Tonight I ran into someone who I went to high school with on the bus home. He was a couple of grades ahead of me, and was very popular back then. When I first saw him, and realized who it was, I felt nothing beyond the natural excitement of bumping into someone you haven't seen in a while, and I eagerly tapped him on the shoulder to say hello. At first he didn't recognize me - and I was fine with that - as I said, he was older (and a high school celebrity), so I didn't necessarily expect him to know who I was.
But as I got up to get off the bus, recognition swept over his face, and he smiled (and maybe, or was it just me? giggled?). In that moment, as he said my maiden last name, I was suddenly overcome with shame and embarrassment. If he remembered who I was, I thought to myself, he must remember what a gigantic loser I had been - and he's probably still laughing at me now, I thought.
I went home and played the scene over and over in my mind, as I chopped up my fresh kale for our dinner. And somewhere between analyzing my perception of his perception of me (can he tell how much I've changed?), and cringing at the thought of that pimple-faced teenage girl with that awful last name who I have been trying to so hard to distance myself from for the last decade...I remembered something: that girl was just a kid. She was just a girl doing the best she could. Just a quirky, smart, socially awkward girl, with a tendency to over-share (which hasn't changed), suffering from hormonal skin in a small town. This guy didn't know me...if he had any perception of me, negative or otherwise, it wasn't based on anything factual - it couldn't be, we had never spoken directly to each other in our lives up until today...
I felt something soften in me tonight, like that moment when the shell of a piece of candy left out in the sun starts to melt. I felt a compassion for that younger me, where before there was only revulsion. And as a result, I didn't need to try to tear down this guy's character in my mind to make sure that I maintained some sense of self-esteem (i.e. if i make him out to be a vapid, shallow person, his opinion won't matter). There were no judgments of the kind necessary. And I suddenly even found humor in the idea that he would have thought I was a nerd..."If only he knew," I smiled to myself.
So it looks like all this Buddhist stuff I've been reading/practicing lately is starting to sink in...what da ya know? :)
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Friday, February 8, 2013
Muslims & Miseducation - Enough Already
The media's "unconscious" reinforcement of stereotypes and prejudices has long been an issue for me, especially when it comes to their coverage of small groups and individuals who call themselves Muslims, yet commit crimes against God, humanity, and Islam itself. In particular, I have a problem with the very way that media makes reference to these groups, intimately linking them to Islam and its concepts, without any further explanation, thereby implying to the public that "Islam" and "terrorism" are one in the same.
For instance, any time you turn on the news (even the BBC) to find a story regarding a terrorist act or sell, these individuals will be referred to "Islamic extremists" or "Muslim terrorists" or "Jihadists". To say that one is extreme about something, implies that they follow it or link themselves to it in some extreme manner. That is, to say that these people are extreme about Islam, implies that they follow Islam in an extreme way. In actuality of course, it is quite the opposite - by committing acts of violence targeting innocent people, they sharply deviate from the teachings of Islam - any sane Muslim, be they ultra religious or barely practicing will tell you that. These acts of terror that are committed are in no way "Islamic" - not in principle nor in objective. Terrorists are not seeking to convert more people to Islam - their agendas are purely political and territorial. They merely use the concept of God as some kind of twisted justification for their horrific acts. But equating "Islam" with "extremism", and "Muslim" with "terror" leaves a certain taste in people's mouths, especially those who have no other references for Islam.
It is bitter sweet for me that over ten years after 9/11 when we began this active miseducation about Muslims and Islam, I am starting to see a few campaigns attempting to combat these misconceptions. For instance, there's this one, targeting the misunderstanding of the word "Jihad": http://myjihad.org/
Aymann Ismail, a 22-year-old American Muslim filmmaker, made this video talking to college students at Rutgers University, showing how few of them could even make a clear distinction between the concept of an "Arab" and the concept of a "Muslim". To learn more about this, click here.
Here's the 7 minute video: https://vimeo.com/16696682
But unfortunately these campaigns, though certainly worthwhile (every individual you educate is a victory), have small voices in contrast to the constant barrage of media headlines feeding these stereotypes.
The most recent one that inspired this post - coverage of current events in Timbuktu with headlines like this:
For instance, any time you turn on the news (even the BBC) to find a story regarding a terrorist act or sell, these individuals will be referred to "Islamic extremists" or "Muslim terrorists" or "Jihadists". To say that one is extreme about something, implies that they follow it or link themselves to it in some extreme manner. That is, to say that these people are extreme about Islam, implies that they follow Islam in an extreme way. In actuality of course, it is quite the opposite - by committing acts of violence targeting innocent people, they sharply deviate from the teachings of Islam - any sane Muslim, be they ultra religious or barely practicing will tell you that. These acts of terror that are committed are in no way "Islamic" - not in principle nor in objective. Terrorists are not seeking to convert more people to Islam - their agendas are purely political and territorial. They merely use the concept of God as some kind of twisted justification for their horrific acts. But equating "Islam" with "extremism", and "Muslim" with "terror" leaves a certain taste in people's mouths, especially those who have no other references for Islam.
It is bitter sweet for me that over ten years after 9/11 when we began this active miseducation about Muslims and Islam, I am starting to see a few campaigns attempting to combat these misconceptions. For instance, there's this one, targeting the misunderstanding of the word "Jihad": http://myjihad.org/
Here's the 7 minute video: https://vimeo.com/16696682
But unfortunately these campaigns, though certainly worthwhile (every individual you educate is a victory), have small voices in contrast to the constant barrage of media headlines feeding these stereotypes.
The most recent one that inspired this post - coverage of current events in Timbuktu with headlines like this:
Islamists’ Harsh Rule Awakened Ethnic Tensions in Timbuktu
(The above is a link an article from the New York Times).
Also from the NY Times:
I was actually watching the BBC (which is typically the only news I find worthwhile) when they referred to the former regime in Mali as implementing "harsh Shariah law". Here is a BBC article headline in print:
So what do these headlines say to you about Muslims when you come across them? I imagine that if I had to no other education on the subject, I would without a doubt learn to associate "Islamists" (people who believe in Islam, right?) with harshness and cruelty. And "Shariah"? What's that? Sounds like some kind of Muslim martial law meant to oppress people. Funny that Muslims here are painted as oppressors, when in fact the word Muslim means "submission".
So regarding this situation, what you had here was a case of a group of people trying to impose one ultra-conservative, very narrow interpretation of Islam upon others in an effort ultimately to control those they were oppressing. This in no way represents the mainstream teachings or generally accepted wisdom within Islam. In the same way that Taliban rule does not represent the mainstream thinking in Islam, nor do female circumcision practices. But from reading these headlines, you wouldn't know that.
Secondly, "Shariah" is a term that refers to Islamic law or the law of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). When the Prophet was alive, the Muslim community that followed him invited Islam to permeate every part of their lives. Their was no separation between private lives and religious lives. And there was no separation between church and state. And this worked for everyone because all the people were fervent believers. They created a community based on love of Islam, which was entered into by choice. And a life lived by (not under) the Shariah, was a happy and fulfilling one. Islamic law, the Shariah, is a path to God, not a set of harsh rules to oppress people. It includes everything from frequency of one's prayers, to the injunction to give to charity, and the commands like this to be a "true servant" to God directly from the Qur'an: ‘The true servants of the Most Merciful are those who behave gently and with humility on earth, and whenever the foolish quarrel with them, they reply with [words of] peace.’ (al-Furqan 25: 63)
So where is the sense of responsibility from media publications and individual journalists not to perpetuate and augment such inaccurate and hateful stereotypes? Why is it we hold our pop stars more accountable for what they project to our youth, then our media who is addressing things of much deeper significance?
Monday, February 4, 2013
Black Hasidim
Took these photos (by Wayne Lawrence) out of an NY Mag in a doctor's office. They are black Hasidic Jews living in Crown Heights, Brooklyn. I just love the way these photos challenge so many of our preconceived notions. What do they conjure up for you?
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Some Thoughts on the Election
Apparently I never published the below - so here it is:
Last night, Barack Hussein Obama was reelected for his second term as our President. Leading up this election, I have felt a great deal of sorrow, anger, disillusionment and overall cycism with regard to our political system and our prospects for the future as a nation. I had formerly been an avid supporter of Obama, but watching him fight to win this election...the ads, the debates, the manipulations...I found myself deeply disappointed in him and I wondered if he wasn't just like all the rest, just with darker skin and better rhetoric. I considered not voting at all. And if after I went to the polls and cast my vote for Obama, I was still unclear as to my reasons for even going, being that a) I live in one of the 41 states where my vote doesn't matter (it's a Blue state, period) and b) I think our whole political system is so broken that it doesn't really matter who wins, and c) I believe that until there is a massive paradigm shift in the way we relate to one another as individuals, diverse peoples, and nations politics are pretty much irrelevant because the government will continue to be a reflection of "Me! Me! Me!" ideology. I just knew that Mitt Romney struck me as another arrogant, self-righteous, money-centered, and narrow-minded (did I mention arrogant?) and I would be sad to see America fall back into that tired, stagnant mindset - so for whatever it was worth, I cast my vote against it.
But as I sat watching the election coverage (hours after our power had finally been restored - a whole 9 days after hurricane sandy!), I started to read about Obama, more than I ever had before. I voted for the first time around, but truth be told, when he won that election the most meaningful aspect of it for me at the time was what it meant for America to be able to elect a black president. I also believed he was a man of real integrity - but that was most of what I knew about him.
I wont go into all the things I learned about him both biographically and policy-wise, but I will see that between what I read and his beautiful acceptance speech, I found myself once again hopeful for this nation. It is one thing to elect someone like Obama once; but is another to confirm, with a considerable majority, that he is the direction this country wants to continue to move in - despite a still very sick economy.
So I sit here and I reflect about what has changed in America since George Bush Jr. was elected 12 years ago, when I was not yet old enough to vote. I think I had just recently gotten my first cell phone at that time. People were just starting to get DSL internet, changing over from the old dial-up modems. Dawson's Creek was still on - which I'm pretty sure was the first show for teenagers that portrayed teenagers living in a world where teen sex, masturbation, and homosexuality were no longer taboo. And now here we are, 12 years later, and we live in a world where everyone has a smart phone, there is at least one personal of color on every sitcom, and gay marriage and medical marajuana are now legal in several states. By the time the next presidential election comes around, my niece, who has never known a world without lightning fast internet, who's generations biggest heartthrob is somewhat racially ambiguous (I'm talking about Taylor Lautner here), and who will have grown up with a black president, will be old enough to vote.
So what is my point with all of this? Well, maybe this age of Information that we live in now will lead to more than just narcissitic, social media addicted fat kids who never go outside to play. Maybe the fact that the internet and all its knowledge and exposure it provides is so accessible, even in Kansas, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Mississippi (and all those other bright Red states), is causing a real change in those spending the first 1/3 of their lives in the U.S. Maybe the Mitt Romney's of the world really are a dying breed because when they are gone, the children/grandchildren will know too much to follow blindly in their footsteps. I'm not talking here about fiscal policy, I'm talking about a vision for the future. A generation that considers diversity perfectly natural. Maybe even one that views education and (dare I say) healthcare, as necissities that should be available to everyone. Maybe they will be a generation who will have witnessed a deep recession and the mistrust of financial instituitions that resulted, as well movements like Occupy Wall Street, and they will have a different point of view about greed and America's class system then those before them.
Maybe, just maybe, we are on the verge of that massive paradigm shift so many of us have been dreaming of...
Last night, Barack Hussein Obama was reelected for his second term as our President. Leading up this election, I have felt a great deal of sorrow, anger, disillusionment and overall cycism with regard to our political system and our prospects for the future as a nation. I had formerly been an avid supporter of Obama, but watching him fight to win this election...the ads, the debates, the manipulations...I found myself deeply disappointed in him and I wondered if he wasn't just like all the rest, just with darker skin and better rhetoric. I considered not voting at all. And if after I went to the polls and cast my vote for Obama, I was still unclear as to my reasons for even going, being that a) I live in one of the 41 states where my vote doesn't matter (it's a Blue state, period) and b) I think our whole political system is so broken that it doesn't really matter who wins, and c) I believe that until there is a massive paradigm shift in the way we relate to one another as individuals, diverse peoples, and nations politics are pretty much irrelevant because the government will continue to be a reflection of "Me! Me! Me!" ideology. I just knew that Mitt Romney struck me as another arrogant, self-righteous, money-centered, and narrow-minded (did I mention arrogant?) and I would be sad to see America fall back into that tired, stagnant mindset - so for whatever it was worth, I cast my vote against it.
But as I sat watching the election coverage (hours after our power had finally been restored - a whole 9 days after hurricane sandy!), I started to read about Obama, more than I ever had before. I voted for the first time around, but truth be told, when he won that election the most meaningful aspect of it for me at the time was what it meant for America to be able to elect a black president. I also believed he was a man of real integrity - but that was most of what I knew about him.
I wont go into all the things I learned about him both biographically and policy-wise, but I will see that between what I read and his beautiful acceptance speech, I found myself once again hopeful for this nation. It is one thing to elect someone like Obama once; but is another to confirm, with a considerable majority, that he is the direction this country wants to continue to move in - despite a still very sick economy.
So I sit here and I reflect about what has changed in America since George Bush Jr. was elected 12 years ago, when I was not yet old enough to vote. I think I had just recently gotten my first cell phone at that time. People were just starting to get DSL internet, changing over from the old dial-up modems. Dawson's Creek was still on - which I'm pretty sure was the first show for teenagers that portrayed teenagers living in a world where teen sex, masturbation, and homosexuality were no longer taboo. And now here we are, 12 years later, and we live in a world where everyone has a smart phone, there is at least one personal of color on every sitcom, and gay marriage and medical marajuana are now legal in several states. By the time the next presidential election comes around, my niece, who has never known a world without lightning fast internet, who's generations biggest heartthrob is somewhat racially ambiguous (I'm talking about Taylor Lautner here), and who will have grown up with a black president, will be old enough to vote.
So what is my point with all of this? Well, maybe this age of Information that we live in now will lead to more than just narcissitic, social media addicted fat kids who never go outside to play. Maybe the fact that the internet and all its knowledge and exposure it provides is so accessible, even in Kansas, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Mississippi (and all those other bright Red states), is causing a real change in those spending the first 1/3 of their lives in the U.S. Maybe the Mitt Romney's of the world really are a dying breed because when they are gone, the children/grandchildren will know too much to follow blindly in their footsteps. I'm not talking here about fiscal policy, I'm talking about a vision for the future. A generation that considers diversity perfectly natural. Maybe even one that views education and (dare I say) healthcare, as necissities that should be available to everyone. Maybe they will be a generation who will have witnessed a deep recession and the mistrust of financial instituitions that resulted, as well movements like Occupy Wall Street, and they will have a different point of view about greed and America's class system then those before them.
Maybe, just maybe, we are on the verge of that massive paradigm shift so many of us have been dreaming of...
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Inauguration Day & MLK's Bible
Cornell West is a professor at Union Theological Seminary (where I recently applied to get my Masters). He was a professor at Harvard before that, and for various reasons, he's kind of a BIG deal. Below he eloquently and passionately states the opinion of many true Martin followers on the president's inaugural move to be sworn in on MLK's bible. And I get it - I really do - and the sentiment is reasonable and understandable...
However, I think it's very easy to sit in a classroom or in front of one's computer and criticize the president in his ivory house, but the fact of the matter is we don't know exactly what motivated this move from President Obama. Sure, it could be just a political ploy. Or, it could be because he is the first black president, and he feels a responsibility to try to do his best to help this country move towards Martin's dream. He is a president, not a king though, so he cannot wake up one day and stop the war immediately. He cannot wake up, and all by himself, end poverty in America right here, right now. Maybe he wishes he could. Maybe he doesn't. And furthermore, what would people say about the first black president sworn in on MLK day that chose NOT to use Martin's bible? What? He doesn't think racism is an issue in this country anymore? He's gonna use some rich white guy's bible and not Martin's? Just because he's president, he thinks he's too good for Martin? So in a sense, he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. I'm not saying that Obama's motivations were pure in choosing to use Martin's bible - only he and God know that. I'm just saying that maybe we could reserve our own judgment a little because maybe, just maybe, it's not exactly what Brother West thinks it is.
However, I think it's very easy to sit in a classroom or in front of one's computer and criticize the president in his ivory house, but the fact of the matter is we don't know exactly what motivated this move from President Obama. Sure, it could be just a political ploy. Or, it could be because he is the first black president, and he feels a responsibility to try to do his best to help this country move towards Martin's dream. He is a president, not a king though, so he cannot wake up one day and stop the war immediately. He cannot wake up, and all by himself, end poverty in America right here, right now. Maybe he wishes he could. Maybe he doesn't. And furthermore, what would people say about the first black president sworn in on MLK day that chose NOT to use Martin's bible? What? He doesn't think racism is an issue in this country anymore? He's gonna use some rich white guy's bible and not Martin's? Just because he's president, he thinks he's too good for Martin? So in a sense, he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. I'm not saying that Obama's motivations were pure in choosing to use Martin's bible - only he and God know that. I'm just saying that maybe we could reserve our own judgment a little because maybe, just maybe, it's not exactly what Brother West thinks it is.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
On Gun Control (with apologies)
Well, now i'm heated, and i'm gonna go ahead and do what i said i wasn't - i'm gonna talk about gun control (which is a merely a band aid, for a much bigger problem, but it's better than "bleeding" all over the place). You may want to abort reading this status now...
COMMENCE RANT:
I hear a lot of people talking about how this country is founded on personal freedom and liberty, and they say that means a private citizen should have the freedom to protect themselves, their families, and their property from anyone that may want to take them by force - hence, the right to bear arms.
So first off, let's talk about that big buzzword "Freedom" for a minute. "Land of the Free", as the U.S. is called. What does it really mean to be free? I will tell you what it does not mean first: it does not mean ABSOLUTE freedom - not in this context. Absolute freedom means you can do whatever you want. Clearly this is not the case. You are not free to run naked through the streets. You are not free to play your music as loud as you want. You are not free to yell "fire" in a movie theater, etc. ...and these are just laws. I won't even go in to all the normative limitations we have on freedom. So you are not free - not really - sorry if I've bursted anyone's bubbles. But it's OK, because part of living in community and society is that it doesn't allow for absolute freedom. If you want total freedom, you can [theoretically] go into the woods, live by yourself, and do whatever the hell you want - but as long as you want the benefits of living with others, you will need to surrender a number of personal freedoms for the society to function.
The concept of "freedom" that our forefathers believed in was NOT of the absolute kind; it was freedom from OPPRESSION. It was about an individual being free to be themselves (have opinions and voice them, practice their own religion, etc.), and to reach their own potential (the pursuit of happiness). These freedoms differentiate us from oppressed nations, like Vietnam, where they cannot speak out against their corrupt government in public without fear of retaliation.
The "Bill of Rights", lists in the first amendment these freedoms which they believed to be inalienable (that is, we as human beings have a right to them by our very nature). The rest of the document contains a number of rights to protect citizens against a tyrannical or OPPRESSIVE government (including the right to bear arms). Our forefathers came from a monarchy (a dictatorship, in essence), and it was extremely important to them to ensure that the U.S. government would never be able wield its power on the people in an oppressive fashion. They were terrified of tyranny and put laws in place to protect them against their biggest fear.
So here we are approx 250 years later, and by the grace of God, we still live in a country where we are relatively free from oppression. And there is no longer a general fear of our government changing and becoming a dictatorship. Is it possible? Sure. But not likely. And thank God that's true, because considering the size of our military, the existence of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, etc., if our government wanted to turn against the people, they are perfectly capable of doing so, regardless of how many guns our private citizens carry - we'd be screwed.
So what is our biggest fear now as a society? Probably something along of the lines of getting mugged, murdered, raped, etc. or having one of those things happen to the people we love. That is, WE ARE NOW MUCH MORE AFRAID OF EACH OTHER, THAN WE ARE OF THE GOVERNMENT. We are now looking to the government to protect us from each other. Ironic, no?
The idea of limitations on guns is protect us from each other (sad but true). Does this also leave us unprotected against our government, should they try to oppress us? Yes. But this is a risk that is worth taking, since there is a far greater chance that one of us will be killed by a gun that at some point was legally bought and sold (making it's way into the hands of a criminal from there), than that our government will turn oppressive... want proof? Just wait 18 minutes. (That's the time between gun related deaths in the U.S. every day, on average.)
END RANT
COMMENCE RANT:
I hear a lot of people talking about how this country is founded on personal freedom and liberty, and they say that means a private citizen should have the freedom to protect themselves, their families, and their property from anyone that may want to take them by force - hence, the right to bear arms.
So first off, let's talk about that big buzzword "Freedom" for a minute. "Land of the Free", as the U.S. is called. What does it really mean to be free? I will tell you what it does not mean first: it does not mean ABSOLUTE freedom - not in this context. Absolute freedom means you can do whatever you want. Clearly this is not the case. You are not free to run naked through the streets. You are not free to play your music as loud as you want. You are not free to yell "fire" in a movie theater, etc. ...and these are just laws. I won't even go in to all the normative limitations we have on freedom. So you are not free - not really - sorry if I've bursted anyone's bubbles. But it's OK, because part of living in community and society is that it doesn't allow for absolute freedom. If you want total freedom, you can [theoretically] go into the woods, live by yourself, and do whatever the hell you want - but as long as you want the benefits of living with others, you will need to surrender a number of personal freedoms for the society to function.
The concept of "freedom" that our forefathers believed in was NOT of the absolute kind; it was freedom from OPPRESSION. It was about an individual being free to be themselves (have opinions and voice them, practice their own religion, etc.), and to reach their own potential (the pursuit of happiness). These freedoms differentiate us from oppressed nations, like Vietnam, where they cannot speak out against their corrupt government in public without fear of retaliation.
The "Bill of Rights", lists in the first amendment these freedoms which they believed to be inalienable (that is, we as human beings have a right to them by our very nature). The rest of the document contains a number of rights to protect citizens against a tyrannical or OPPRESSIVE government (including the right to bear arms). Our forefathers came from a monarchy (a dictatorship, in essence), and it was extremely important to them to ensure that the U.S. government would never be able wield its power on the people in an oppressive fashion. They were terrified of tyranny and put laws in place to protect them against their biggest fear.
So here we are approx 250 years later, and by the grace of God, we still live in a country where we are relatively free from oppression. And there is no longer a general fear of our government changing and becoming a dictatorship. Is it possible? Sure. But not likely. And thank God that's true, because considering the size of our military, the existence of nuclear weapons, biological weapons, etc., if our government wanted to turn against the people, they are perfectly capable of doing so, regardless of how many guns our private citizens carry - we'd be screwed.
So what is our biggest fear now as a society? Probably something along of the lines of getting mugged, murdered, raped, etc. or having one of those things happen to the people we love. That is, WE ARE NOW MUCH MORE AFRAID OF EACH OTHER, THAN WE ARE OF THE GOVERNMENT. We are now looking to the government to protect us from each other. Ironic, no?
The idea of limitations on guns is protect us from each other (sad but true). Does this also leave us unprotected against our government, should they try to oppress us? Yes. But this is a risk that is worth taking, since there is a far greater chance that one of us will be killed by a gun that at some point was legally bought and sold (making it's way into the hands of a criminal from there), than that our government will turn oppressive... want proof? Just wait 18 minutes. (That's the time between gun related deaths in the U.S. every day, on average.)
END RANT
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Of all the little trinkets we picked up in southeast Asia, this is by far my favorite.
It is a wood carving of a Thai monk that is begging for his food in the morning from the people, as all monks there do every morning. Every time I look over at this little statue, I am reminded of our profound interdependence. The monks that beg for food in the morning are not just depending upon the people to sustain their physical bodies, they are reminding themselves, and those who feed them, as well as those who witness, that there is no future, no eternity -- neither physically nor spiritually -- without each other. Despite what appearances may be, my very being is dependent upon you, and yours upon me. And every moment that we forget this, we bring more misery into our fragile human predicament.
I have not said a word about the CT school shootings up to this point -- there has been so much noise on that subject - much of it valid, heart-felt, authentic, and necessary - that I felt for me, this was a time to shut up, to merely reflect and listen. But as I look at my little statue here, I will say only that when human beings remember by means of mass consciousness, that we are not islands, that nothing is truly our own, that on the most basic soul level WE NEED EACH OTHER, these things do not happen.
One morning in Vietnam a few days after the shooting, the bellhop helping us from our hotel room turned to us, and in broken English and with deep pity he said, "I am so sorry about what happened in your country. I saw it on the news and I had tears, like your president, Obama..." This man, who probably makes about $5 a day, who lives in a country who's government oppresses its people in ways that you and I cannot truly conceive of, who most likely has had no formal education past the age of nine, who is helping us with our over-sized luggage out of a hotel room that costs more money for one night than he probably makes in a year, so we can go back to our freedoms and liberties in our super-power country... HE takes pity on US...
Because he knows that all three of us in that room are really just beggars, relying on each other to get us through this next moment...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)