This is not food; this is life.

Last night, while making dinner, something that my nutrition professor posted in one of our discussion boards kept running through my head, “the hypocrisy of not be willing to eat my [dog] but was okay with eating other animals” and suddenly found myself repulsed by the flesh I was holding in my hands. I swallowed that feeling, tried to push it aside, but I don’t think I can. I’ve flirted with the idea of becoming loosely vegetarian in the past and it always seemed too difficult, too time consuming, too expensive. I always had an excuse why it was simply easier for me to continue eating meat. My portion control is down pat. My choices are so much healthier than they used to be, but still there was a tiny little voice nagging me to consider an alternative way of relating with the world.

First, an explanation: I tend to identify with the spiritual concept of animism – in that I believe everything has a spark of whatever it is that makes life alive. From the tiniest seed to a fully self-aware human being (because let’s face it, not all of us are fully self-aware), I believe that there is no separation from that which I imprecisely call ‘the divine’. I prefer not to use terms like ‘god’ for two reasons: one, because I feel that it attempts to define that which we truly cannot comprehend and two, I feel that naming such an energy separates the individual from truly realizing his or her own divinity.

That said I don’t want to eat meat anymore. I simply don’t. I ate the chicken last night and every time I took a bite, I felt something inside me recoil and even now, I feel badly that I did so. I am fully cognoscente of the issues with ethical treatment of animals, I understand the energy cost that was expended to put that chicken in my hand, and I recognize the health risks that are present in a diet laden with meats. This is not, however, motivated by such reasons. This is motivated by the realization that it is selfish of me to consume that which I do not NEED and arrogant to continue doing so with all these facts on the tip of my tongue. I have long understood that I am fully capable of leading a healthy, vibrant and delicious life without the flesh of another being. It is time for me to commit to that idea. I have always been grateful to that which gives me life, but I find that my rationalization for eating the flesh of another species to be more and more insubstantial for the purpose of pacifying any conversation that might transpire to attempt to talk me out of the removal of animal flesh from my diet. This is a choice I am ready to make.


***EDIT***
After more contemplation, on the matter - if food is life and life is food then, there I believe there is no distinction between the form in which the life takes. Instead of worrying about vegetarian or omnivore or even carnivore, I'm more content in being aware of where my food comes from and being grateful for the life that was given to sustain me.

Posited: Should the international community promote democracy in authoritarian states?

Comparative Politics Writing Assignment 1

 

Democracy is defined as being ill suited to having a single definition. The complexity of this concept thereby resists attempts made to analyze and categorize the various manifestations of the systems that are characterized as democratic. Democracy, as a word, evokes images of “the struggle for freedom and a better way of life.” (Schmitter) However, as explained in article 8 of the supplemental reading, “What Democracy is…and is not”, the conditions that must be met in order for a state to be deemed democratic are minimal and can operate in a number of different ways contrary to the balance of the international stage. The revolution in Egypt was a prime example of democratic processes going awry of what the general consensus of global players had desired. After the ousting of Hosni Mubarak from his role as President after a near 30-year power monopoly, democratic election put into power the Muslim Brotherhood. What this transition means for the world remains to be seen.

Whether or not the international community should promote democracy in authoritarian states must be answered by reflecting on whether or not the international community is content to allow those democracies to blossom in whatever way a given state chooses to enact their own system. This effort of self-determination, which is a pillar of the democratic ideology, has not always been upheld when the results of democracy are contrary to the aspirations of fellow states. An example of this can clearly be seen in the history of Iran. In 1951, after Mohammed Mossadegh was elected democratically and proceeded to nationalize the oil industry of Iran, the British government claimed this act to be a threat to the security of the world. Eventually, Iran sought aid from the United States with Mossadegh calling on President Truman to “remember [our] own revolution against Britain.” On January 7, 1951, Time Magazine voted Mossadegh ‘Man of the Year’, touting him as the Iranian George Washington. Refusing to be swayed from his nationalization of the oil industry, Mossadegh continued to make enemies throughout the world and the cooperation of President Truman eventually lead to his defeat in the 1952 Presidential election in which Eisenhower claimed that Democrats were tolerant of communist penetration.

After winning the Presidency, Eisenhower approved a $1 million CIA budget to bring about the fall of Mossadegh. Much of this funding went to bribing religious and military figures within Iran, as well as merchants and the media. After a long and arduous conflict, another US Presidential election and active protesting within Iran, British MI-6 and CIA operatives had returned control of Iran to Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavī, who is quoted as toasting President Roosevelt, owing his throne to God, his people, his army, and to Roosevelt. Ultimately, Mossadegh, a democratically elected leader, was placed in prison and then under house arrest until his death in 1967.

Democracies in foreign sovereignties have only been supported by the United States and Great Britain when the goals that state were in line with our own needs. Mossadegh is by no means the first democratically elected leader to fall at the hands of international espionage. In 1954, Jacobo Árbenz, President of the Republic of Guatemala was ousted in a coup d'état engineered by the United States government and the CIA. Árbenz had attempted to subvert tax dodging by the United Food Company who were regularly undervaluing their agricultural holdings. The Eisenhower administration once again stepped in for the favor of big business and operation PB/Success was enacted to fabricate ties between Guatemala and the Soviet Union, with whom we were still entrenched in the Cold War.

The reverse is also true; Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, Rezā Shāh Pahlavī of Iran, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Saddam Hussein of Iraq are but a few of the laundry list of dictators that the United States has, at least, supported and, at worst, played an active role in putting them into power. Much of this support stemmed from the hyper-reactive environment created by the hostilities of the Cold War in which many conservative leaders were dictatorial while leaders with liberal leanings tended to identify with a communist mentality. As such, governments that were party to the policy of containment were more inclined to support a dictatorship that would, in turn, support the Western effort to eradicate the threat of communism.

One has to wonder, however, as to whether or not in our technologically connected world such activities could transpire to the same extent as they have in the past. Part of the reason for the success of the revolutions in Egypt, Libya and other states is directly correlated with access to an international stage in the palm of every hand. The advent of Facebook, Twitter and other social mediums has increased global awareness of such human rights abuses – often to the point of forcing the hand of international organizations to get involved. In article 10 of the supplemental reading, “Why Middle East Studies Missed the Arab Spring”, F. Gregory Gause III posits the reasons for the successes of the revolutionaries when all attempts in the past have failed utterly. Some of these authoritarian regimes had been in place for upwards of 40 years. Why then, Gause asks, did these particular protests finally succeed? The key, he says, more than any other factor, is mobilization and access. Growing pan-Arab sentiment – the reverence of a shared culture placed above that of nationalism – rallied surrounding states to the cause of a central voice. In many cases, this attitude permeated throughout the military as well, dividing troops between those who supported the current regime and those who were disenchanted with being a tool of a ruler rather than his state.

Should the international community promote democracy? Absolutely, it should. The caveat is whether or not the international community seeks to pander to a newly formed democracy and shape it to the will of a supporting sovereign or if the supporting sovereign will uphold the rule of law that is intended to be the guiding principle of categorizing a system as democratic in the first place. If history is any indication of the future, then the majority of new democracies are doomed to be democracies in name only. Currently, there are a multitude of nations that resemble the characteristics of democracy, but fail to truly transition into states of self-determination through rule by the people. Take, for example, the case of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela who, in 2003, was able to utilize state resources to invalidate petition signatures to initiate a recall against his presidency, delaying the vote long enough for Chavez to rebuild public support and defeat the measure initiated by the people. 

Legitimacy in Egypt is struggling due to the nature of fast tracking such transitions - without a set of rules by which to abide, politicians cannot be chosen with the expectation of compulsory power. However, without politicians, the rules by which the state must be governed are in limbo as well, leaving the state in a perpetual catch-22 situation. The result of this tension is the placement of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) in a position of authority in which the consortium is placing pressure on the interim government to “outlaw protests, stipulate who receives outside funding and to create a constitutional stipulation making the military the guarantor of Egyptian democracy.” (Ottaway) The slow process towards democracy is maddening for protestors and provisional governments alike and yet, no one can construct a government without clear rules as to how that government should behave.

Bibliography

Gause III, F. Gregory. "Why Middle Eastern Studies Missed the Arab Spring." Annual Editions: Comparative Politics 12/13. Ed. Fiona Yap. McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2012. Print.

Hague, R., and M. Harrop. Political science: A Comparative Introduction. 5th edition. Palgrave/MacMillan, 2008. Print.

Ottoway, Marian. "Transitional Failure: Egypt and Tunisia." Annual Editions: Comparative Politics 12/13. Ed. Fiona Yap. McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2012. Print.

Schmitter, Phillipe C.. "What Democracy Is...and Is Not." Annual Editions: Comparative Politics 12/13. Ed. Fiona Yap. McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, 2012. Print.

The Vision and Madness of Goya

It occurred to me that I promised to share Goya with you and I never got around to it. So, here it is:

"Self-Portrait"

In the early years of his career, Don Francisco Goya was not the artist that we imagine now. He was an idealist, a hopeful visionary. He was a romantic. That romanticism never changed but, his lighthearted, idealistic world warped into a grotesque and painful reflection of humanity.

"La Pradera de San Isidro"

For someone familiar with his later body of work, this painting, entitled “La pradera de San Isidro” (St. Isidro’s Meadow), might not strike them as a Goya. In fact, this particular piece was painted very early in his career and the subject matter is one that he revisits much later in his life in “Peregrinacion a la fuente de San Isidro” (Pilgrimage of St. Isidro). This earlier painting is a festive and happy occasion, everyone in attendance is enjoying each others company. They laugh and lounge, imbibing wines and feast on fruits and breads. This painting is uncomplicated in its frivolity. So how did a man who once painted the meadow come to paint such striking contrasts to it?

In 1793, only five years after painting St. Isidro’s Meadow, Goya fell ill. While we do not know exactly what he was afflicted with, the malady left him deaf. As a result of being left to his imaginings and the events that his country experienced, Goya’s art became depraved and tormented. In 1799, we can see this decent into darkness in his etchings entitled “Caprichos”.  

"The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters"

Goya spent a solid five years recovering from his ailment and in that time read many books about the French revolution and its philosophy. While his romantic heart longed for many of the lofty ideals, what he saw through his window were the follies of man. These engravings were commentary of his emerging opinions of the Spanish monarchy, the church and of the overall cultural indecency that he observed. No one - not man or woman, clergy, nobility or common - were spared from his sharp commentary.

"Some Like It Hot"

"Of What Will He Die?"

“Peregrinacion a la fuente de San Isidro” is one of the many works that graced the walls of Goya’s home in Madrid near the end of his life. It is barely even recognizable as the same scene as St. Isidro’s Meadow. However, close inspection of the two paintings reveal that the city in the background is indeed depicted from nearly the same vantage point. The Pilgrimage, however, is a chaotic scene of wretched human misery. These sullen, gaping faces quietly scream with the irrationality of mob mentality. This is humanity as Goya grew to see it - it is angry, writhing and close to madness.

"Peregrinacion a la fuente de San Isidro"

At the beginning of the 19th century, conservatives wanted to restore the Inquisition to quell revolutionaries. The Inquisition was a Catholic organization charged by the monarchy with maintaining morality, religious sanctity and were given authority by both the state and, in the minds of many supporters, the divine right to act as judge, jury and executioner of those accused of heresy. King Ferdinand VII allowed their dominance in Spain creating an environment of suspicion, fear and ultimately, lunacy. In the light of such insanity, Goya merely had to tap into the mob mentality for his inspiration.

"King Ferdinand VII"

After a ruse by Napoleon in 1808, ousting King Ferdinand, the French armies came to occupy Spain. Napoleon insisted on dragging Spain along with the rest of Europe in the French Enlightenment movement. Goya was clearly conflicted during this period, evident in his art. As a romantic, he was enthralled in the ideas of France and the Enlightenment philosophy. However, as Napoleon flooded into Spain, he saw the betrayal of those ideals in the efficiency of the firing squad which resulted in the creation of his “Disaster’s of War”.

    Then came the Spanish revolt against the French. Men, women and children grabbed what weapons they could find. Being far more technologically advanced, the French devastated the uprising. The French commander Mira then ordered the unthinkable - the immediate execution of all Spaniards in Madrid with weapons in their hands, regardless of their involvement in the riot. Hundreds were subsequently put to death, many of whom were merely craftsmen who employed the use of knives in their work.

Goya’s perception of these events are clearly recorded in his painting “El Tres de Mayo de 1808 en Madrid o Los fusilamientos en la montana del Principe Pio” - The Third of May 1808 in Madrid or The Executions on Principe Pio Hill.

"The Third of May in Madrid"

Commissioned by the make-shift government in the interim between the French being driven out of Spain and the return of King Ferdinand, it was painted in only two months time. Radiographs of the image show us that there was nearly no planning for this painting, Goya simply started and worked tirelessly with passion and force to create this masterpiece. This unimaginable effort was to commemorate the most incredible sacrifice made by the Spanish against the French.

The central figure, clothed in white, is bathed in the light of a single lantern, which illuminates nothing else but the barrels of the French rifles representing his imminent death. This man, pleading that the French soldiers look at him and hear his cries for mercy, is posed in a cross-like stance, even seeming to bear the mark of stigmata. This is a martyr and this sentiment is further reflected in the inclusion of the only member of the clergy that was shot on that morning, Francisco Gallego Davila. 

Goya enhances the Christ-like qualities of the main figure by including the priest in this work.

    The lighting in the city of the background is likened to the light of hell - an illumination emanating upwards from the ground, like a fire. The impact of this energy ignites a sense of disgust and horror over the atrocities committed during war. This is further enhanced by the anonymity of the soldiers, who stand with their backs to us - creating an inhuman machine of death - blind to the innocence of their victims or to the callousness of their orders.

    Goya creates the opposite atmosphere of most commemorative war paintings. With a large canvas such as this, conventionally an artist would fill it up, make it alive with scenes of writhing victims and victorious triumphs. In Goya’s representation of war, we are given a starkness, an emptiness - this is all just a waste. This painting does not glorify the state or the king - this painting reflects the sacrifice of the common man. This sentiment was not shared by King Ferdinand the VII who, upon his return, had the painting placed in storage. Ignored by the monarchy, Goya purchased a home on the outskirts of Madrid and decorated the walls with some of the darkest images known to man.

"Duelo a garrotazos"

 “Duelo a garrotazos”  - Duel with Clubs is one such image. Initially, the painting seems slightly out of place in the midst of his Black Paintings, so named due to their contemptible subject matter. It’s blue sky and mellow colors give the piece a strangely serene atmosphere. However, consider the focus in the forefront. Here are two men, beating each other with clubs all the while thigh deep in a marsh. Their nondescript faces are covered in blood and the strain of combat can be seen in the weariness of their movement.

    The vacant landscape indicates that they do not fight for kin or country. Neither man knows why they are fighting. Neither man cares that their doom is imminent. Yet, they fight on endlessly. They will swing their clubs at each other until one is bludgeoned to death - or they drown. And so here they stand, perpetually locked in a battle in which neither will ever be victorious. Every war that has ever transpired has been condensed by Goya into these two allegorical men.

Yet another of these Black Paintings is “Perro Semihundido” - Head of a Dog. In this image, at the lower left corner is all we can see of this dog. The sand colored sky - or perhaps the deep hole into which the dog has fallen evokes intense feelings of isolation and loneliness. Having struggled fruitlessly against forces which are beyond its control, it resigns to its’ fate and gazes skyward for salvation - hoping for an intervention that may never come. 

"Perro Semihundo"

 Evil was a part of the world that Goya saw and this painting symbolizes that futile struggle against malicious forces. By filling the canvas with sand, Goya eliminates any feeling of hope - there is no sky nor landscape to be seen. The world above no longer exists for the dog or for the viewer. And in the face of evil, many turn their gaze to trust in that deliverance - much as our loyal companion does here. However, the manner in which Goya depicts this image - the melancholy and abandonment that he summons in this piece - tells us much about his faith in the divine or rather, the lack thereof.

Finally, we arrive at perhaps one of the most disturbing images ever to be painted: “Saturno devorando a su hijo” - Saturn Devouring his Son . Saturn, the god of melancholy, is depicted here as a horribly disfigured and elongated creature.

"Saturno devorando a su hijo"

In its original monstrosity, the creature had a partially erect penis - until the man charged with restoration of the Black Paintings saw fit to edit and “correct” the image in the interest of public decency. This creature is not just hungry; he is lustful in his obscenity.  He is greed and gluttony.  In his face, particularly his eyes, we see that the abominable nature of his actions do not go unnoticed to him. He is horrified of his actions but cannot help himself. He seems to shrink into the darkness, ashamed of the act he is committing.

    He is haggard and frail, gripping his prey with white knuckled fists. He knows he is not long for this world and in his madness, sacrifices that which he holds most dear, his child, so that he might maintain control for a little longer. He is the patriarch and as such, represents all the governments, all the kings, dictators and rulers who sacrifice their subjects to maintain control of their sovereignty. He is the driving force behind Goya’s “La Desastres” - “The Disasters”. Despite being painted decades after the Caprichos and his Disasters, Saturn is the demon behind those acts.

    This painting is a depiction of addiction, of the crimes of appetite - be they of human flesh or of power. No artist before Goya - and not like him since - ever painted such graphic scenes of atrocity without religious scrutiny. Goya does not intend for the viewer to be set apart from the scenes. He does not want you to have the comfort of being able to rise above. Goya’s intention is for you to feel the full impact of his outrage and disillusionment. Humanity, in Goya’s mind, was not intrinsically good and gentle as the French Enlightenment claimed it to be. That notion was merely a reflection of culture. Man in his natural state was violent, savage and bestial - traits that Goya witnessed through the Inquisition, the rebellion and the French invasion. The only predator of men was other men.

    

The French Enlightenment never brought Spain the liberal refinement and sophistication that so many of Napoleon’s Spanish supporters thought it would. What it brought was what Goya saw fit to reflect back at us - an old regime throwing its young and ideal into the machine of war; Saturn devouring his child.

Universal Connectivity

           As a child, food was a luxury. There were many nights where I would be forced to scrounge a meager meal together with generally less than ideal ingredients. Not only that, if there was a treat – potato chips, candy, ice cream, whatever – if you didn’t eat it when it was there, the chances were high that you wouldn’t get any so, much of the time, you would eat when you weren’t hungry or eat far more than a single serving since you didn’t know when you might get a chance to have that treat again. So, that was my early education in food – get it while you could.

            In the reading, the definition of malnutrition is any condition caused by excess or deficient food energy or nutrition intake or by an imbalance of nutrients. When reading that, it dawned on me that I had only ever associated malnutrition as a deficiency in nutrition and never the other extreme. This state of malnutrition is how I have existed for most of my life. While I wasn’t particularly heavy as a child – in fact, I was quite fit due to my involvement in swimming and dancing – I still had a very unhealthy relationship with food. I was diagnosed with endometriosis when I was 14 and the condition left me bed-ridden for the better part of two years and while my activity level plummeted, my food intake did not. Between my eating habits, my prescriptions and side effects from treatments, my body changed drastically.

            I put on nearly 50 lbs over the course of those two years and even then, I was the thinnest person in my family. I didn’t really give it much thought. It wasn’t until I injured my knee eight years ago that my weight really started becoming an issue. I’m glad that the role of genetics in weight retention has begun to be taken seriously as a factor for physique. It’s something that I’ve had to fight against my entire life. My parents and both of my siblings are overweight. Even at my heaviest, 270lbs, I was still the thinnest person in my family. At 22, I was diagnosed with high blood pressure and that same year, my father was diagnosed with Type II diabetes. The dangers of my lifestyle were become more and more real to me.

            So, I made a change. I started small – controlling my portions, limiting my sugar intake, making healthier snack choices. I was still limited in my activity level due to my knee injury. It’s really hard to exercise when you’ve got a bad knee and no access to low impact options; I kept my changes focused mainly on my diet. I started to see some improvement but life has a way of making you stumble once in a while. Eventually, my efforts to care for myself got put on hold, as I was caring for my fiancé. His health became a priority, as he was very ill. In 2006, he passed away due to complications with a genetic condition. This left me feeling lost, alone and empty and, to some extent, I hid myself in comfort food – as some are apt to do.

            I got to a point where I was tired of being tired, sick of feeling sick and so over being in pain. So, I started to take my health and fitness more seriously. I cut out all sugar from my diet except for the small amount I put in my coffee and honey that I put in my iced tea. I have stopped going to fast food joints almost entirely – and I find when I get lazy and cop out, I end up feeling sick and sluggish afterwards, reinforcing my conviction to eat healthier. I am conscious not only of the calorie information of my food but, also about the ingredients – steering clear of anything with high fructose corn syrup. I no longer drink any soda and every day I feel better and look better. I’m proud to say that in the last year I’ve lost a total of 42 lbs and I’m down another 2.5 this week. I work out four to five times a week – at least 30 minutes of vigorous cardio – not to mention all the additional walking I get roaming around campus. I’m well on my way; continuing with my 2lbs a week weight loss, in 45 weeks, I’ll be at my target weight of 145lbs.

            I can’t remember when I didn’t know that our bodies and everything we do to them are interconnected. You cannot put junk in one in and expect it to simply pass through you without affecting something. Everything has an effect – inside, outside – our thoughts, our actions, what we do, what we say, what we project, what we ingest. It is all connected. I know I can reach my goal and I'm currently taking a nutrition class and I look forward to gaining more tools to help me get there and a deeper understanding as to why my body works the way it does.