Thursday Thoughts

From Torontoist:

Tory MP Jason Kenney complained that Romeo Dallaire was overly harsh when Dallaire criticized the federal government's handling of the Omar Khadr case. Kenney is a former general who is credited with using meagre resources to save the lives of over 20,000 people during the Rwandan genocide in the face of massive indifference from the west…no, wait, sorry, that was Dallaire. Jason Kenney is a lifetime party hack who didn't finish his bachelor's degree. See, they're almost like twins!

From Paul Graham: al Naqba at 60 and the reflections of a recovered Zionist:

Looking back I am amazed at how easy it was to adopt completely contradictory political positions, for example, to cheer on American blacks in their struggle for civil rights and to be blissfully unaware of the grinding poverty and racist oppression of aboriginal people in my own community; to see the American invasion of Vietnam as a horrendous crime while cheering on the Israeli army as it triumphed in the "Six Day War" of 1967.

Young people are idealists by nature with an instinctive sympathy for underdogs of all kinds. Messages of freedom and equality resonate with youth, in part because they experience the inequality and lack of freedom that accompany parental control.

The direction their idealism takes and their ability to identify underdogs depends pretty much on what they learn, at home, at school, from the media. As the ‘60s progressed it became possible to understand the injustice and horror of the Vietnam War and the just demands of the American civil rights movement: these were on display on the evening TV news. Aboriginal people didn’t have a media voice; they were invisible. And as for Israel and my youthful Zionism, well, I blame American novelist Leon Uris. (Read the rest here)

Via illvox, Bolivian President Evo Morales' 10 commandments to save the planet:

1. In order to save the planet, the capitalist model must be eradicated and the North pay its ecological debt, rather than the countries of the South and throughout the world continuing to pay their external debts.

2. Denounce and PUT AN END to war, which only brings profits for empires, transnationals, and a few families, but not for peoples. The million and millions of dollars destined to warfare should be invested in the Earth, which has been hurt as a result of misuse and overexploitation.

3. Develop relations of coexistence, rather than domination, among countries in a world without imperialism or colonialism. Bilateral and multilateral relations are important because we belong to a culture of dialogue and social coexistence, but those relationships should not be of submission of one country to another. Read the other 7 here.

The "Good Good War" Is A Bad War

We, the women of Afghanistan, only became a cause in the west following 11 September 2001, when the Taliban suddenly became the official enemy of America. Yes, they persecuted women, but they were not unique, and we have resented the silence in the west over the atrocious nature of the western-backed warlords, who are no different. They rape and kidnap and terrorise, yet they hold seats in [Hamid] Karzai's government. In some ways, we were more secure under the Taliban. You could cross Afghanistan by road and feel secure. Now, you take your life into your hands.

- "Marina" from RAWA, in The "Good Good War" Is A Bad War By John Pilger on Znet

Half a Decade in Iraq

A lot can happen in five years. In five years, a toddler will grow old enough for her first day of school. In five years, a schoolboy of eight will become a teenager.

In five years, a proud country and its vibrant population has been reduced to a desolate killing field.

Ellen Weinstein - Camouflage, 2007 Collage

Lies, hundreds of them, that led up to the war in Iraq have been revealed. Five years later, the liars are still busy crafting the Iran propaganda.

Tony Auth - Roots, Unpublished Pen, ink, and wash

In 5 years, the American military has put down roots. At least 75 permanent bases have been established in Iraq.

Koren Shadmi - Tasting Victory, 2007 watercolor, ink and digital

In 5 years, countless Iraqis have been killed and wounded. (We've lost count, you see, since each Iraqi life is not precious enough to concern ourselves with an accurate count. Estimates are as high as a million deaths due to the war.) One in five displaced (around 2.7 million Iraqis). A generation traumatized. A cycle of violence set in motion. The economy and infrastructure of the country destroyed. 3,987 dead American soldiers.

Yes, a lot can happen in five years.

All images from Artists Against the War

Suicide Bombing: Just Another Kind of Bombing?

So I was listening to CBC this morning and the Current was continuing a discussion (it's mail day) about suicide bombing: causes, etc. Some comments I agreed with, some I didn't. But what struck me was how odd it is that we spend so much time analyzing the technique of suicide bombing (remember I do think it is a rational tactic). Why do we treat it so differently than, say, aerial bombing, such as by the US in Iraq or Israel in the Occupied Territories?

Well, lets think about this for a moment. (And of course, first I need to make the requisite disclaimer: I do not condone suicide bombing, or civilian-targeting violence on the part of either terrorists or governments.)

What is the difference between a bomb that falls from the airplane of a conventional army and a bomb that is meant to explode while still attached to a body? Why does the second attract such complete and vehement denunciation (just watch what kind of comments this post gets) while the first elicits barely a comment?

Here are some possibilities:
A) Certainty of death. The person responsible for exploding the bomb will only maybe die in the first case, but will almost surely die in the second. Does this explain the completely different responses? I think not. After all, both are equally willing to kill for their causes. And if someone is willing to die for a cause (which is nothing new), that's his or her business, is it not?

B) Type of perpetrators. A soldier employed by the state in a conventional army is clearly different than a fighter in an unconventional force, so the violence perpetrated by the former must be treated differently than the latter. I think this is partially true, but is not a sufficient explanation. See, if it is not the technique that matters, but the actors, then any techniques employed by any non-state actors should be denounced as vociferously as suicide bombing. There are enough examples in recent history to prove that this is plainly not the case. (Not to mention that it is crazy to think that violence committed by a state is somehow more justifiable than violence committed by non-state actors, especially when you consider a state with no legitimacy - Iraq, Afghanistan - or no state at all - Palestine?)

C) Type of victims. We are often reminded that suicide bombers often kill civilians, something completely worthy of censure. But aerial bombardment is so efficient at killing civilians, it is a bit ridiculous to even raise this point.

D) Or is it that suicide bombing is nearly the only weapon left among certain dispossessed groups, who have almost no other techniques left at their disposal? For instance, the Palestinians have tried nonviolence, they have tried political solutions, and without an army or weapons, there are few military options, aside from rock throwing or homemade bombs with low-tech means of delivery. In other words, these people can't opt for airstrikes and other high-tech forms of killing. Unfortunately for the imperial powers and colonial occupiers who wish for the end of resistance (as of course all imperial powers do), it turns out to be a weapon that is nearly impossible to prevent from being used. In some situations, like the Palestinian/Israeli situation, I think this explanation has some validity.

I think a lot of it has also to be blamed on propaganda, perpetuated by an uncritical media that has bought into the clash of civilizations model. We (of the rational, normal, enlightened West) would never consider strapping bombs to our bodies and setting them off in a public place (we pay people to do our killing for us). Therefore, there must be something pathological about their culture/religion/part of the world.

I'm mostly just thinking out loud here. I'd be curious to hear other thoughts on this. Preferably non-frothing-at-the-mouth types.

Free Ceasefire.ca Gear - Show your support and help get the word out

Ceasefire.ca is an important part of Canada's anti-war movement. You can read about their work here

Ceasefire.ca plays a crucial role in many campaigns, including preventing Canada from joining George W. Bush's "Star Wars" missile defence program. This important work could not be done without the help of our supporters.

Ceasefire.ca needs your help to sign up new activists. We are making available Ceasefire.ca Gear; which include sign-up cards and pins that can be handed out to friends and family. Each completed sign-up card you send back to us is an additional person who will join us in taking action on key issues facing our country.

Please order your free Ceasefire.ca Gear, which includes 25 sign-up cards and 3 pins today!

The pins are pretty snazzy.

Miss Landmine Angola

In places in the world that have experienced war, especially if protracted as in Angola, bodies are far less likely to be "whole" and more likely be missing limbs. Even here in the West, people with disabilities are too often invisible, and a "whole" or "perfect" body is a precondition for the designation "beautiful". When was the last time you saw a model in a magazine or an actress on television who was missing a limb, or was even in a wheelchair? Can we not bear the fact that bodies reflect their experiences, sometimes in very visible ways? Would we rather the scars stay psychological, intimate, secret - so we don't have to be invested in others' pain? Or can we not wrap our minds around the fact that a wounded body does not necessarily mean a victim to be pitied? Do we not also then miss out on something important - the strength and bravery and, indeed, beauty of survivors?

A line at the upper left-hand corner of the picture reads "Everybody has the right to be beautiful." The woman standing below is surely that, dressed in beauty-pageant regalia, Atlantic waves meeting Angolan sands behind her. She is Miss Landmine Angola 2007. Showcased in the photograph are the attributes classically aligned with feminine beauty: high cheekbones, full lips, a curvaceous figure. Yet it is what the photograph, shot from the waist up, hides that makes her beauty a thing unparalleled, unusual, both tragic and wonderful. The lower half of her left leg is missing, a testament to her encounter with a landmine. She is one of several women featured in the Miss Landmine Angola project to raise awareness about the world's plague of landmines and to empower those who have survived them. Learn about the project and see this year's contestants at Miss-Landmine.org. Via Utne

Whatever one thinks of beauty pageants, this one has a positive message. The crowning of the world's first Miss Landmine will be taking place in Luanda, Angola on April 4th, 2008, the UN International Day for Mine Awareness and Assistance in Mine Action. Vote for candidates here.

Thoughts?

Too much aid to Afghanistan wasted on contractors' profits, expensive expatriate consultants and quick-fix projects

Despite more than $15 billion of aid pumped into Afghanistan since U.S.-led and Afghan forces toppled the Taliban in 2001, many Afghans still suffer levels of poverty rarely seen outside sub-Saharan Africa.

"The development process has to date been too centralised, top-heavy and insufficient," said a report by Oxfam.

By far the biggest donor, the United States approved a further $6.4 billion in Afghan aid this year, but the funds are spent in ways that are "ineffective or inefficient", Oxfam said.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) allocates close to half its funds to the five largest U.S. contractors in Afghanistan.

"Too much aid is absorbed by profits of companies and sub-contractors, on non-Afghan resources and on high expatriate salaries and living costs," the report said.

A full-time expatriate consultant can cost up to $500,000 a year, Oxfam said.
[...]
Spending on development is dwarfed by that spent on fighting the Taliban. The U.S. military is spending $65,000 a minute in Afghanistan, Oxfam said.
[...]
Violent incidents are up at least 20 percent since last year, according to U.N. estimates, and have spread northwards to many areas previously considered safe.

More than 200 civilians have been killed in at least 130 Taliban suicide bombs and at least 1,200 civilians have been killed overall this year — about half of them in operations by Afghan and international troops.

Oxfam called on the 50,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan to take greater care not to hurt civilians, particularly in air strikes. The lower number of troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq — less than a third as many in a much bigger country with a larger population — leads to a greater reliance on air power.

There are four times as many air strikes in Afghanistan as in Iraq, Oxfam said. <Common Dreams>

Meanwhile, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been very very generous to private contractors. Here's the top 100 private contractors, 2004-2006. In first place: KBR at $16 billion (2002-2004 they made $11 billion. Next on the list, DynCorp International at 1.8 billion.

Funny (not so much in a ha-ha way), more than $20 billion in contracts went to foreign companies whose identities (at least so far) are impossible to determine. The largest of these contracts is worth more than $6 billion, for "miscellaneous items".

Young Iraqis Blogging

From Sunshine, a 15 year old Iraqi girl:

Last night, I stayed awake, I am suffering from insomnia, there are a lot of things I think about, and most of the days I don't sleep immediately I spend an hour or two laying till I sleep, I walked towards the window and was watching the neighborhood, it was dark (the electricity was off), empty, and scary, like a ghost city, and I started to remember how crowded my neighborhood and it's street were, I am glad I didn’t forget that, anyway I came back to my bed and there was sound of far shelling, after an hour or two, mortars erupted from the neighborhood , and we heard 3 near by explosions..<more>

From A Star from Mosul, written by a young woman who is an engineering student:

When my cousin drives me, I feel the need to keep talking, I just hate the silence. But because of my deep depression, and to keep myself from crying, I didn't talk much this time.. I concentrated on the road, something I rarely do (I still haven't learned the way to my school, I can't get my brain to concentrate on roads at all). I couldn't believe all the wreckage on the way.. Building after building, destoyed, burnt.. Black signs announcing deaths.. Smoke from a new explosion. We had to stop few times to clear the road for the police or the Americans.
I asked my cousin about a destroyed building I haven't seen before, he said it was months ago.. I was shocked; I didn't ask about the ones that followed. <>more>

From Last of Iraqis, by a 25 year old dentist in Baghdad:

About 1,000,000 deaths and 1,500,000 Injured Iraqi civilians since the beginning of the war in 2003 , an estimation of 4,000,000 Iraqis have been displaced with 2,200,000 fled out of the country and the rest are refugees inside their own torn country (I believe the real number of Iraqis outside Iraq is greater than this).

Great numbers , right? a lot of zeros , a lot of grief and sadness , a lot of humiliation , a lot of black clothes , rivers of tears and many shocking stories , it's not just numbers . Just count all the people you knew throughout your life , not only the ones you talk to , but all the people you know, what their count will be?500 or may be 1000? let's say 1000. Can you imagine that all the people you know are only 0.1% of the civilian casualties in Iraq. <>more>

Of the Iraqi bloggers, there are not many left - many have stopped blogging, many have left Iraq, some still write from wherever they are. These three are still there. Via BBC.

Because War Just Isn't Enough...

As if invasion, occupation, destruction of infrastructure, unemployment, poverty, and displacement aren't enough... now they've got cholera, a truly horible and deadly disease.

You know, if the American military had any intention of actually trying to win "hearts and minds", they might consider nutritious food and clean water as a start, rather than, say, this.

Pro-Iraq-War Ads Featuring Wounded Soldiers

Lies, and manipulation.

Note: "We're dealing with the safety of our country, of our sacred United States of America."


She says she lost her husband to al-Quaeda. He died in Iraq. Most soldiers were killed by insurgents, Iraqis, certainly not al-Quaeda, who haven't been there for very long.


Note: "They attacked us, and they will again." This is simply false. Iraq did not attack America. Iraq was attacked by America.


Her son "sacrificed for their freedom". Yes, I'm sure the Iraqis are thankful for his sacrifice. I suppose it depends what one means by "freedom".

Via IraqSlogger, which is reporting that MSNBC and CNBC are refusing to air the ads. Of course, CNN and FOX are running them.

The Costs of the Iraq War - Who is picking up the tab?

So about a trillion dollars is spent by American taxpayers to kill Iraqis.Aside from the direct cost to American taxpayers, there are additional costs incurred by the war in Iraq.

For instance the cost of dealing with 2 million refugees - primarily in Syria and Jordan - is astronomical. How about the cost to the UN and NGOs - humanitarian support, food aid, and helping refugees? Canada and other NATO countries are paying to hold the bully's coat (by picking up the slack in Afghanistan).

This doesn't even include what it has cost the Iraqi people themselves.

So the Iraq occupation costs everyone money - well, almost everyone. Ah, I see. Transferring more money from those who have little to those who already have a lot. Killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process. Good policy, GWB.

HMOs Kill More Americans than Terrorists do! Why Aren't we Bombing Them?

In fact, not just HMOs, but the whole health care profession.

Next up: the War on Health. This war sponsored by Pfizer.

The war on Communism has been "won". The War on Drugs^TM is busy filling jails at home. And now the War on Terror^TM may no longer be working to justify the vast military-industrial spending.

For some reason the war on peanuts never took off, but I think this one really has a shot.

We already have a backlash toward doctors because of the recent attempted London bombings. (Keep pushing the doctor aspect, see, because people might mistakenly think the detainments of Indian doctors has to do with their foreign-ness not their doctor-ness. We already have a war on foreigners. We are trying to start the war on health, people.) The foot soldiers in this war are already marching.

Post title shamelessly stolen from here.

If You Really Don't Want to Kill Civilians, Perhaps Airstrikes Should be Avoided

It's just, you know, that airstrikes always kill civilians. That's what they do. They aren't that accurate. They can't distinguish between a wee little lad and the big bad Taliban fighter who lives next door. Not to mention, killing civilians doesn't earn us the "hearts and minds" of said civilians.

It's a proud day for Canadians. Murdering Afghan people without justification.

Happy Canada Day.

The Mythic, Heroic Narrative Obscures the Essence of War, which is Death

All troops, when they occupy and battle insurgent forces, as in Iraq, or Gaza or Vietnam, are swiftly placed in what the psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton terms "atrocity-producing situations." In this environment, surrounded by a hostile population, simple acts such as going to a store to buy a can of Coke or driving down a street means you can be killed. This constant fear and stress leads troops to view everyone around them as the enemy. The hostility is compounded when the enemy, as in Iraq, is elusive, shadowy and hard to find. The rage that soldiers feel after a roadside bomb explodes, killing or maiming their comrades, is one that is easily directed over time to innocent civilians who are seen as supporting the insurgents. It is a short psychological leap, but a massive moral one. It is a leap from killing - the shooting of someone who has the capacity to do you harm - to murder - the deadly assault against someone who cannot harm you. The war in Iraq is now primarily about murder. There is very little killing. American Marines and soldiers have become, after four years of war, acclimated to atrocity.
[...]
War is the pornography of violence. It has a dark beauty, filled with the monstrous and the grotesque. The Bible calls it "the lust of the eye" and warns believers against it. War allows us to engage in primal impulses we keep hidden in the deepest, most private interiors of our fantasy life. It allows us to destroy not only things but human beings. In that moment of wholesale destruction, we wield the power of the divine, the power to give or annihilate life. Armed units become crazed by the frenzy of destruction. All things, including human beings, become objects - objects to either gratify or destroy or both. Almost no one is immune. The contagion of the crowd sees to that.
[...]
It takes little in wartime to turn ordinary men and women into killers.

From A Culture of Atrocity by Chris Hedges

So we have ridiculous rationalizations for the killing of children. We have disappearing freedoms justified by war. We have war heroes being treated like crap.

Better Messaging? No, we Need to Stop Killing Civilians

When consumers don't buy a crappy product, the answer is more and better advertising, right? Same thing with war. Since the public ain't buying the war in Afghanistan maybe it's time to hire a new ad agency.

So we must find a new way to explain the civilian casualties. Those pesky women, men, and children keep getting in the way of our bombs and bullets, and for some reason, our people seem to care, and we can't have that!

The subject of civilian casualties was the source of intense discussion on Wednesday in Brussels when the NATO secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, met with the North Atlantic Council, the top representatives of the coalition. But the conversation was less about how to reduce casualties, according to participants, than about how to explain them to European governments.

"The Europeans are worried about a lack of clarity about who is responsible for the counterterror mission," said one participant in the debate. "They are worried that if NATO appears responsible for these casualties, it will result in a loss of support" for keeping forces in Afghanistan.

But it is not only the Americans whose practices are being questioned. NATO soldiers have frequently fired on civilians on the roads, often because the Afghans drive too close to military convoys or checkpoints. (NYTimes)

Maybe we should try this messaging: it is the civilians' own fault if they are killed, see:

Do they not have the sense to GTFO of an area where there is an active military campaign?

After all:

Hundreds of thousands of people have been able to make themselves refugees, especially in Africa, and all without the assistance of SUV's or any Kabul Hilton to go to. All they usually have is shank's pony, and they manage to do it. Why else are there refugee camps all over Africa? They can WALK!

Thanks to Boiling Point.

See also: A Better Communications Strategy? No, We Need Safe Drinking Water

The War Takes it's Toll

"We were coming from school and we saw a man in the street. Blood and pieces of his brain were all over the place and he was crying." "He was still alive for a while after they shot him."


The war takes its toll on Adel's younger brother.

This was an especially poignant episode of Hometown Baghdad .

See also Children and the Traumas of War

Mother's Day Proclamation

In 1870, the devastation of the American Civil War inspired social activist and poet Julia Ward Howe to call upon the women of the world to unite and rise up for an end to war:

"We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

Read the rest of the original Mother's Day Proclamation

And watch the short video Mother's Day for Peace which renews the call for peace.

Is it Love Enough? Anti-War Video

Is Love Enough by Michael Franti and Spearhead
We want freedom of speech
But we all talking at the same time
We say we want peace
but nobody wants to change their own mind

So it goes on and on and on
For a thousand years
And it goes on and on and on
What language are your tears?

Everybody wants to live the life of kings and queens
But nobody wants to stay and plow the fields
Everybody wants to tell their neighbours how to live
But nobody wants to listen how they feel

Is Love enough - or could you love some more?

What mother nature gives
mankind refuses to let live
taking the universe in their own hands
short circuiting the positive
judging the negative
causing the most unusual circumstances
everyday we rise again
but our love will fight again
hoping that all hearts will receive our love token
Blessed words
we speak again lovely words to do me friend
for us to live
in this here garden of Eden

Is love enough?
What language do you laugh in?
What language do you cry in?
What language do you dance in, make romance in
What language do you make love in, or pray to the above in?
What language are your fears?
What language are your tears?

I just heard Spearhead is playing Toronto in July. I'm so excited!

She Hit Me First! And Other Poor Justifications for War

Photo Credit

Yesterday, I was watching the (excellent and engaging) film I Know I'm Not Alone with D.S.

In the segment before Michael Franti goes to Israel and the Occupied Territories there's a few short statements to fill in some background. To paraphrase: "In relation to Israel there's as many versions of history as there are people telling it" and then "in 1967 Israel launched a pre-emptive strike". At which point D.S. said that was weird, because he knows Israel was attacked first. He was a kid at the time, but it wasn't history to him, he actually remembered it. He was in synagogue when it was announced and he remembers it very well. For me I learned something different, but then again, it's history to me (since I wasn't born yet). I said it's complicated figuring who started something, especially when you consider the possible biases of those reporting an event. Consider last summer's war with Lebanon. Who started it? 30 or 40 years from now, what will the history book say?

According to the current consensus at Wikipedia (yeah, I know, but still, it's a good resource) it was a pre-emptive strike by Israel, although they have a nice long list of sources for both sides of the debate.

Today, I stumbled on a piece (ha ha) by Daniel Gilbert which is all about the psychology behind the "he started it" argument.

Research shows that while people think of their own actions as the consequences of what came before, they think of other people’s actions as the causes of what came later.

In a study conducted by William Swann and colleagues at the University of Texas, pairs of volunteers played the roles of world leaders who were trying to decide whether to initiate a nuclear strike. The first volunteer was asked to make an opening statement, the second volunteer was asked to respond, the first volunteer was asked to respond to the second, and so on. At the end of the conversation, the volunteers were shown several of the statements that had been made and were asked to recall what had been said just before and just after each of them.

The results revealed an intriguing asymmetry: When volunteers were shown one of their own statements, they naturally remembered what had led them to say it. But when they were shown one of their conversation partner’s statements, they naturally remembered how they had responded to it. In other words, volunteers remembered the causes of their own statements and the consequences of their partner’s statements.

What seems like a grossly self-serving pattern of remembering is actually the product of two innocent facts. First, because our senses point outward, we can observe other people’s actions but not our own. Second, because mental life is a private affair, we can observe our own thoughts but not the thoughts of others. Together, these facts suggest that our reasons for punching will always be more salient to us than the punches themselves — but that the opposite will be true of other people’s reasons and other people’s punches.

So, it's psychologically sensible for us to think the other party started it. We also tend to escalate in our response:

Research teaches us that our reasons and our pains are more palpable, more obvious and real, than are the reasons and pains of others. This leads to the escalation of mutual harm, to the illusion that others are solely responsible for it and to the belief that our actions are justifiable responses to theirs.

This explains the pattern of fighting over the victim position, since the victim can get away with anything.

Of course, there's a larger question: does it really matter who started it?

Afghanistan war: who started it? Al-Qaeda? The US? How about the Iraq War? What will history say?

Last Night I Dreamt of War

Last night I dreamt of war. I dreamt the nameless, faceless attackers were getting close to my house. We needed to get away, and we weren't certain exactly how close they were.

The first moment of panic came when realizing that everybody would be trying to escape. If a whole city is emptying, we were likely to get stuck on the highway - it's like just waiting for certain death. I momentarily considered hiding in the basement, but couldn't stand the thought of waiting in the dark to be found and killed, not that way.

I was trying to pack things I would need in my backpack. My dream here slowed down as I tried to plan what to take. I was going through all the stuff that I surround myself with, the stuff that forms the nest which helps me feel at home. But with such scarcity of space, few things could be taken. That meant choosing between necessities and keepsakes. Is an extra pair of pants more important than a photo album?


Living as I do in the comfort of the peaceful Western World, I can't truly know what it must be like to have one's country invaded. One day to be going about your life, expecting the next day to be much the same, and then suddenly it all changes. No longer can you imagine your future. Survival becomes the only goal.

My nightmares are others' realities.

All I can do is imagine - try to open myself to experience just a little bit of the pain and terror and anger. I think my nightmares help me to be more empathetic. I have a lot of them (I'm recovering from PTSD) and in a weird way I think they help me to be a better human being.

Trying to understand things from the point of view of the other is so crucial, and yet I see such a lack of it from our so-called leaders. It's as if they are afraid to show there's more than one possible view or interpretation. Better to stick to what you're doing, even if what you're doing is walking off a precipice, I guess, then to say: "now that I'm closer to it and have a different perspective, I see this is a cliff, so I'm going to go the other way instead."

Perhaps positions of power simply attract particular personality types. After all, if no one suffers like George and Laura, you'd think they'd be a little more compassionate.