The Panda Post

When I became a Global Studies major, it was because I came to college with an extreme case of white guilt and a need to go everywhere and fix all of the world’s problems. In fact, that is why I switched from a Political Science major: I couldn’t stand the thought of trying to fix the problems in the United States when nobody wanted them fixed, so I was going to go places that would actually appreciate any help I could offer. When I took the Global Studies requisite class, however, I began to see that I wasn’t supposed to learn obscure details about individual nations with this major; I was charged with the responsibility of taking global information from several different areas of study and consolidating them into a bigger picture. That is what globalization has become to me over the course of this semester: the bigger picture. This bigger picture has been encompassed in my overarching philosophy, idealism, since early high school.

I have always thought that it would be a good idea for everyone to believe that the world will someday be perfect. It is not naïve, because deep down everybody knows that the world will never be perfect. However, if we have an ideal to work for, we might just get a little further. This is the big picture that I see with globalization. What exactly is it that we are working toward? Each person has a different ideal, as hard as that is to accept, and college has made me realize that I just have to work on mine. I could go around for the rest of my life advocating human rights, economic stability, equality, and generally “the right thing,” but that has proven rather useless over the last few thousand years. Therefore, if I can’t advocate good will into existence, I will get my law degree so that I can legislate it.

Grainy photos of starry-eyed idealism from the Vietnam War-era and the Summer of Love in 1969 have always spoken to me on some deep biological level. I am wired for activism, and I am realizing more and more that activism only goes so far. Although I have realized that wearing a pantsuit instead of a peasant top doesn’t mean that I have to give up my global dreams and ideals, what it has done is make me realize that I can’t just fix the word in one-fell-swoop. The world only works one issue at a time.

What issues appeal to me? Well, every issue appeals to me. Even the way we think about issues is incredibly important, as in being able to internalize injustices that aren’t applicable to us. It has been made very clear, though, that I have to pick one at a time. Politics can help with this, such as if you are an elected official. The issues end up on your desk, and you vote one way or another. Besides the hell of campaigning (which I have experienced as an intern), it is the most effective way to get a voice in society. Another consideration is working for a legitimate organization that has the same goals as I do, such as Amnesty International. Working in the law department of such an organization would be incredibly viable and productive.

As strange as it sounds, I have taken a liking to my university’s Public Affairs Mission. I believe that it instills that sense of internalization that students can use to effect change in their respective fields of study. Although all three components are important, cultural competence has always been my favorite. I feel that being literate regarding other cultures around the world will inevitably lead to ethical leadership and community engagement, and therefore is the most important. In fact, the disenfranchisement that people have regarding the rest of the world leads to some of the corruption and apathy that we are trying to correct. I would thoroughly enjoy using whatever profession I go into to instill the importance of cultural literacy.

What am I eventually going to accomplish? I could never single-handedly establish equality among the hemispheres, or end human rights abuses; however, I will do whatever is in my power to better myself so that I can be a useful resource to be consulted in these endeavors. Idealism is important to keep in mind when trying to keep oneself sane, but in reality, I will simply go where I am needed with the education that I have.

Osama bin Laden is dead, as if I need to clarify it. Though I am happy that families of victims all around the world can finally have peace, I am disturbed by the reactions of those around me. This is a victory for humanity, and not simply an excuse for profanity, immature behavior (fireworks, alcohol abuse), insensitivity, or blind patriotism. We need to stop here for a second and think: what was the cost, what will the effects be, and how do we need to handle this?

This was a truly intense night for a ten-year conflict that has disquieted every one of us. There are those - born and raised in the last decade - who know of no other world in which bin Laden is not the human adversary of the entire global community. His death is a big deal, and a huge symbolic accomplishment. However, it is still symbolism. In all honesty, how is this going to change the Middle East discussion? How often do we focus our attention on real, current problems in the Middle East? And beyond that, how many countless dollars, resources, and, most importantly, lives has symbolism cost us?

Besides symbolism, this was also an act of revenge. I would like to clarify that this was, indeed, an accomplishment, and is cause for news coverage and the celebration of peace for families of victims. That being said, I hope that the United States, and the world, can treat this accomplishment with dignity and humility. This is far from over, and retaliation is now on the table. Depending on how we handle this, we have a strong chance of keeping retaliation at bay. The answer, then, is to acknowledge that this is purely symbolic and celebrate that instead of celebrating the death itself.

So why not celebrate the death of somebody who caused so many abysmal abuses? Well, that is a difficult question that a lot of people might have to answer for themselves, depending on your views on death. Some people only need to go as far as “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,” to find their justification. Some people wonder, “who is to say who lives and who dies, and more importantly, who the executioner can be?” And some people think that the abuses of Osama bin Laden are beyond the reaches of philosophical ethics. To those people, I would like to bring up a memory that many of us have through a personal anecdote.

On September 11, 2001, I watched the second plane fly into the building live. I watched people die on television, in real time. As traumatizing as that was, even more so was the later coverage that showed people celebrating in the streets. These people hated us to our very core, because it is everything they had ever been taught to do. With little resources, they genuinely did not know any better than that the enemy who was oppressing them had been dealt a blow. So I sat there watching as they celebrated the loss of human life. And we condemned it.

Now I know bin Laden’s death is astronomically incomparable to the deaths by his hand. However, by singing low brow 80s pop ballads outside of the White House, screaming “f*** yeah, America!”, getting drunk, setting off fireworks, and just generally looking like buffoons, the footage that I am seeing on the news hardly looks different than the upsetting footage that I saw nearly 10 years ago. By stooping to that level, we perpetuate the idea that it is okay to celebrate the loss of human life, thereby sustaining the cycle that leads to that very same footage from 9-11. While it is a victory, there are many ways to rejoice that are significantly more tasteful.

Please, as you read the news and feel like a weight has been lifted, remember the cost at which this came, and the effects it may have in the future. And though this is a good day for America, it is also a good day for the fabric of humanity, and we just need to be sensitive to that balance.

Keep in mind, this article was written by a Rushdie-loving Global Studies major. ;)

“The Myth of the Open Road” is a strong and valid mantra that Scott Russell Sanders is trying to instill in his readers. In fact, that is exactly how he is trying to convey Rushdie’s mantra of people “[rooting] themselves in ideas rather than places:” as nothing more than a myth. In “Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World” Sanders’ use of negative connotations help enforce the feeling that his argument is above Rushdie himself, and his readers as well.

Our heroes are “cowboys,” “backwoods ramblers,” and “rainbow chasers.” The feelings that we have toward migration are nothing more than a “romance of unlimited space.” We are “a populace drunk on driving” and “infatuated with the myth of the open road.” Although these generalizations are not far-fetched, he says them as accusations. At first glance, it might seem like he is trying to connect himself with the reader and the culture, but the subtlety of the criticisms he uses says otherwise.

Once Sanders has established his subtle accusations and has gotten under the reader’s defenses, Sanders can now begin to refute Rushdie’s argument. According to Sanders, the people that Rushdie is trying to identify with have cause the “worst abuses” in the hemisphere! These “ideas” that Rushdie encourages are mere “schemes” that we “force” upon others. Well, reader, don’t you feel silly now?

Sanders wraps up his argument by claiming that Rushdie is encouraging people to “displace” themselves. To top off his many other assumptions, Sanders assumes that this will have “disastrous consequences.” These accusations and negative words will likely leave the reader afraid to even consider Rushdie’s case for migration.

That said, Sanders also likely does not benefit from Frequent Flier Miles.

This is an email that was sent to me and to thousands of others from Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri via email. This was in response to a form letter (available on Planned Parenthood’s website) regarding request for support of federal Planned Parenthood funding during the budget debate. 

Though I have received many responses throughout my life from representatives that answered my requests in the negative, they have always been concise and polite in their dissent. This is the first time that I have ever heard a blatantly condescending response from a representative to citizens of his or her own state. I really start to question the ethics of a public official when they stoop to the level of antagonizing their own constituents. Senator Blunt, while in a position of state power, would do well to remember the phrase: “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” …especially in a mass email.

As a side note, what on God’s green earth does Laci Peterson have to do with abortion rhetoric?

Here is the email, from April 10, 2011:

Dear Amanda:

 Thank you for contacting me about funding for Planned Parenthood.

I am deeply opposed to the practice of abortion and do not support federal funding for any organization that performs or promotes abortions, which includes Planned Parenthood. An unborn child is a living human being and abortion ends the life of that child. Throughout my time in the House I worked hard to protect the lives of the unborn. 

In 2004, I led the effort to enact the bipartisan Laci and Conner’s Law, which treats a crime against an unborn child as a separate offense in criminal cases. This law addressed the murder case in California in which Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, were murdered. I am proud to have the highest possible pro-life voting record according to National Right to Life, and, as I begin my time in the Senate, I will continue to support efforts to make adoption more attractive for parents and prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion. 

Again, thank you for contacting me. I look forward to continuing our conversation on Facebook (www.facebook.com/SenatorBlunt) and Twitter (www.twitter.com/RoyBlunt) about the important issues facing Missouri and the country.  I also encourage you to visit my website (blunt.senate.gov) to learn more about where I stand on the issues and sign-up for my e-newsletter.

Sincere regards, 

Roy Blunt 

United States Senator

The novel 1984 could very well be relevant today. However, where is this relevance? In some respects, this novel could be predicting the future. Yet, it is plausible that this novel is completely obsolete in regards to today’s culture. Furthermore, as long as we are reading it and gaining knowledge from it, what’s to stop any novel from being relevant? Beyond that, who is to say what relevance is?

Governments have been corrupt long before Orwell began analogizing and writing about them. Though they did not have extensive technology, such as telescreens or wire-tapping, they had the philosophies that Orwell wrote about. Warfare has always had ulterior motives, and enemies of the people have always been put up on the pedestal to be spat on or martyred accordingly. Orwell gave us an invasive look into these little “conspiracies,” but he by no means exposed anything new. In this sense, one could say that Orwell’s novel is, and always has been, relevant.

Orwell has applied a name to these corrupt government tendencies. Having said that, running around screaming “1984!” at each other whenever controversy or suspicion arises does little more than to stoke the fires of the media. While it is good to be aware of what our government is up to, an “Orwellian” society such as in 1984 could never really take root; it is too much of a philosophical nosedive from where society is at right now. Certain aspects of these mysterious governmental quirks should be taken seriously when it infringes on our civil liberties, but not everything has to be a conspiracy.

This novel should be taken more lightly than it is. Perhaps taking a cue from the book to “watch our step” would be more beneficial than seeing it as a red flag to society. Regardless, the novel tells a good story with a few interesting moments. It is also, admittedly, more intellectually advanced than your average Utopian novel. Certainly, there are a few aspects that will continue to be relevant, especially since the novel was far ahead of its time.

This is a fun, non-fiction piece I wrote about my friendship with my best friend, and how texting has influenced our relationship.

___________________________________________________________

“That was gross. Never again. But I am glad I did it.” At 12:16 AM last night, my best friend sent me this text. Apparently, he had just gone clubbing on Thirsty Thursday in Columbia, Missouri: Home of the Drunken Tigers. Benji does not partake in these drinking festivities, so it is interesting to see him in situations with people who are all but sloshed.

The only way the two of us really keep in touch nowadays is by random text messages throughout the day. I would not call these conversations, more like banter. Neither person really, truly listens to the other, sort of like how it is when we talk in real life. We just really want somebody to rant to, and since we are both incredibly self-aware only children, the dynamic works. Each person serves as an observation journal for the other. Sometimes we complain about our respective cities.

“Springfield and Columbia are both cultural clusterf***s.” Benji so endearingly shared this observation on October 12, 2010 at 12:30 PM.

“LOVE IT.” And I really did love it. It was the perfect way to sum up our mutual experience of perplexity. We were both thrown into these pseudo-small towns where a cornucopia of people seemed to flock (as much of a cornucopia as one can find in the state of Missouri). And by that, I don’t mean racial diversity. What I mean to say is that I can just walk down a random street and find some strange person to send a text about.

“I am at Gem of India with my mom and there is this old couple next to us arguing about Rahm Emanuel and denture cream…” This is partially what he meant about cultural cluster… you-know-whats.

Occasionally, we have to catch up and talk about our lives. One such time was October 1, starting at 9:32 AM.

“So yesterday, your boyfriend and I walked around and ran into that friend of yours. He is adorable! I think he is a guy I have been flirting off and on with at Panera.”

Now, I love my friend, however, he is the most cynical person I have ever met. I could not have Benji dating him and becoming even bitchier than he already is.

“He is pretty awesome, but let me tell you: he is the whiniest person in the entire world. He makes us look positively complacent!”

“Oh, how is that possible?! I would date him anyway.”

“Yeah, well, I guess now you have even more of a reason to visit Panera. Oh, excuse me, ‘Bread Co.’ He’s picky about that.”

“Yeah… I can’t date him. Too Louis-y for me.”

Crisis averted. I knew that would do it. We are incredibly ridiculous when it comes to being fussy about pointless stuff. For instance, we are extremely judgmental. This leads to some very offensive text messages, that is, if the subject were to read them. Some of them are slightly less offensive, but still adequately judgmental.

“I love when big, macho guys order the girliest lattes. It makes me smile!”

When judging people, the two of us generally try to make the most outlandish comments about people that are usually socially acceptable. To do this, we end up at places where we would not normally go. This includes, but is not limited to, Wal-Mart, restaurants with buffets, auto-repair shops, small towns, and barbeque joints, among many, many others.

Vague generalizations of things and people are an important layer of our style of communication. When I am at a store, I tend to go for things that I would label as “ethnic,” whereas Benji gravitates toward a more “retro” style. Once we are together, we realize that we are complete idiots and that we are basically using the same ideas for our labels. The style is basically the same, the only difference would be our strange perceptions in an attempt to be cultured. As strange as it may seem, our absurd demeanor is quite entertaining to us.

Back at the beginning of college, our exchanges were a lot more depressing. I was at his current college in Columbia, Missouri, and he was at a tiny college in Northfield, Minnesota. Our messages were more like a cathartic release than an exchange of banter. I would complain about my situation; he would complain about his. Yes, we could be satirical about our circumstances, but the underlying vibes were darker and more discouraging. Nowadays, we are simply cynical, and it is a lot more fun.

I suppose that he is not the only one that is really snarky. “Why must public universities treat their students like second-class citizens?” I grumbled to him one fall day as I failed to find a parking space in the overcrowded commuter parking. A little exaggerated, I know, but he understands what I mean. We are allowed to exaggerate. Hyperbole is an important part of our language. Yes, it does cause some rifts between us every now and then, but that is how we have learned to communicate best: as bitchy products of a sibling-free existence.

Getting excited about inane topics and activities is another pastime that we tend to share. Being from an urban environment, commercial redevelopment of buildings and other such projects makes us just plain giddy. New highway exchanges and bridges have the ability to absolutely make our day. As soon as I went over one of Kansas City’s newest bridges, I sent Benji a text and we immediately discussed the rush of knowing that such an architectural undertaking is finally completed. This would, and should, bore the general populace. For us, it is just positively enthralling.

As Benji put it on October 18, 2010 at 5:14 PM, “You cannot make our lives up.” It is quite true, as we are unreasonable and nonsensical human beings. Seemingly, we are the only two friends who completely misunderstand each other yet still get along so well. Text messages keep our friendship alive, which is a definite plus, seeing as I would get horribly annoying and hard to deal with if I did not have him as an outlet.

Buddhism is a wildly misjudged tradition of human spirituality. First off, it is not just, as I have heard it called, “Asian voodoo.” Also, it is not necessarily a purely Eastern religion. It is a widely accepted spiritual practice that draws its roots from Hinduism. I have always had an interest in Buddhism, but mine was that of a young American experiencing the need for counterculture. Therefore, my shallow interest was limited to buying anything that had the Buddha on it, not particularly embarking on a spiritual path to Nirvana.

My interest was nurtured by the death of my Japanese aunt (a Buddhist), and my assigned congregation visits in college. I was certain that furthering my studies in something for which I had already developed a fascination would make the visit worthwhile and fulfilling. I would be sitting in on a practice that I didn’t already follow, while still having enough of a drive to want to learn more and more about it. I had taken Yoga classes in the Body of Work studio in Springfield, Missouri, where every Saturday morning a Buddhist meditation group is held. This particular group is where I decided to do my congregation visit.

The very first aspect of the visit that I thought was significant did not pertain to the actual visit itself at all; it was the manner in which I was informed about the visit. I was notified of the event through the social networking website, Facebook. There was a link to an event invitation on the web page of the meditation group, and this invitation was accessible to the general public. I am fully aware that many congregations that are seen as more standard in the United States also have Facebook pages and fully functioning, even professional, websites that serve as a link to the members for updates and events. However, generally people in the congregation find out about their worship services through more conventional methods. People who have been attending regularly for years do not need technological aid in regard to connecting with their congregation. This group, however, seems to function primarily with the help of online social networking.

Though I had taken Yoga in this studio before and knew where it was located, it was by no means an easy place to find. The address is not very visible, as it is in the basement of a retail clothing store. The room in which the meditation group meets is simple, yet modern. It is definitely recognizable as a basement, with it’s cement walls and chilly atmosphere. However, it is decorated with a modern, new-age mystique. There are vibrant colors painted on walls, which are lined by stacks of quaint and colorful rugs used by the Yoga classes and for meditating. The lighting is very dim, which sets a calming and contemplative mood throughout the studio.

My concern was that the group was for regulars and proclaimed Buddhists, and that I would not be allowed to participate. This fear was quickly voided, however, when the woman in charge (whose name I did not catch) came directly over to me at the door and took me into another room to teach me how to meditate with the rest of the group. The people were welcoming as well, and were very inviting later on during the discussion of the Dhammapada.

Meditation was an intense experience, and it amazed me how someone who doesn’t participate regularly in Buddhism, or even who doesn’t put their faith in the ideals of Buddhism, can have such an experience. This is because meditation is an aspect of Buddhism, but is a completely unrelated practice in itself. It is more of a physiological experience in most people’s eyes, and Buddhists just take that physiology and turn it into spirituality. Most religious services that I am used to have a distinct focus on listening, and focusing on things other than the individual. This might not be the case for events such as revivals, but in contrast to what I have grown up with in society, this was a very internal and individual experience.

There were actually two types of meditation, which I was not anticipating. I was aware there there was such a thing as sitting meditation, which is what is usually depicted when dealing with meditation. It was almost what I would expect: sitting in a circle, eyes closed, legs crossed, and going into your own world for a given amount of time. What I wasn’t expecting was the walking meditation, where we all lined up against the wall and walked towards the other for a given amount of time. For about thirty minutes, we each walked at out own pace… back and forth. We were told to keep our concentration on the sensations in our feet. While doing this, I closed my eyes. I am still unsure as to whether this was standard procedure, or whether I looked strange, especially after running into a wall. Despite my instability, I was very successful in my meditation efforts. I am nowhere close to Nirvana, but I definitely felt the calming effects of meditating.

Discussing the Dhammapada was very stimulating. The part that we discussed dealt with burning away your fetters, which are the troubles in your life, or things that keep you from reaching Nirvana. It was very easy to internalize the material that was being read, because you don’t have to believe what is being taught to let it have a positive effect on your daily life. This is a very open-ended idea, which is possibly why Buddhism is such a diverse and widely accepted practice.

There were few people in attendance. I was the only female there aside from the woman in charge and the friend that I attended with. There were about 6 or 7 others, and they were white males ranging from college-aged to middle-aged. The only exception was a young Asian man. This is interesting in regard to Buddhism in America. When I was younger, Buddhism had connotations that implied that you had to be Asian to practice it. Now that I have looked into it further, I notice that in America that is far from true. Many of my friends who are of races other than Asian practice Buddhism, and they are all from all different age groups. I’ve known Buddhists who are conservative by American standards, and I’ve known Buddhists who are very liberal. It is just an example of a religion that has spread, and has caught on so much in America, especially among the counterculture movements.

I was pleased with my experience, and how I was so well received by the meditation group. If I continue to visit this group, I could really see it having a positive effect on my daily life. The meditation helps with more than spirituality, and the lessons can be applied to anyone and anything in life. I am glad that Buddhism is just one of the many great religions that America has picked up in the ongoing global discussion.

There are certain things about myself that I believe to be true at this present moment. The list is nearly infinite, but I will elaborate on a few: I will never cure cancer, I refuse to serve in the armed forces, and I have no set of religious beliefs. I do not know these things for sure, but I am almost positive that they are true. It is safe to say that I do not believe in anything, however, it is equally as safe to say that I believe in everything. According to Friedrich Nietzsche, “the irrationality of a thing is not an argument against its existence, rather a condition of it.” Does this indecision make life any less meaningful? I do not believe so.

A person can believe something deep down to their very core and still never know if it is real or not. Such a bleak idea would drive many people insane, possibly insane enough to lose hope in their beliefs. However, if you don’t have hope for something, the chances of it becoming a reality greatly decrease. Having idealist tendencies can make the uncertainty in life not only manageable, but also enjoyable.

Over the years, I have followed a time-tried system that helps me live day to day while still holding true to my beliefs. One day in elementary school, after my best friend and I had become sworn enemies for a day over a piece of sugar-free chocolate (it happens), my mother suggested a way to ease the contempt. She told me to write down five things that went well that day. I was to do this every day from then on. This is a practice that I have stayed true to for many years, and when I look at my day from a different angle, it was a good day, no matter what happened.

There is so much grief in the world, why look for certainty in a place where there is none? If you cannot find hope anywhere else, make your own. I believe that we are winning; history is moving in our favor. I believe this because I have to. If there is nobody to think that everything will be okay, then it is imminent that nothing will ever change. Personally, I would like to make my mark on this world before I leave it. I believe that being an idealist, no matter how far-fetched the idea, provides an outlet for becoming a more progressive human being. It certainly cannot do any harm.