soil, Tsarnaev inherently has the right to remain silent.  If the government starts to question him and he's smart or watched any procedural shows, the fact that he hasn't been informed of his rights won't deter him from invoking his rights.  He'll have a right to remain silent and a right to an attorney even before he's informed of those.

That doesn't change.

No matter what Graham wishes.

*And OMG it costs $700,000 extra to keep someone at GTMO than a US federal prison?  And I have to listen to Republicans tell me I'm a big government spender?

Update:  Slate has a great piece on the Miranda issue here.

**Another update:  I want to give a big round of applause to the Boston Federal Public Defender's Office! MSNBC is reporting that they are representing Tsarnaev and are challenging extended use of the suspension of Miranda rights. Thank you for standing up for justice.

Ten Years

Ten years ago, I sat in a restaurant in Mt. Adams, Cincinnati, with my friend Yvette. When President Bush came on the TV, the restaurant turned up the volume so we could all listen as he declared we would invade Iraq.

Yvette and I were both outraged. Did he know what he was doing? Did he not care about the facts? Did he not care about the illegality?  Did he not understand? How could he betray our common values like this?

After listening to us, a woman in her late 30s - about 10 years older than we were at the time - turned to us and said, "He really had no choice. They are making us do this."

I've often that of that woman over the years. Does she realize yet how wrong she was? Does she still defend the decision?

Over the next 8 years, I was routinely called un-American or anti-American and a socialist- communist- fascist- terrorist-lover. I listened as our Constitution and Constitutional history was discarded with nothing more than racist and bigoted rants about how "those people" are different and "don't deserve" protection - as if the Constitution was built around a premise of who "deserved" it.

As if we somehow earn the right not to be tortured.

I listened as my Muslim brothers and sisters - and yes, they are my brothers and sisters even if we disagree on who Christ is - were treated as if they were less than.  Less trustworthy than me. Less patriotic than me. Less humane than me. Less caring than me. Less worthy than me.

This started before we invaded Iraq, of course.  It actually started before 9/11. It just grew uglier, more rampant and more acceptable following Iraq.

The threat was no longer a few Saudi extremists in the mountain region of Afghanistan - and as my Afghan flatmate is routinely fond of pointing out, they were Saudi, a country we have yet to invade and would never even consider doing so despite the millions flowing from it to the extremists. With Iraq, those who wanted it to be a Muslim problem felt justified - it was a problem from those people and those people were anyone with a long beard or a face veil.  Or forget the long beard and face veil - they really just need a Koran or a Muslim-sounding name or Arab-looking skin.

And the detractors felt justified, too - the ones who blamed the US for 9/11 and felt the US was waging a war not against terror but against Islam.  Afghanistan may have been justified and legal, but Iraq was neither and it was apparent to everyone in the world.  Except the Bush administration and those they could lie to or strong-arm into submission.

Since then, I have been prove right and that woman in the restaurant wrong. There were no WMDs. There was no justification for Iraq. And while Saddam was a horrible man, if we were to invade every country with a horrible man leading it, we would be in an awful lot of wars that we really aren't ready to engage in.

As this 10 year anniversary comes and goes, I also have to think about Syria.  If we hadn't gone to Iraq, would we have the desire and the gumption to assist in Syria more?  In the wake of the Bush Administration's misuse of the concept, the international community has largely rejected unilateral action under the Responsibility to Protect. Libya - and now Syria - require Security Council resolution for any legitimacy, even though there are deep-seeded reasons to believe in crimes against humanity, if not genocide (without accepting or rejecting the legitimacy of the claims, this BBC radio programme suggests the fighting is principally based on religious lines, with an intent to target and destroy groups based on religious affiliation; I may post more on that later).

If we hadn't had Iraq - and if we hadn't butchered is so badly, invading with no real strategy for leaving - would we have the capacity, the will and the desire to help more with Syria? Or is Syria the Rwanda to Iraq's Somalia - the resulting genocide / crimes against humanity / war crimes that come when we are too afraid to act because the last time we did it ended badly?

On the UN and the Tower of Babel

This except from Carl Sagan came up in my newsfeed today:

“But surely there is a message in the heavens that the finiteness not just of life but of whole worlds, in fact of whole galaxies, is a bit antithetical to the conventional theological views in the West, although not in the East. And this then suggests a broader conclusion. And that is the idea of an immortal Creator.  

By definition, as Ann Druyan has pointed out, an immortal Creator is a cruel god, because He, never having to face the fear of death, creates innumerable creatures who do. Why should He do that? If He’s omniscient, He could be kinder and create immortals, secure from the danger of death. He sets about creating a universe in which at least many parts of it, and perhaps the universe as a whole, dies. And in many myths, the one possibility the gods are most anxious about is that humans will discover some secret of immortality or even, as in the myth of the Tower of Babel, for example, attempt to stride the high heavens. There is a clear imperative in Western religion that humans must remain small and mortal creatures. Why? It’s a little bit like the rich imposing poverty on the poor and then asking to be loved because of it.”

It, of course, prompted me to point out that part of the point of the Christian gospel is that God came to Earth, faced death, and in doing so took upon him the sins of the mortals, reconciling them to God, creating a direct path of communication to God, and eliminating the need for a Tower of Babel. It is one of the central tenants that separate Christianity from Islam. Christians believe Jesus is God; Muslims believe he was sent by God but is not God. Christians believe Christ died on the cross for our sins; Muslims believe he was taken to heaven before he died. We both believe in the singularity or oneness of God, and we both agree that God has no partners, but what that actually means between Christians and Muslims (and Christians and Jews) is where we differ. (Which makes me wonder with Islam became a "Western" religion to Sagan?)

I actually attended an amazing talk titled "Justice for Jesus" that was put on in association with Islam Awareness Week. The speaker, a Muslim scholar from a nearby city, came to talk about the need of Muslims to show greater respect to Christianity and Christians, and to be as outraged at the defamation of Christ as they are about the defamation of Mohammad, though in both instances the expression of outrage should not be done through violent means but through words and what he called "civilised" engagement on the issue.

All of this, though, reminded me of a picture a friend once shared comparing the UN building and the Tower of Babel.  I tried to find the image on google, but apparently my location makes it much more likely for me to find images comparing the Tower of Babel to the EU Parliament.  Now, anyone who has seen the UN and the European Parliament buildings will tell you they look nothing alike. For those who haven't seen them, though, decide for yourself: 

European Parliament Building

UN Building

I guess they have the line of flags in common.  So, that's something.  And they have glass and steel, so that's something else.  Outside of that, though, they're pretty much not the same. 

Yet, if you visit all the sites on the internet that claim the UN or European Union are sinful attempts by man to re-establish the Tower of Babel and destroy God's relationship with us - a feat I have, unfortunately, just undertaken (well, not all, thank God - quite literally praying that right now) - you would think they must be exactly the same.  Because these are the types of images you get:

It's apparently based on this depiction of the Tower of Babel:

But I can see how if your Tower of Babel looks like this it's easy to make a UN Building (why can't I find that bloody image and how many more crazy people do I have to read before I find it??):

On these sites, the story of the Tower of Babel is portrayed as being about world domination, and how the EU and UN have provided all these very clear signs about how they are waiting for the anti-Christ.  I particularly love the series of sites which in one fell swoop claim that the EU gave special powers to its High Representative for Foreign and Common Security with resolution 666 confirming that he is the anti-Christ but also noting that the EU Parliament is waiting for the anti-Christ because no one occupies seat number 666. So if they don't use the number 666, it's because they are waiting for the Anti-Christ, but if they do use it, it's because they are the anti-Christ. And I'm sure the empty seat - if the seat even exists, and it's not like one of those things where hotels skip the 13th floor and it doesn't exist - has nothing to do with a bunch of Parliamentarians who were raised in Christian-culture countries not wanting to be associated with 666. Instead, it must clearly be that they are leaving the seat open so the anti-Christ can come back.

There's also this picture of Condoleeza Rice speaking at the UN around its 60th anniversary:

One of the sites claims that the placement of the flags to hide the logo shows a love for the anti-Christ.  So apparently if the picture had been taken at another angle, then the UN wouldn't be the anti-Christ?

Another claims that the point of the Tower of Babel story is this: "In fact, God created the separate nations, and the Bible warns that He shall "judge the nations." Anyone, therefore, who seeks a unified New World Order is in defiance of God."

Pretty sure that's not what the Bible was saying. 

The Biblical story of the Tower of Babel is actually really short and comes immediately after the flood and the listing of Noah's sons in the Bible. This is the NIV version of it:

Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. ² As people moved eastward,^[a] they found a plain in Shinar^[b] and settled there. 

³ They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. ⁴ Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” 

⁵ But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. ⁶ The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. ⁷ Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” 

⁸ So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. ⁹ That is why it was called Babel^[c]—because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

So you're probably wondering what was so wrong about building a tower "that reaches the heavens."  Perhaps Sagan was right?  This is evidence of an unmerciful God who punishes people for wanting to be like him?

No.  God was not punishing people for speaking the same language as one another, and I don't think He was punishing them for wanting to reach the heavens or for wanting to work together. 

I think the key in this story is this: "so that we may make a name for ourselves."  In that moment, the sons and grandchildren of Noah were not just attempting to build a tower but they were attempting to usurp the place of God as the one of worship. They weren't seeking the immortality of God; they were seeking the worship that belongs only to Him - "to make a name for ourselves." 

In that sense, the Tower of Babel is not unlike the golden calf that comes later in the Bible, in Exodus 32.  In that story, the people of Israel got bored while Moses was away and wanted a God like the other nations around them worshipped -- some statue that they could bow to. So Aaron, Moses' brother, gathered up all the gold and created a golden calf, which the Israelis worshipped. Ironically, they did this while Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments and the Covenant from God. The "preamble" and the first two Commandments are of course, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.  You shall have no other Gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. you shall not bow down to them or worship them . . .."

The Tower of Babel is not about people trying to be immortal; it's about people trying to usurp the place of God as one who deserves worship.  And why do we not deserve being worshipped?  Because we haven't really done anything to deserve it, have we?  I mean, God gets worshipped because he created light and darkness, the heavens, the earth, the water, the land, fruits and vegetables, animals, and all of mankind, whom he loves.  Noah's kids?  they wanted to build a building.  Not exactly on the same playing field.  God is omniscient and omnipotent. I lost my bus pass after a week and on a daily basis I'm I lose my keys or my phone about 500 times.  And I cannot even earn the right to be worshipped.  I cannot do the things that God does.  I may receive internal immortality through God's grace, but I cannot actually create immortality.  God does.  

In case anyone is still entertaining thoughts of the UN and it's relationship to the Tower of Babel, they don't speak one language (otherwise, there'd be no need for translation services). The UN works to protect endangered languages and respect for lingual rights, and they actually also work for religious rights. You aren't expected to worship the UN, and most people would find it weird if you did.  All the UN actually does is get people to work together for less war.  So unless you think God is pro-war -- which is against pretty much everything Jesus taught -- then there isn't anything anti-Christ-ish about the UN.  The EU, ont he other hand... (just kidding)

35 Things I'm Thankful For - Final 5 Countdown!

Okay, I've been sick so I didn't get to do my final 5.  At times, the computer screen has given me a headache; at other times I've just felt too foggy to write anything clear (as my PhD is currently proving); and at other times, I was so far behind my actual work because of being sick that I couldn't justify the time out to blog.  Now, all those things are still true, but I've been inspired this morning to finish this post (it helps that I had 4/5 of this written before).

Now, I'm probably the only person in the world who divides 35 into 4 parts, but I did. You check out parts 1, 2, and 3 by clicking on the relevant number.  This one is a bit sappy at times. They say bad writing often comes from too many emotions.  This is definitely true here.  I would apologize, but I like being human enough that sometimes my emotions make my writing just gawd-awful.

5.  Being an American.* If you'd asked me 12 years ago if I was thankful for this, I probably would've said no.  I would've told you all about how the US is imperialistic in its treatment of other areas, and how the concept of us being the "most free nation on Earth" is a lie told to us by the elites in an attempt to suppress resistance to economic tyranny.  Let's be honest, I still kind of feel that way at times. Americans sometimes think we have a lock on the issue of freedom, like if it isn't practiced the way we practice it than it doesn't count. But they are confusing freedom with economic liberalism. Freedom is so much more than that. It should be about the ability one has to actually operate on a meritocracy and to improve and better their life.  Yet, in the US, 49% of children born into poverty will spend at least half their childhoods in poverty, and "are more likely to be poor between ages 25 and 30, drop out of high school, have a teen nonmarital birth, and have patchy employment records than those not poor at birth." Income inequality in the US reached a record high in 2009, which threatens the stability of our economy, and the likelihood of those lower on the socioeconomic rungs from climbing the ladder to higher socioeconomic standards. Intergenerational economic mobility is believed to be pretty much flat since 1990 (p.15 of the link), and the riches 1% received 121% of the income gains during this economic recovery. To me, this means we are not a free society.  Freedom involves more than just the ability to speak one's mind; it involves the ability to develop and then use one's talents for one's benefits and for the benefit of the greater society.  But our educational funding system is massively defective and the increasing reliance on corporate-provided education is likely only exacerbating this, so that there is little opportunity to develop one's talents, much less use them to their fullest benefit. Our "economic freedom" is therefore limited; it is limited to operating with a supply-demand economy and then primarily within the social rung into which we were born.

In that sense, we are not the free-est society.  But, that said, I do appreciate our stance on free speech and free religion.  Perhaps I'm one of the few human rights activists who believes the US's position, which allows the KKK to march through a town of Holocaust survivors, is a good thing - though I'm definitely not the only human rights activist to think that (yes, my conservative friends, it was a progressive, ACLU employed, George Soros-loving liberal human rights activist who defended the KKK's right to free speech; he was also a refugee from Nazi Germany). I think the US's standards for separation of church and state are appropriate and set the right tone, even if that tone is sometimes usurped by crazy people.

More importantly, I've come to appreciate the other freedoms we enjoy in the US.  Like the freedom of knowing that we aren't going to turn into a dictatorial state. I know that some of my conservative friends like to think that Barack Obama is a socialist, a fascist and a dictator, but the reality is that we've had over 200 years of peaceful democratic transitions in our society.  That's a pretty long track record that we need to work to protect, but it's not one that is actually in any threat today. Even amongst the rightest of the right, we have little of the type of discourse that makes me worry about the democratic foundations of our country. There are occasions when I worry about an actual internal armed conflict or civil war, but dictatorial regime? No.

This has become particularly relevant to me this year as I've watched friends get arrested in Azerbaijan and others have been refused the right to leave their country.  That's right - they can't leave, not because another state won't take them but because their own government won't let them go.  Today alone, facebook told me of two friends facing this reality. One was leaving his home country to attend an international conference, ironically on freedom of speech, when immigration officials told him he wasn't allowed to fly. He was on a government black list because of his pro-democracy activism.  After negotiations, it appears he's on his way, but I do worry about his ability to return later. Another friend is already outside his home country but had to renew his exit visa.  That's right - some countries still have exit visas, meaning you can only leave with government permission. Even if you're outside of your home country, you can't travel to another unless your exit visa is valid.  He needed to renew his exit visa to attend an international competition later this month. He's been trying for a month or two to get this renewal and today he was finally told he was denied.  Yes, he was denied.  So even though he's already outside of his home country, he's not allowed to go anywhere else until he returns home, and then he has to hope someone will give him an exit visa.

When a friend of a friend was killed this week, I had a serious conversation about the level of danger my friend faced upon her return home. I've had friends who were beaten by police and whose family members were torn from them and thrown in jail. I have friends who have been kicked out of Israel because they want to work on human rights issues in Palestine. Friends who can't work for their government because of their connection to an American woman (that would be me).  Friends who regularly scrub their facebook pages clean of potentially "controversial" posts about their government, or about economics, or freedom or politics. I've known people who couldn't return to their home countries because of the religion they chose, the sexuality they concealed, or the courses they wanted to pursue. And this year, I did a human rights training for people who spent years in jail because of their belief in democracy.  This is the reality of living in a dictatorship.  (And while Israel is technically a democracy, it is unaccountable to the Palestinian people it rules over, so I place it, for the purpose of this discussion and limited to the case of its treatment of people who live and work in Palestine, in this category).

I realize that given my career choice I am more likely to have friends deemed "enemies of the state" in dictatorial, authoritarian regimes. Human rights activists face this kind of threat everywhere. But every time this reality comes up, I realize how lucky I was to be born in the USA (and not in the Bruce Springsteen lyrics kind of way). I am grateful for those who have fought long before I was born to ensure I have the freedom I do.  I see the ideals of the US's founding fathers and mothers(!) in the faces of my friends who seek justice and human rights in their own countries. I am reminded that those who fought in the Revolutionary War risked everything - literally everything - to create a democratic institution that was answerable to the people.  Some now want to claim what they opposed was taxation, but those individuals for that the thing they opposed was actually taxation without representation.  It is the democratic experience that they wanted, fought for, and eventually won. It was the shackles of tyranny, the right of a dictator far removed and unanswerable to those whose lives he made miserable, that they were throwing off.  That is the same fight my friends fight now.  It inspires me, but it also makes me immensely grateful that this is a fight I didn't actually have to wage on a daily basis in my home country.

It is not only in the USA where one finds this kind of freedom, but I wasn't born anywhere else. My sense of self, my understanding of identify and freedom and democracy are all intrinsically linked to my childhood and to the sense of patriotism instilled in my family.  This patriotism does not require absolute adherence and belief in the goodness of the USA, but it does not require a resilient determination to make the US as free as it can be.

For that, I am very grateful.

*I use that as the demonym for someone from the USA. I recognize the colonial heritage associated with the concept of the "United States of America" as being something distinct from European owned territories within the Americas, but unfortunately non of my friends from the Americas have been able to come up with an English language demonym for someone from the USA. This does not mean that the USA is the only part of the Americas and I intentionally use USA rather than "America" to refer to the country I am from, but the demonym "American" is used as someone from the USA, not the greater inclusive "Americas." 

4.  Animals and their unending love. My family have had and continue to have a lot of animals.  Mercedes, Duchess, Buddy, Toby, Sunshine the Bird, Dan the Turtle, numerous hamsters, Bexley, Shallah, Foxie, MacKenzie, Bonkers, LeiLei, Velvet, and Houdini have showered me with affection and love.  Well, Dan didn't, but he's a turtle (who was named for Dan Quayle - what were we thinking??). In turn, they've taught me to show love, to have patience, and to set down the computer because they won't stop head-butting me until I do.

3.  My extended family.  Like probably most families, there's a range of political beliefs in my extended family. There's a significant number of people in my extended family who disagree with my political opinions and can't relate to my constant need to be overseas.  They love me anyhow.  The ones who agree excitedly take time out of their schedules whenever we meet to talk about my newest adventure or non-adventurous accomplishments and to encourage me in my newest plans and next steps.  The ones who disagree, do it with love and respect and still encourage me to live my life with joy and pride.  I'm blessed to have this large community who help me better understand myself every day.

Two of my uncles, one of my aunts, and several of my cousins have been particularly supportive, so I want to say a special thanks to them (they know who they are). Their love, encouragement and support have led me to do more in my life than I would have imagined.

2.  My immediate family. I've written about my siblings before, so this will be a truncated love letter.  I had 5 spots left on this list today and could have easily spent one number on each immediate family member -- mom, dad, brother, sister, sister(-in-law*) -- though that would've left my awesome nephew out and he definitely shouldn't be left out.  Plus, I would have felt like I was ranking them, and that would be awful.  Realistically, they are a unit, so treating them as one is appropriate.

My family is pretty freaking amazing in that they're each these unique little balls of goodness that run around the world making it better. If I'm a "puppy dogs and rainbows" kind of girl, I'm surrounded by family members who are kittens and sunshine. One sister is off helping to prevent a war and the other is trying to make democracy work the way it is supposed to. My brother is one of the kindest, most generous and giving individuals I know. He's also a pretty bad ass attorney. He makes videos for my sister and I of our nephew doing all the cute things that make the first years of any baby's life precious. His kindness and sweetness exists in spite of the fact that he has prosecuted some of the absolute worst kinds of human behavior. Child molesters, rapists, domestic abusers - that used to be his daily life.  I'm so glad it's not anymore (or at least I hear about it a lot less now).  But he did it because he believes in justice and peace.  Pretty lofty ideals for a (relatively) humble man.

And my nephew! Seriously the cutest child in the world.  I would post his picture here but I think he has a right to privacy and his father and I already abuse that enough on facebook.  (Abuse is not the appropriate word; disregard, perhaps?)  I have often wondered if I could actually be a good parent.  It involves a lot of sacrifice and I can be a pretty selfish person. Then my nephew came along.

I don't get to see him enough, and we don't skype as much as we should, but watching him grow up and taking pride in the little accomplishments, like the first time he said "da da" (on Father's Day!) or the first time I saw him run or throw a ball... he fills my life with such joy and wonder that I have come to realize I could actually do this thing called parenthood.  I would actually even like it.  Well, assuming my kids are half as cool as he is. 

I also have two other nephews and a niece, thanks to my sister(-in-law). They're amazing, kind and generous.  We like different things in the world (as we should; the oldest is about 20 years younger than me), but I appreciate how much seeing the world through their eyes changes the meaning of life.  They're awesome kids and I'm lucky I got to inherent them.

My parents are a huge force in the lives my siblings and I have chosen. At a time when government was criticized and its servants demeaned - so pretty much from Reagan until now in the US - my parents chose civil service. It was not out of some desire to be lazy - my father used to work 16 hours a day sometimes - but because they saw something good and noble about serving others. My mother was a teacher and after cancer wrecked her body and her job choices (pre-HIPPA, cancer could be a good reason not to give someone a job), she chose to serve through local government while working as a real estate agent. She fought for ideals and quality service; generations of children in my hometown owe her a debt of gratitude. More recently, my dad was elected as a city official. He did it because, like my mom, he believes that common sense, education, and hard work are each part of the process for securing a better life, and if you have those skills you should use them to the benefit of others.

Having a political and public family is hard at times. People are often stupid and disrespectful, and you have to listen and continue to smile despite them saying and writing things that you know are lies. My sister(-in-law) was pregnant when running for office. On the online high-profile endorsement from the local newspaper, supporters of her opponent suggested my nephew would have to be raised by a nanny. Apparently, by running for office, my sister was doing a disservice to society because she would be abandoning her child, and the child would end up a sullen teenager hell-bent on destroying the city and society and probably all that is good and sacred in the world. Now, why my nephew would need a nanny when his father could watch him is beyond me - and my brother was (thankfully, rightfully, justly) outraged by the suggestion that my nephew would be "abandoned" simply because his mom worked. I was outraged that someone thought it still appropriate to chastise a working mother, let alone my amazing sister. I wanted to hit people; to write ranty messages all over that comment section; to start a campaign about women in the public sphere. And, oh yeah, to hit someone.  My family didn't let me.  Mostly because they know that this is part of what it means to serve the public.  I hate it at times, but I'm also grateful for their love and devotion not just to themselves or to me but to the world and to the people around them.

They also happen to fill my life with joy and love. The support I get from them has often made the difference in my ability to stick through a tough situation. I wouldn't be able to do my job, or live my life as fully as I do, if it were not for their help. They're always ready to help me work through a problem, listen to me vent, or lend me money when I'm worried about coming up short. In short, they are amazing and my life wouldn't be nearly what it is now if they weren't in it.

I generally just call my sister-in-law my sister, but sometimes that could lead to some gross confusion (like my brother and sister having a baby together). And since most of the people who read this blog have also known my family for a really long time, I want to be clear that neither of my parents had an affair that produced a child we never acknowledged until I was an adult. So where it's necessary for these reasons to specify sister-in-law, you get the "in-law" in parenthesis.

1.  Jesus.  Jesus makes me a better person. I have some pretty Machiavellian tendencies if left unrestrained. Jesus restrains them. My relationship with God, choosing to be a Christian, and seeking after what is good and just is the basis of my work.  I wanted to type that it informs all I do, but that would be a lie.  I try to have it inform all I do. I fail, though.  I'm human.  It's why I'm glad that God is God and I am not. Some people question me as to whether it's really about God.  It is.  I know when I want to do something and when I'm hearing God's voice tell me not to.  I know when I ignore that voice and when I follow it.  I know when it is me trying to convince myself that God is okay with something, and when it's actually God saying something.  I've tried to convince myself a lot.  I'm happiest, though, when I'm not trying to convince myself. When I just listen for and follow God's will in my life. He gives me strength, peace and resilience and I am deeply grateful that I learned to trust him when I was still relatively young.

35 Things I'm Thankful For - Part 3.

This is part 3 of my series on the 35 things I'm thankful for.  Part 1 is here, and part 2 is here.

15.  My mentors. I know I'm spoiled in my life generally, and I'm extra spoiled in my PhD. Some students in the world can't find a single mentor besides their supervisor; I entered my PhD with six in the corridor upstairs from my office. Over time, my mentors have changed in nature and number. I was devastated when I got the news that Kevin Boyle had passed (that link is to my favorite obituary for him). I was not only losing a mentor, but a friend, and his loss still motivates and saddens me today. Shortly thereafter, two others went to part-time status and then some went on maternity leave. One took on extra administrative responsibilities. My ability to jump into their office whenever I needed a pep talk or career advice has, at times, been limited. Even as their availability changed, their impact did not. I also found new mentors, people who create space in their professional lives for me. Each new mentor eventually becomes a friend - and sometimes my friends become mentors. Their generosity of spirit allows me to develop and to pass on the lessons they give me.  Sometimes I feel I should be further in my development and without a need for mentors anymore; but then I realize that even if I was able to live without them, I wouldn't want to. The give-and-take of a good discussion over my PhD inspires me to go deeper. The constant reminder that I'm entitled to say "no" is sometimes both a necessity and a godsend. They have seen me at my worst as an academic and a writer, and yet they always encourage me to be my best. I am, forever, indebted to their care and attention.

14.  My legs. I broke one last year and it still hurts, particularly when it's cold or when I'm sick (like now, when I'm both cold and sick).  But they work. The broken one healed; the non-broken one compensated in the meantime.  They propel me. They let me feel the sensation of running and bicycling, and walking with friends through a muddy path. Legs are pretty great and I don't think we give them enough credit. Or perhaps that was just me.

13. Post-it notes. I also love whoever invented them (though I understand that it was neither Romy nor Michelle). They're so pretty and they make my life seem so much more organized.

12. Earplugs. For a while, I couldn't find earbuds that worked with my ears, but a pound store (like a dollar store, but in British pounds) near my home had these awesome ones with little jelly ends that fit snuggly inside my years. Now I can listen to Frightened Rabbit and Taylor Swift one right after the other and no one judges me. Well, until now. And while I like being exposed to new music, I'm so glad I don't need to listen to the favorite songs of every random guy on the underground.

11. Crayons.  I particularly like Crayola's box of 64 (though I'm devastated to learn, via wikipedia, that some of my favorite colours were retired!). I can't find the 64 box here in the UK so I keep myself busy with a box of 8. Crayons are brilliant (with almost all the definitions of that word applying). When I'm stumped on my PhD or in need of a break, I find colouring or drawing gives me the mental break necessary to engage with my PhD again from a fresh start. It's also one of those fun words where the more you look at it, the more certain you are it can't be a real word. But it is.

What my crayon box looks like.
Image from Crayola.

10. Martin Luther King, Jr., J.F.K., R.F.K., Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Susan B. Anthony. Jane Austin, J.D. Salinger, Harper Lee, and Elizabeth Barrett Browning. Khalil Gilbran. Pablo Neruda. Leonard Cohen, Bob Dylan, and Bruce Springsteen. Maya Angelou and Gloria Steinem. They inspire me and challenge me. At times in my life when I've felt I had few friends, they were my friends. When I feel disconnected from life, they connect me again. They also make me sound smart when I'm at a party. Or at least they did back when I liked being pretentious.

9.  New Year's Eve. I have an awesome group of friends I spend most New Year's Eve with. This year, though, one is on a Navy warship, one is playing doctor (well, being a doctor), one is living in another country, and then there's me and my PhD-related income levels that make travel home during the holidays unlikely at best. We've had to postpone NYE this year, but it's coming up. This one day of the year reminds me of the love I am the recipient of the rest of the time; it also lets me make resolutions I'll quickly break, and gives me a sense of newness that motivates small changes in my life.

8.  Wine. I can live without wine. I have been to Muslim states where it's unavailable or prohibitively expensive, so I know I can do it. And I've applied to go to Muslim states again in the near-ish future, so I may have to do it. But I just think life is better with wine than without.

7.  Time. I wish we had more of it, but the concept of it and the uses of it are pretty nice.

6.  My girlfriends. I'm sure that with all the love I've been foisting on my guy friends, they've probably felt neglected on my blog. And girls already get a bad rep as friends. When we're young, women are taught by society that gossiping is a way to make friends. This leads to an age-old lie often told that women make bad friends. We're not as accepting as men. We're not as trustworthy or laid back or fun or interesting. All we talk about are boys and each other and hair and make up. I hate when I hear that same old trope about how girls are the worst, and you can never trust a girl friend, and they'll stab you in the back, and blah blah blah.  Have I been stabbed in the back by supposed friends? Absolutely. Both times I've been cheated on, a friend was involved. Nothing like feeling absolutely sucker punched in the gut when you discover not one but two people you trusted had betrayed you. But that's two women out of the hundreds I have been close friends with.

While my junior high and high school circles of friends changed almost as quickly as the seasons and brought drama and back-stabbing, and gossip and fights, my grown-up girl friends have filled my life with love, poetry, artwork, prayers, hugs, long emails when I'm far from home, extended phone calls, cocktails and wine, conversations about the meaning of life, career advice, proof-reading skills, nights out, nights in, and a shared love of romantic comedies we completely recognize are not true to life. They have held my hair when I'm sick, made me soup when I had a broken leg, hugged me when I cried over a broken heart, helped me pack for my grandmother's funeral, lent me hundreds of books, and given me pep talks before every board meeting or interview I've had. They laugh at my ridiculously embarrassing stories - getting my suitcase caught in the turnstiles at a tube station; tripping and falling into the lap of a stranger; or the time I tried to stay warm at a football game and ended up cutting off the circulation in my legs (long story; high school; that's all you get) - and ultimately they get me to laugh, too. They are my cheerleaders and my confidants.

I have an ever-growing set of presents that remind me of these faithful, wonderful, and loving girl friends. Their flowers, teddy bears, fun dresses, jewelry, books, handbags, and music allow me to stay connected when facebook, the internet, and the phone just don't seem to work as well as we expect. They bless my life with happiness. If I had to endure a few years of gossip and drama, or a few moments of heartbreaking betrayal to find the gems that decorate my life, then the payoff was well worth the cost.