The Bikini Turns 60!

Check out this slide show at Slate.com chronacling the history of the bikini. It was first doned in public in 1946, and was shunned by Americans for two decades.

The first designer, Jacques Heim, created a tiny suit called the atome. The second, Louis Reard, introduced his design on July 5, four days after the United States had begun atomic testing in the Bikini Atoll. In a rather bold marketing ploy, Reard named his creation le bikini, implying it was as momentous an invention as the new bomb.

Click here for Maxim slideshow on the bikini.

Born into Brothels, movie review

Born into Brothels is a compelling documentary that follows a group of Indian children who were born in the Red Light District in Calcutta. Zana Auntie, a British photographer, moves into a brothel to learn about the lives of the women working/living there but quickly realizes numerous children also live in the brothel. Zana Auntie gives each child (about a dozen total) a camera and film and sends them off to take photographs. The children become enthralled with the fun and power in taking photos, and Zana creates a photography class to channel their energy. The class becomes more sophisticated as she teaches about technique, composition, and becoming and artist. The photos are surprisingly insightful and come with deft commentary by the kids.

While the children love using the camera and selecting the best photos of each roll, Zana becomes engrossed in her pupils and searches for boarding schools willing to enroll them. She realizes that education is the only opportunity for them to escape the brothel. Many of the young girls are on the verge of being put “in the line” of prostitutes by their mothers.
If you plan to watch the movie, you may want to wait on reading the rest of this.

***

Watching Zana’s determination in advocating for the children reminds me of the work we did creating Sabu International School. Substitute civil war refugees for prostitution and turn the families African instead of Indian and you have the garden of poverty from which Sabu grew. Zana’s struggles to navigate the 3rd world bureaucracy brought me back to the corrupt government officials and the mapless mazes of paper work required to register the school, purchase land, and apply for NGO status.

The children’s faces are the same as well. They convey honest, hard working children whose natural light still shines strongly from behind their eyes. This despite having seen parents and friends murdered; despite having to flee their home on foot; and despite the meager portions of food (often only a handful of white rice after school) on which they somehow survived. These kids were no less intelligent than any other children in the world. They were mature and strong and–with education–capable of anything.

In the end, one must accept one’s limits. Just as Zana found schooling for all of the children–a tremendous feat–only to have parents remove them, we also experienced heartbreaking disappointments. After months of teaching the kids to resolve disputes without fighting and empowering the teachers to discipline students with out resorting to corporeal punishment, I came to school one day to find that the “principal” of the school had beaten two kids the afternoon before. All the teachers had pledged not to beat children, and we had multiple discussions about the long-term goal of equipping Sierra Leone’s future leaders to handle disputes non-violently*. On many occasions, parents discontinued their daughter’s education because they deemed it not worthwhile.

One of the lessons learned from Sabu is that one can clear a path towards opportunity, but individuals choose to leave that path. It is even more heart breaking when parents choices limit their children’s’ options–live removing them from the once-in-a-lifetime opportunities Zana Auntie arranged for the kids to study in boarding schools.

No matter what you think is best, or what may actually be best, you are not the parent. One must let the family make a decision. I admire how Zana did the best she could for her photography kids but knew her the limits of her role. I guess in America, those children would be taken from the parents, put into foster care, and remained in school. While I can’t imagine a good reason why those children should return to the brothel, it’s tricky coming into another culture and bringing Western ideas of right and wrong.

At Sabu, the goal was to at least give the students and families a choice. With regard to corporeal punishment, I was always careful not to tell parents how to discipline their kids at home. But at school, we showed everyone–teachers, students and parents–that it is not necessary to hit kids to keep order. While many of Zana’s students were removed from school, I’d bet that when they have children, they will value education more than their parents did.

The raw, freehand camera work of Born into Brothels conveys the immediacy of the story. It brings the viewers into the homes so that we gain a sense of Zana’s experiences and connection with the kids. It is such a treasure for her to have this documentation of her experiences. I have only praise for her extraordinary ability to connect with the students and to fundraise and advocate for them internationally. After the heartache that overwhelms much of my experiences with Guinea, Born into Brothels gives me a fresh perspective on the movie’s subject matter and on my own life.

*After asking around about the principal, we learned that he had a long-term drinking problem and had regressed to beating children in school before. I had a couple of frank discussions with him during which he was sincerely sorry and felt ashamed. One must remember that the teachers and students were refugees. All had PTSD and had suffered deep trauma from the atrocities they had survived in Sierra Leone. After all, Sabu was an opportunity to help the students, parents, and teachers.

Blitzer is a tool. Take off the gloves and have a debate that matters.

I pine for the days when a debate meant an actual debate. After the infamous Dred Scott decision (which among other things stated that blacks are not US citizens)the country drew close to a boil on the issue of slavery. In 1858, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debates face-to-face as they campaigned across Illinois for the Senate seat occupied by Douglas.

According to Peter Irons in his book The People's History of the Supreme Court,

During the twenty months between the Dred Scott decision and the 1858 elections, Lincoln and Douglas spoke to hundreds of audiences in Illinois and around the country, and they discussed the case in almost every speech. The seven formal–and now famous–debates between the two senatorial candidates focused largely on the Court's ruling and its consequences for national unity, as talk of secession grew louder in the South.

I wish two candidate would have a direct debate on the prominent issues (Iraq, health care, immigration, energy) rather than always having to be so careful about their image and every word. When we see the best athletes operating at their profession, we can watch them play. We see Michael Jordan make a game winning jump shot, and we see him miss foul shots. But with politicians, any slip of the tongue will be exaggerated, and thus, we get few candid moments. I wish the final two or three presidential candidates would give multiple public debates around the country with the focus on the issues and the audience rather than the TV viewers. What's wrong with the candidates having 10-15 debates in front of thousands of people?

Just Imagine
I ache for the opportunity to see Lincoln and Douglas debate on stage with no mics and no video cameras. The only real debate in this country comes from political analysts who are trying to boost ratings. It's rude to debate heatedly with friends, family, or company. And politicians can't afford to have their mistakes broadcasted around the world. We should be able to look to the "professionals" to help us think through the issues and debate the other side directly and thoroughly. That can't happen in a two-minute statement or even in a 10 minute interview.

One difference with the slavery debate, is that people can debate it without needing special knowledge. It is a moral issue. Well, I guess the "fire breathers" would say it was primarily an economic issues as well with economic implications for the South. Anyway, it's hard to have a debate about Iraq without being an expert in middle east relations or military occupation. A debate on energy can go only so far without both parties knowing about each type of alternative energy, the energy ratios of each, the latest technology, estimates for future energy demand, and the economic implications of weening the population and economy off oil.

Wolfe Blitzer
Regardless of how complicated issues are, the media led debates, especially the recent Democratic debate, are not working. If the moderator is going to ask yes/no questions or ask candidates to raise their hands to answer, just get them to do that ahead of time and post a grid on the screen. Get the candidates talking and challenge them to answer questions. Give the candidates the floor to make their case to the American people.

You have your own show. We do not tune into debates to hear you talk.

Obama's Pastor Blasts NY Times

I meant to post this last week. My friends at BrainShrub turned me on to this.

March 11, 2007
Jodi Kantor
The New York Times
9 West 43rd Street
New York,
New York 10036-3959

Dear Jodi:

Thank you for engaging in one of the biggest misrepresentations of the truth I have ever seen in sixty-five years. You sat and shared with me for two hours. You told me you were doing a "Spiritual Biography" of Senator Barack Obama. For two hours, I shared with you how I thought he was the most principled individual in public service that I have ever met.

For two hours, I talked with you about how idealistic he was. For two hours I shared with you what a genuine human being he was. I told you how incredible he was as a man who was an African American in public service, and as a man who refused to announce his candidacy for President until Carol Moseley Braun indicated one way or the other whether or not she was going to run. I told you what a dreamer he was. I told you how idealistic he was. We talked about how refreshing it would be for someone who knew about Islam to be in the Oval Office. Your own question to me was, Didn't I think it would be incredible to have somebody in the Oval Office who not only knew about Muslims, but had living and breathing Muslims in his own family?

I told you how important it would be to have a man who not only knew the difference between Shiites and Sunnis prior to 9/11/01 in the Oval Office, but also how important it would be to have a man who knew what Sufism was; a man who understood that there were different branches of Judaism; a man who knew the difference between Hasidic Jews, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reformed Jews; and a man who was a devout Christian, but who did not prejudge others because they believed something other than what he believed.

I talked about how rare it was to meet a man whose Christianity was not just "in word only."

I talked about Barack being a person who lived his faith and did not argue his faith. I talked about Barack as a person who did not draw doctrinal lines in the sand nor consign other people to hell if they did not believe what he believed.

Out of a two-hour conversation with you about Barack's spiritual journey and my protesting to you that I had not shaped him nor formed him, that I had not mentored him or made him the man he was, even though I would love to take that credit, you did not print any of that. When I told you, using one of your own Jewish stories from the Hebrew Bible as to how God asked Moses, "What is that in your hand?," that Barack was like that when I met him. Barack had it "in his hand." Barack had in his grasp a uniqueness in terms of his spiritual development that one is hard put to find in the 21st century, and you did not print that.

As I was just starting to say a moment ago, Jodi, out of two hours of conversation I spent approximately five to seven minutes on...

... Barack's taking advice from one of his trusted campaign people and deeming it unwise to make me the media spotlight on the day of his announcing his candidacy for the Presidency and what do you print?

You and your editor proceeded to present to the general public a snippet, a printed "sound byte" and a titillating and tantalizing article about his disinviting me to the Invocation on the day of his announcing his candidacy.

I have never been exposed to that kind of duplicitous behavior before, and I want to write you publicly to let you know that I do not approve of it and will not be party to any further smearing of the name, the reputation, the integrity or the character of perhaps this nation's first (and maybe even only) honest candidate offering himself for public service as the person to occupy the Oval Office.

Your editor is a sensationalist. For you to even mention that makes me doubt your credibility, and I am looking forward to see how you are going to butcher what else I had to say concerning Senator Obama's "Spiritual Biography."

Our Conference Minister, the Reverend Jane Fisler Hoffman, a white woman who belongs to a Black church that Hannity of "Hannity and Colmes" is trying to trash, set the record straight for you in terms of who I am and in terms of who we are as the church to which Barack has belonged for over twenty years.

The president of our denomination, the Reverend John Thomas, has offered to try to help you clarify in your confused head what Trinity Church is even though you spent the entire weekend with us setting me up to interview me for what turned out to be a smear of the Senator; and yet The New York Times continues to roll on making the truth what it wants to be the truth.

I do not remember reading in your article that Barack had apologized for listening to that bad information and bad advice. Did I miss it? Or did your editor cut it out? Either way, you do not have to worry about hearing anything else from me for you to edit or "spin" because you are more interested in journalism than in truth.

Forgive me for having a momentary lapse. I forgot that The New York Times was leading the bandwagon in trumpeting why it is we should have gone into an illegal war. The New York Times became George Bush and the Republican Party's national "blog." The New York Times played a role in the outing of Valerie Plame. I do not know why I thought The New York Times had actually repented and was going to exhibit a different kind of behavior. Maybe it was my faith in the Jewish Holy Day of Roshashana. Maybe it was my being caught up in the euphoria of the Season of Lent; but whatever it is or was, I was sadly mistaken. There is no repentance on the part of The New York Times. There is no integrity when it comes to The Times. You should do well with that paper, Jodi. You looked me straight in my face and told me a lie!

Sincerely and respectfully yours,
Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. ,
Senior Pastor
Trinity United Church of Christ

Oscars and Poor Judgement

One of my astute friends made an interesting comment about Jennifer Hudson, who won best-supporting actress for Dream Girls last night.

She said, "Everyone has made Jennifer Hudson out to be a storybook character, who has gone from being anonymous to winning an Oscar in four years."

"But people forget that while she sang well on American Idol, she was snobish and carried a haughty attitude. That is partly why she was voted off."

This made me see, in a new light, the power of the media to twist a person's image. I am accustomed to seeing various pundits and marketing operatives twist political stories and other news, but I just realized that we only know entertainment figures through the media. With politicians, we know they are real people who are controlling their image to get re-elected to influence constituencies on an issue. We know stars control their image for marketing purposes. But here is an example of the media (and the Oscars) turning Hudson into something that benefits its own need. The need to create a story.

With Hudson, we all gained first-hand experience of her each week on American Idol. We are not so lucky as to gain a first-hand and live experience of politicians and other celebrities. Obama, more than Sen. Clinton and Sen. Edwards, comes accross as genuine and unrehearsed. His articulate speaking style conveys a natural polish rather than over rehearsed sound-bites.

I find that once I have my own impression (of the O.J. verdict, a State of the Union Speech, or a football player's performance for example), it takes conscious effort to maintain that perspective amidst the waves of media coverage giving alternate perspectives.

Perhaps writing here will help solidify my perceptions of first-hand experience–whether in politics, entertainment, or my own life.

---

p.s. (In spite of this, I have never been swayed, even for a second, by the White House's ardent assertions that things are going well in Iraq. It's almost as if they are seeing how long they can call the American people dumb before they get mad. We got mad and voted the Republicans out of office, but Cheney continues to act like he is our only source of news. How in the world can someone call the British deployment from Iraq a sign of progress? The Brits have forced Tony Blair's Labor Party to reduce troop levels. Do we have the only Democracy where the leader ignores the will of the people?)

Just found this related article, which documents Cheney's poor judgement: Cheney's New Front in War on Reality

---

75% of US citizens politically active

What would it take for Americans to feel like they are an integral part of the United States government?

Few Americans vote in presidential elections. Even fewer citizens vote in nonpresidential elections. And an abysmally few voters show up for primary races. How many citizens do you know, that are not involved in politics for their job, who participate in the democratic system in some way other than voting? I don’t know many. I volunteered to work at a phone bank for 3 hours during the 2004 presidential election, and I was told I was one of 1% of American who do so! Clearly, there is a problem when the government is “for the people” and “by the people” but so few people participate in the government.

Imagine the United States if 75% of the population voted in every election, contacted its national and state representatives on a monthly basis, worked with their political party year-round, and was informed on the issues. What if 75% of the population felt their voice mattered to in the government and that they had the power to effect change in out political system?

What would it take to make this a reality? What would make myself and others feel it’s worth the time to learn about current issues? What would make me learn how our Democracy works? What would it take for me to ask questions, read, and attend meetings to learn how my city, state, and country are run?

Health care costs so high I can hardly afford them? Poorly educated high school “graduates”? A President lying to the American people (or being unforgivably negligent at best) to gain their support for preemptively invading another country for the first time in US history? EU investigations into US torture charges? A President calling for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans during an unprecedented national deficit? Illegal eavesdropping on US citizen’s international and domestic calls? Government surveillance of my Internet activity? Hundreds of school busses flooded into a parking lot while thousands of citizen are stranded in the wake of a national disaster?

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am tired of feeling helpless while so many important issues are being decided on. I am tired of complaining to my friends about this weeks top news stories. I am tired of feeling like politicians are bad people and politics corrupts good people. I am so sick of feeling like all these issues are so complicated that I don’t have the time to understand them. I am tired of feeling that there is so much I don’t know, that I can’t have a valid opinion.

It is not right that as a college educated citizen, the issues of my country are too complicated for me to understand without spending all of my free time researching them. It’s not right that even if I do have a strong opinion about something, I feel helpless to do anything about it. Is writing a letter to my representative going to help? What about demonstrating downtown? What does that really do?

If I struggle with these frustrations and problems, then others also must. If I can find a personal solution for them, then maybe I can find solutions that help other people as well. What if 75% of the US population voted in every election, contacted its national and state representatives on a monthly basis, worked with their political party year-round, and was informed on major issues.