Plastic Stuff

No longer consider “kooks,” the ranks of people concerned about the environmental effects of living a comfortable and convenient life in industrialized nations have swelled to become the mainstream.

What are they concerned about? Global warming, tons of trash in the ground and the oceans, the deleterious health effects of radiation in the atmosphere and chemicals in food and water, loss of ecosystems and diversity of life, extinction of species, dwindling natural resources, permanent scarring of the landscape due to mining, the violence of war as the struggle over oil reserves grows more dangerous and desperate, ever-more invasive methods of retrieval as we turn to more difficult-to-reach reserves, and an impending shortage as reserves are depleted.

When I was a child, the world population was four billion. Thirty-five years later, the world population is six billion. Nearly 50 percent of those people are living in poverty.1 Can we, as conscientious human beings, expect them to continue living in poverty? What happens as they achieve a higher standard of living? Will they consume as Americans do? Will they generate the mounds of trash and the pounds of carbon emissions that Americans do in the process?

The New York Times reports that brown plumes of pollution, the result of industrialization, blot out the sun in large parts of Asia.2 Unless we can change the impact of development and higher standards of living, our environment will continue to sag and even collapse under the weight of trash and carbon emissions.

How can we enjoy a high standard of living without using up resources and killing the planet in the process, especially as poverty is reduced and standards of living are raised in the developing world?

We must develop a new model for living a comfortable, convenient and healthy life. Those of us who have enjoyed a life of modern convenience and technology for nearly a century must not expect to continue consuming as irresponsibly as we have up to now. We must consider the impact of what we buy and consume, and seek alternatives. Just as we led the way in developing machines and technology, so must we lead the way in reducing our footprint on the earth.

What do we do that poses a problem? Wow! Big question. The most obvious and immediate in terms of trash and consumption of irreplaceable resources is the use of oil for “disposable” products and for transportation. We drive gas guzzlers and we use plastic!

We all know about the problems emissions from inefficient gasoline engines cause. But how much do we know about the problems associated with the use of plastic?

Jay Sinha, of lifewithoutplastic.com, says, “Most plastics are made from petroleum, a nonrenewable resource extracted and processed using energy-intensive techniques that destroy fragile ecosystems. Plastic packaging, especially the ubiquitous plastic bag, is an enormous source of landfill waste and is regularly eaten by numerous marine and land animals, to fatal consequences.”3

Scientists are finding health risks associated with the manufacture and use of plastic, as well. Again, Jay Sinha tells us,

“In terms of health risks, the evidence is growing that chemicals leached from plastics used in cooking and food/drink storage are harmful to human health. The most disturbing of these are hormone (endocrine) disrupters, such as bisphenol A (BPA), which can stimulate the growth of cancer cells. . . . The manufacture of plastic, as well as its destruction by incineration, pollutes air, land and water and exposes workers to toxic chemicals, including carcinogens. The evidence of health risks from certain plastics is increasingly appearing in established, peer-reviewed scientific journals.”4

Plastic doesn’t degrade for hundreds of years. Juliet Lapidos says, in Slate magazine,

News reports have cited a statistic that the ubiquitous receptacles [plastic bags] take 500 years to break down in landfills. How do we know? To make long-term estimates of this sort, scientists often use respirometry tests. The experimenters place a solid waste sample—like a newspaper, banana peel or plastic bag—in a vessel containing microbe-rich compost, then aerate the mixture. Over the course of several days, microorganisms assimilate the sample bit by bit and produce carbon dioxide; the resultant CO2 level serves as an indicator of degradation. Newspapers take two to five months to biodegrade in a compost heap; banana peels take several days. But when scientists test generic plastic bags, nothing happens—there's no CO2 production and no decomposition. Why? The most common type of plastic shopping bag—the kind you get at supermarkets—is made of polyethylene, a man-made polymer that microorganisms don't recognize as food.

So, where does the 500-year statistic come from? Although standard polyethylene bags don't biodegrade, they do photodegrade. When exposed to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight, polyethylene's polymer chains become brittle and start to crack. This suggests that plastic bags will eventually fragment into microscopic granules. As of yet, however, scientists aren't sure how many centuries it takes for the sun to work its magic. . . . According to some plastics experts, all these figures are just another way of saying ‘a really, really long time.’”5

Plastic bottles, too, are a mountainous problem. “Why Recycle Plastic?” on www.professorshouse.com puts it this way:

When was the last time you bought a drink in a plastic bottle at the gas station? Chances are, you threw out that bottle when you were done—without a second thought. That’s what most of us do, even though all plastics can be recycled—and there are serious environmental consequences for throwing them away. Here are a few reasons you should recycle that plastic drink bottle next time, instead of tossing it in the trash.

People in the U.S. throw away 2.5 million plastic bottles an hour. Plastic is one of the most 'disposable' materials in U.S. culture. We throw away our milk bottles, soda bottles, water bottles, trash bags, grocery bags, product packaging and more every day without giving it a second thought. . . . Plastic is rapidly filling our landfills.

Making new plastic requires significant amounts of fossil fuels. Studies suggest that between 7 percent and 8 percent of the world’s fossil fuels are used in producing new plastics. This doesn’t sound like a great amount, but it accounts for millions of tons of fuels per year. Recycling could preserve these fuels—even reuse them in other markets.

Plastic is easy to recycle—although few people do it. All plastic can be recycled. But it’s not being recycled as much as it should be. Some studies show that only 10 percent of plastic bottles created are recycled, leaving that extra 90 percent to take up space in landfills and kill life in the oceans.

Plastic bottles take up space in landfills. Our country’s landfills are closing at a rate of around two per day. The landfill-space crisis is especially problematic in cities, where inner-city trash dumps are often filled to capacity, and surrounding communities are unwilling to allow new landfills to come to their neighborhoods. Many coastal cities use the ocean as a dumping ground, resulting in depleted fish stock, polluted beaches, and other health issues for the inhabitants. Plastic bottles make up approximately 11 percent of the contents of landfills.

Incinerating plastic contributes to greenhouse gases. To save space at landfills, plastics are often burned in incinerators. When this is done, chemicals . . . are released into the atmosphere, adding to greenhouse gas emissions.

Plastic in the oceans is responsible for the deaths of millions of sea animals. Plastic bottles floating on the surface of the oceans can look like food to larger sea life—often with fatal consequences. Fish, sea birds and other ocean creatures often get caught in plastic rings that strangle them or constrict their throats so that they cannot swallow.

Plastic takes a long time to degrade. Nobody is quite sure how long it takes for plastic to biodegrade—it hasn’t been around long enough, and the first plastics made are still around today. Scientists believe, however, that plastics will take hundreds of years to degrade fully—if not longer. Plastics as we know them have only been around a hundred years, and they are already a problem. Imagine five hundred years’ worth of plastics in our landfills.

Plastics contain harmful chemicals. These include cadmium, lead, PVC and other pollutants in the form of artificial coloring, plasticizers and stabilizers. Some of these have been discovered to be harmful and are not in currently-manufactured plastics, but the older, more toxic plastics are still filling our landfills and floating around in our oceans, releasing pollutants into the environment.

Recycling plastic saves energy. Studies show that the energy saved by recycling a single plastic bottle—as compared to producing a new one from scratch—is enough to power a single 60-watt bulb for six hours. Think of those 2.5 million bottles thrown away per hour in the U.S.—we could power our homes on the energy savings we’d gain by recycling every one of those plastic bottles.

Recycled plastic is useful. Recycled plastic is found in many unexpected places—including carpeting, the fuzz on tennis balls, scouring pads, paintbrushes, clothes, industrial strapping, shower stalls, drain pipes, flower pots and lumber. It also contains oils that could be recycled and reused as fossil fuels.

The bottom line is this: recycling plastic is a good idea. It’s good for the environment, good for energy savings, and good for the health of wildlife and humans. So the next time you buy a bottle of soda or water, don’t just throw it in the trash. Recycle it—and do one small thing for the environment. If you do this every time you buy a bottled drink, your small contributions will definitely add up to a big difference."

We’ve looked at plastic bags and plastic bottles. What about plastic cutlery? And plastic plates used in fastfood restaurants? And plastic cups used at sporting events, outdoor festivals and parties?

You can imagine that if 2.5 million plastic bottles are thrown away every hour in the United States, how many plastic forks, knives, plates and cups are thrown out! The prospect is mind-boggling. It gives rise to a sick, panicky feeling if we think about how rapidly we are piling up mounds of plastic trash that will take 500–1000 years to degrade. Yes, some is recycled, but plastic cutlery is usually polystyrene (type 6 plastic) and that is not so easy to recycle.

Obviously, it is incumbent upon concerned citizens to eliminate our use of plastic as much as possible. And it our responsibility to humanity to keep things working as long as possible and to dispose of them properly.5

Here are some suggestions:

• Reuse the plastic bags you cannot avoid taking.
• Refuse plastic bags when you can.
• Carry reusable bags.
• Wash and reuse plastic cutlery.
• Avoid frequenting restaurants that use plasticware.
• Lobby your lawmakers to pass legislation outlawing “disposable” plastic items.
• Wash and reuse plastic water bottles that you already have.
• Stop buying water in plastic bottles.
• Become conscious of how much plastic packaging consumer items are wrapped in.
• Pressure local governments to institute recycling programs, if they haven’t already.
• Buy biodegradable trash bags, if you must use plastic.
• Lobby fastfood chains and local restaurants to use biodegradable containers and flatware, available from www.trellisearth.com, among others.
• Read www.fakeplasticfish.com for one woman’s efforts to live plastic-free.
• Finally, view “The Story of Stuff,” on www.storyofstuff.com. This is a brilliant summary of the fallacy of a consumer economy.

Notes

1. “The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than US $1.25 (PPP) per day, and moderate poverty as less than $2 a day, estimating that ‘in 2001, 1.1 billion people had consumption levels below $1 a day and 2.7 billion lived on less than $2 a day.’1 The proportion of the developing world's population living in extreme economic poverty fell from 28 percent in 1990 to 21 percent in 2001. Looking at the period 1981–2001, the percentage of the world's population living on less than $1 per day has halved. Most of this improvement has occurred in East and South Asia. In East Asia, the World Bank reported that ‘The poverty headcount rate at the $2-a-day level is estimated to have fallen to about 27 percent [in 2007], down from 29.5 percent in 2006 and 69 percent in 1990.’” Note that Asia has undergone a massive industrialization over the last 50 years, perhaps explaining the drop in poverty. At the same time, there has been a rise in pollution in Asia.

2. “A noxious cocktail of soot, smog and toxic chemicals is blotting out the sun, fouling the lungs of millions of people and altering weather patterns in large parts of Asia, according to a report released Thursday by the United Nations. . . . Climate scientists say that similar plumes from industrialization of wealthy countries after World War II probably blunted global warming through the 1970s. Pollution laws largely removed that pall.”

3. Jay Sinha, “Why Is Plastic a Problem?”, www.lifewithoutplastic.com; accessed July 20, 2009;

4. ibid. For example, a study published in the September 17, 2008 issue of Journal of the American Medical Association found that adults with the highest levels of BPA in their urine were more than twice as likely to report having diabetes or heart disease—compared with adults with the lowest levels of the chemical in their urine. See http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300.11.1353.

5. Juliet Lapidos, “Will My Plastic Bag Still Be Here in 2507?”, www.slate.com, June 27, 2007

6. “Why Recycle Plastic?”, www.professorshouse.com

7. “How You Can Save the Planet,” www.fixit.com/Guide/Info/environment#Section_How_you_can_save_the_planet.

Jazz Fest 2006

For the uninitiated, Jazz Fest is about much more than Jazz. It is about blues and crawfish, about gospel and etoufee, about mingling in a crowd of thousands of laid-back, music-loving eclectics, baking in the sun all day so you can catch Dr. John on one stage, Jack Jones on another and the Dirty Dozen Brass Band on another.

I love it. I have been just four times over the last dozen years but I still consider myself a devotee. I've stayed in French Quarter hotels with quiet courtyards and fruity, made-from-scratch hurricanes. And I have stayed on Canal Street in the big chain hotels, where you can catch acts as diverse as Sun Pie and Randy Jackson. I much prefer the Quarter hotels, but they're hard to book and just as expensive.

When you aren't at the Fairgrounds, trudging from one stage to another, and one wonderful food stand to the next, . . . (more to come on this work in progress).

The Thin Veil, Part II

Epilogue:
7/29/06
The assault on Lebanon by Israel continues. Is this World War III? Could be. What makes a war a world war? Many countries involved? There is certainly the potential for many countries to become involved. Two sides, each with several countries lined up as allies? There is war in Afghanistan, there is war in Iraq, there is war in Lebanon and there is war between Israel and Palestine, all places where we or one of our allies are involved, and all places where Muslims and Palestinian sympathizers are resisting what they perceive as aggression. It’s either a “holy war” or a “world war” or both, but I would suggest that it’s a world war, since Palestinians are both Muslim and Christian.

You see that I have a hard time figuring out what is going on. Perhaps it would help to be more thoroughly informed. But by whom? Does the American media do a thorough and objective job of presenting the facts? How can they present all sides of a complicated situation in sound bites? They can’t. Some outlets attempt to do more than sound bites; there have been lengthy pieces written, particularly for NPR. But who really knows what is going on? Our government says one thing, folks on the ground say another, depending on with whom they sympathize. Everyone is struggling to assess the reality. Who knows what the reality is? There are multiple realities, to be sure.

One thing is clear, though. There is a struggle for control of various parts of the Middle East. If one were cynical, one might say that the richest, most powerful country on earth could effect change, that the United States could make peace happen, if it really wanted to, and that since it is not, it must have its own interests. I am not sure that the U.S. can make peace happen, with such longstanding rivalries among Muslims, Jews and Christians. But it does seem that the U.S. could have called for a ceasefire immediately, when Israel attacked Lebanon. The U.S. could have immediately sent our secretary of state over to try to broker a deal. Surely we knew this was coming, as close as we are with Israel. But we still haven’t called for a ceasefire, and we just sent Condoleeza Rice over this week. Just two days ago!

If one were cynical, one could say that we aren’t sincere when we say we want peace. If we were sincere, we would put more pressure on Israel to reach a compromise with Palestine. We would recognize Palestine as a state. We would not have waged war on Iraq. We would have sanctioned Israel for waging war on Lebanon. We would have responded immediately when they did.

If one were cynical, one could say that the only way to make sense out of all this and U.S. policy in the Middle East, is to apply logic to the situation, thus drawing the conclusion that our government is using smoke screens and double-speak. If we look at the situation, compare it with what we are told by our government, then see what logic tells us, we see that what we are told doesn't fit what we hear from folks on the ground, and that the outcome suggests a very different premise. Logic suggests that we are behaving as if we have prurient interests in Israel’s domination of the Middle East. Logic suggests that we are not as interested in human rights and democracy as we are in controlling oil-rich areas.

If we were truly interested in removing bad men who abuse their citizens, we would have removed the military government in Guatemala in the 80’s. We would have stepped in during the genocide in Rwanda. We would have stopped Slobodan Melosovich much sooner than we did. We would be taking out the government in Darfur. We would be spending our money breaking up rings of sex traders and supporting all U.N. resolutions that establish peacemaking forces. We would be spending money on education, conservation, mental health, cancer research, and so forth.

If we were a truly Christian nation, as the current president of the United States would have everyone believe, we would be more Christ-like and NOT be using violence to protect selfish interests. We would not be undoing the work of faith-based organizations. We would be working in the world as a protector of human rights and a defender of universal human values. We would be building up peacemaking networks and negotiating agreements, rather than destabilizing an area so we can plunder. What street cred can we have when we are behaving like money changers in temple? Waking up to the hypocrisy is like having a veil pulled aside to reveal a monster in place of a bride.

When I was a youngster, growing up in the 60’s on a farm in Kentucky, I did not realize how privileged I was. I thought we were on the fringes of society, an oddity in a modern, middle-class America. We lived poorly, had very little cash flow and virtually no savings, depending on a small tobacco crop each year to pay the taxes, buy groceries, pay for gasoline to take the tobacco to market, and buy a couple of uniforms and a pair of shoes for school. We did not participate in the increasingly consumer-oriented America.

It is true that we were not living the American dream the way that the middle-class was. We lived an old-fashioned, alternate lifestyle, and I felt embarrassed because we didn't have what everyone around us had. I felt like a second-class citizen. That was my reality, but it was in the context of the so-called “American dream.” It was in the context of 60’s and 70’s America.

I know now that where we were was relatively privileged and wealthy, when compared with the rest of the world. Even in that context, we were part of the bubble of living in a country where everyone takes for granted freedom, opportunity and safety. Though to some extent disenfranchised, at least in modern, middle-class American culture, we lived in a land where we could work to achieve the American dream. And because we were descended from a family of pioneer landowners, we were much more a part of the American way of life than we realized.

All this to say that we had no idea how really disenfranchised much of the world is. The bubble that was American life in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, even reaching back to the early 20th century, had everyone speaking English, and assimilating into an overarching culture that seemed consistent with the Christian principles we were brought up with, that all are created equal (by God), with the right to life, liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness. If it wasn’t working out that way, there must be something wrong with us, I felt unconsciously.

As far as I know, nearly everyone living in the United States, who had been born here, was being raised with a similar world view, that our country was the land of opportunity, justice and Christian values, insofar as that meant loving our neighbor, extending Christian charity to the underprivileged and social justice to the downtrodden. We assumed that our foreign policy was an extension of the climate of love and justice that our constitution ensured for all American citizens.

Even then, the talk didn’t match the reality. I just didn’t realize how much dissonance existed. I have learned so much since then. Even then, as a female in a male-dominated society, I didn’t have equal rights. On paper, I did. I could vote, I could get a job and earn my own money. But women were not truly equal in our society. Especially women of color, who, by virtue of “race,” had fewer rights and privileges than white women. Women were still denied self-determination, pressured to marry young, and paid less for the equivalent work. And the poor were not equal, either. The wealthy had much more power. Especially white Protestant men. Even John F. Kennedy had to be a little smarter than his Protestant colleagues, in order to overcome the prejudice that existed among the American ruling class against Catholics. African Americans, I realize now, were excluded from living in “white” neighborhoods, by white real estate agents and mortgage lenders. Poor minor offenders were victims of police brutality while rich children were let off of minor offenses by police officers and judges who cut them breaks because of who they were. Where was the freedom and justice and equal opportunity that we were told existed? It was all relative.

How much more of this imbalance of power and justice is apparent to me now. And how hypocritical our government appears to me now. Especially now that the Bush administration is in power. The thin veil has been removed.

Americans, because they live in a technologically advanced society that has had wealth and power for 250 years, have enjoyed an abundance of consumer goods and information. They benefit from unprecedented technological development. Consequently, they have been exposed to the “future shock” Alvin Toffler spoke of in his book, published in the 70s. The number of choices and volume of data, the flood of sensory input, the flashing lights, the new things to learn, the new pressures and the competition and sense of urgency that are pervasive in American life, are overwhelming. The Information Age has exposed us to so many challenging ideas and confronted us with great diversity.

Some of us welcome this, some of us don’t. Some of us long for the white-washed world of the 50s. Some of us long for life to seem definite. We want someone to tell us that life is simple and right and wrong are clear. We want someone to tell us that we are right, and that we can keep our privilege and not have to think about the complexities of modern life, particularly the problems of the rest of the world. Many of us want someone to say, "You can trust your government to take care of you and to keep the problems of the world out." Probably the half of us who voted Bush into power.

The other half of us welcome diversity and are glad that we are learning about how false our assumptions about the rest of the world have been. We are not glad they were false, we are just glad that we can talk about the problems that have existed for millennia, for women, the poor and the underprivileged. We realize that, but for the grace of God, we could be where they are. And instead of feeling threatened by the crying needs of the rest of the world, we feel compassion. We are glad that we are discussing human rights and justice for all, and we mean ALL. We know this is harder, but that it is much more meaningful. Some of us even think this is what God calls us to do. Why should we ignore and deny those who weren’t born into fortunate circumstances? We know that Christianity and other religions care about those who are less fortunate. We know that we want to work to eliminate those circumstances so that everyone who is born can be born into a just society where there is opportunity for self-determination and dignity.

It seems to me that our current administration has pandered to the group that wants to puton blinders and regress back to the 50s when rights and prosperity belonged to the enfranchised. I suppose that even working-class Americans have learned enough to realize that they have power and privilege compared to most of the world. They are willing to align with conservatives to form the neo-conservatives and “moral majority,” for whom being Christian means caring for those who can help me, and to viciously protect what we’ve got. To hell with the downtrodden. To hell with those who are being raped and tortured and displaced and murdered by the millions. Just keep my gasoline cheap so I can continue to drive my giant SUVs. To hell with the environment and global warming. If I can keep Mexicans and other "foreigners" out of the country, I can still enjoy snowmobiling in Yellowstone while we drill in the Alaskan wilderness and run roughshod over the Middle East for oil to run my SUV and snowmobile. The glaciers won't melt in my lifetime and to hell with those Arabs!

It seems to me that saying we are promoting democracy and human rights is a bald-faced lie. Our actions belie what we are saying. The illusion of a democratic society that is built on universal values is a thin veil barely covering these lies. The truth is that we have never reached our ideal. And our current administration is making us a meaner, more avaricious nation, rather than the kinder, gentler nation they have spoken of. We are certainly perceived that way by most of the rest of the world. What we are allowing to happen and what we are making happen speaks louder than our words.

The Thin Veil, part I

7/21/06
Okay, so Israel has been bombing Lebanon for a little over nine days now. Why? I haven’t been keeping up with the news well enough, I guess. I know all about the election among Palestinians that put Hamas in power, and Hamas is trying to run a coalition government in spite of the fact that they are the group that has said Israel should be wiped out! What does that have to do with Lebanon? I don’t know. I thought that was the news, that Hamas is in power.

Now I find out Israel has attacked Lebanon. Obviously, I have missed something. So I ask my Egyptian buddy. He tells me it is because of Hezbollah. I ask him what is going on in Lebanon? He says, “Evil!” He tells me Israel wants more land, not less. He says they want expansion. They seem to be taking part of Lebanon? I suppose they are bombing Lebanon under the pretext that Hezbollah are terrorists, in much the same way we have waged war on Iraq because of “weapons of mass destruction” and “terrorists.” (Just typing the word reminds me of how much I despise hearing George Dubya say it in his lips-curled sort of way.)

Maybe Hezbollah are terrorists. And maybe Saddam Hussein was a bad man and his sons even worse. But in my gut, I know there is something wrong about the way Israel and the United States are running rough shod over the Middle East region. The U.S. is protecting selfish interests, and I don’t mean for the common good of the American people. I mean, for the good of the “skull and crossbones” boys’ club in power in Washington, who want power and money and oil and reconstruction contracts for their friends who keep them in power.

And Israel wants something, too. Power, money, land? How can they, who have suffered persecution for centuries, justify doing that to another culture? But they are, by displacing the Palestinian people, who have as much or more right to the land where their families have lived for centuries. Of course, terrorists are bred in an environment where people have exhausted all other recourse.

I don’t know the history of the area well enough to say it is this simple, but the reality is that there are two main groups wanting to occupy the same area in the Middle East, one which was pushed aside when Israel was created. Of course there are resentments. Of course there is anger. But, of course, settlers have been in place long enough that they have nowhere else to go. At this point, it would be disruptive to many families to reverse history. There is no choice but to share. There is no going back two centuries or even 50 years, or five centuries. There must be compromise on both sides. Israel must recognize Palestine and give back the occupied territories, and Palestine must recognize Israel and concede some ancestral lands.

Yet, to sympathize with Palestinians is to risk being accused of anti-Semitism. That is a gross misnomer. It is a knee-jerk response born of a longstanding sense of being wronged by persecutors. Yes, the Jews’ long history of being persecuted is regrettable and outrageous, but demanding recompense by carving out the nation of Israel and therebyb wronging others in the process, is like kicking the dog because you are mad at your boss. We can’t say Israelis have more rights because they have been so wronged. They are no more important than the Palestinians.

Unless the Israelis benefit the United States more. Ah! There may be the key! Is Israel attacking Lebanon because they know they will be allowed to by the United States, the most powerful nation on earth? And that they will be allowed, because it is to the American establishment’s advantage to allow it, particularly in the current administration’s selfish best interest?

One could easily draw that conclusion. In fact, none of the current war-mongering by the United States and Israel makes sense unless you have as your premise that there is collusion among powerful, greedy men.

If you buy the party line that Israel is simply defending itself against evil terrorists, that the United States is liberating the Iraqis from a nasty dictator who was amassing weapons of mass destruction for his evil plan, that we are a Christian nation trying to establish democracy in the rest of the world because we care about them, and that we are willing to confront evil wherever it exists, then none of this makes sense. Are we really helping Iraqis? Why have so many died? Why aren’t we helping Darfur and why didn’t we stop genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia? Why are we killing people instead of saving them? It flies in the face of reason. If the Holocaust was wrong, isn’t genocide in other parts of the world wrong too? Of course it is! But Israel and the U.S. are hypocritical.

It makes me sad to say so. I am ashamed to be so cynical, but democracy, the Bill of Rights and Christianity, all supposed foundations of our society, say that all men (and women) are created equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, the Constitution ensures a balance of power and that dissent, right of assembly and representation are citizens’ rights, too. Yet we fund training for paramilitaries that kidnap, torture and kill dissenters. We sell weapons to countries that wage war on their citizens, we look the other way when genocide happens, we invade Iraq to take out a dictator on false pretenses, we do nothing when one ethnic group tries to wipe out another in Rwanda, we even call our own citizens who protest these things "unpatriotic."

What is more patriotic: giving uncontested government contracts to our friends who got us elected, waging war on another country to protect our and our friends' vested interests, harming our national security by engendering intense hatred of our nation because we are destroying lives for personal greed, and taking away personal freedom and civil rights in the name of national security? Or is it more patriotic to defend the principles on which our country was founded and to defend human rights all over the world?

If we seriously mean to promulgate our "enlightened" way of life, we cannot defend bad men and "lie with lions." We cannot lie to our citizens and the world about the reasons we are waging war. We must not carry the flags of Christianity and democracy and human rights to places where we are killing civilians, training torturers, funding dictators and looking the other way as women are raped, men are murdered and children are enlisted into war.