Oh the (In)Humanity

I freely admit that I have been, and probably continue to be naïve and overly idealistic when it comes to my ideas of justice, equality, and human rights. But I don’t care. I think idealism is entirely appropriate when considering human rights and something that we should strive for, even if the whole time we admit that the perfection inherent in idealism is impossible to achieve.

I grew up believing, again admittedly naively, that the United States was at the pinnacle of supporting, defending, and promoting human rights. As I matured in my thinking, I came to understand that the United States is not and never has been perfect in its promotion of all things good. To believe it to be so is to be a blind patriot—unwilling to critique the shortcomings of one’s nation, and even, perhaps, unwilling to strive to be better. How would my belief that the US was right and good because I’m an American be any different than citizens of the former Soviet Union believing their system was right, or Iranian citizens believing their system is right? We/I need to be more objective and critical when it comes to issues like justice, and human rights. These things supersede nationalism.

I have been deeply disturbed of late over what seems to be regular lapses in the United State’s stated commitment to human rights: our treatment of the elderly and poor needing medical care, our treatment of victims of disaster, the Abu Ghraib scandal, the issue of torture, the ongoing issue of prisoners at Guantanamo and other secret prisons in Eastern Europe and who knows where else—how long can this list go on? Today in the morning papers, I was deeply disturbed to read that United Nations inspectors have decided not to inspect the US prison at Guantanamo because the US refuses to allow inspectors to interview prisoners privately. UN inspectors charged with checking on rights abuses around the world by the UN Human Rights Commission had been invited to inspect Guantanamo by the US. Privately interviewing prisoners is regarded as standard operating procedure. The UN experts have said that interviews monitored by the US would “undermine the principles” of seeking to provide neutral, independent assessments of respect for human rights. Let us also not forget that the inmates at Guantanamo are being held has “enemy combatants,” a category of prisoner the US regards as not possessing the same rights as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

UN experts have wanted to visit Guantanamo since 2002. Earlier this year they said they wanted to go because they had reliable reports that inmates at Guantanamo had been tortured, and many of these allegations had come to light from the US’s own declassified government documents. The UN says that it is, “particularly disappointing that the United State government, which has consistently declared its commitment to the principles of independence and objectivity of the fact-finding mechanisms, was not in a position to accept these terms.” I am particularly disappointed as well, and I firmly believe that we all should be so. The US government must be held accountable.

To date, the US has only allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross to have unsupervised access to prisoners at Guantanamo. Sounds good, right? Unfortunately, the Red Cross’ reports are confidential and only submitted to the detaining power. UN reports would be made public.

If the US is truly committed to defending human rights, then it must open access to prisoners at Guantanamo, and elsewhere. It must clearly and directly denounce torture. It must admit its own shortcomings and commit itself to correcting those shortcomings and to doing better in the future. Yes this view is idealistic and perhaps naïve, but I firmly believe it is necessary.

All Animals are Equal, But Some Animals are More Equal than Others

Frank Deford, senior contributing writer at Sports Illustrated magazine, has an essay every Wednesday on NPR’s Morning Edition. I am quite a fan of Deford’s essays. His thinking is insightful and his writing is quite good. His perspective on the world of sport goes beyond the usual scores, rankings, and stats to examine the whole culture of sport within our culture.

Today, however, I must take issue with his essay. Today, Deford wrote about a growing horse slaughtering industry in the US. According to Deford, there are currently three horsemeat processing plants in the United States where horses are slaughtered and their meat exported to Europe and other areas of the world. Deford is offended by this fact, not only because he personally finds the thought of eating horse meat both literally and figuratively unpalatable, but also because, according to Deford, horses, unlike cows, pigs, and sheep, are physically different making the slaughtering process cruel and inhumane.

It’s no secret that not only am I a vegetarian, but I’m also extremely empathetic, particularly when it comes to animals. That being said, I generally don’t have a problem with people eating meat, at the same time that I hope the slaughtering process is done as humanely as possible. I do, however, have a problem with Deford valorizing horses over other animals. I don’t find the consumption of horsemeat to be any more or any less offensive than the consumption of other animal flesh. Deford equates the eating of horsemeat with the eating of cats and dogs. But at its most fundamental level, there is no real difference between eating cow meat and eating cat meat, despite the fact that cats and not cows are generally kept as pets. If animals are to be slaughtered and consumed, I hope they’re all treated humanely. Furthermore, there seems to be a matter of utility to this issue. If horsemeat can be used as food for people who want it, then why not use it as such? It seems to me to be related to issues of resources and recycling. There are after all thousands of cats and dogs euthanized in this country everyday. I’m not suggesting that all unwanted animals should suddenly be used as food products, but let’s not start creating classes of animals whereby some are worthy of reverence and respect while others can so easily be sent to market. If it’s so easy to rank animals, is it any wonder that we haven’t been able to eliminate inequalities among human beings based on race, class, sex, sexual orientation, religion, and so many other characteristics?

Will it be Black Tuesday?

Today, the state of Texas is voting on a proposed amendment to the state constitution banning marriage between same sex individuals. I have been thinking about this day and dreading it in a way, but I’m not entirely clear as to why the dread. Texas outlawed gay marriage through legislation several years ago and that law didn’t seem to affect me in the same way the proposed constitutional amendment has. I think I’m only now beginning to sort it out.

The language of the amendment goes far beyond merely banning gay marriage. In effect, the amendment would prohibit “this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage,” thus the state would be barred from granting any legal protection or recognition to any sort of same sex relationship. In addition, the amendment is so broadly worded so as to make it possible for mutually agreed upon legal contracts (wills, power of attorney agreements, medical directives, etc.) to be challenged and quite possibly overturned. What’s left then, in a material sense, is that any relationship other than a single man/single woman partnership seeking legal protection must go to the trouble to hire a lawyer, spend hundreds (possibly thousands) of dollars to establish a set of legal rights far more limited than those granted through marriage (at the cost of $41.00 for a license), and then those legal rights could still be ruled null and void.

Despite these very real, material, functional repercussions of the amendment, they are not what disturb me most. I am most bothered by the idea that this ban is being entered into the state constitution. I have long valued the structure of a constitution as a framework for laws and social organization. I believe the US constitution fairly successfully functions as such, and should, rightfully so, be difficult to amend. As an American, I believe in the rights of justice, freedom (including the right to self-determination), and equality for and of all people, and it is a constitution’s job to protect these rights. By amending the Texas constitution to ban gay marriage, and for that matter any legal recognition of same sex partnerships, the state of Texas is building discrimination into its organizing document. This fact, above all else, disturbs me and frightens me.

How does one fight against this sort of discrimination? How can Texas, or any government and people, institutionalize injustice? How is it possible that some individuals (many in fact) can view my life and my partnership as threatening? How can those same people so easily and comfortably not only deny what I believe to be basic rights, but also make it impossible for individuals of the same sex to make agreements between themselves? What are our rights, then? If this is the environment I have to live in, then I don’t want to be here. But who wins then?

Día de los Muertos

Today is Día de los Muertos (Day of the Dead), a holiday of sorts in Mexico to remember and honor the dead (also All Soul’s Day according to the Roman Catholic calendar). Living in the Southwest for the past twenty years, I have become more and more aware of this day and more and more fascinated by it. On Día de los Muertos, the graves of loved ones are cleaned and decorated, family and friends keep watch through the night at the gravesites, and ofrendas (altars) are created to honor and welcome the dead. The ofrendas are decorated with skeletons, sugar skulls and other symbols of death, as well as flowers, candles, personal belongings from the dead, photos, and food to feed the souls of the deceased who return on this day to visit.

When my father died five years ago, I began to create an ofrenda in his honor each year. It seemed a more personally compelling way to remember him than the annual memorial mass at the Catholic church my mother hosts. The ofrenda is personal and intimate to me, and in putting it together each year, I feel connected to my dad. While I believe our spirits/souls only exist in our living bodies, it is nice to think that the spirit of my dad comes to see the altar I create for him each year.

On his altar you can see a photo of him and me in a public garden in our hometown. That photo is a happy memory for me and is one of my favorites of my dad. The pocketknife and rosary that my dad carried in his pocket everyday are also there as well has his high school class ring. There are edible treats and a glass of one of his favorite liqueurs.

Also on the altar is a photo of Mila (short for Milagro, "miracle" in Spanish), Clover Leaf’s little daughter. I nursed Mila through a difficult kittenhood before she left to live a wonderful life with my best friend Kris. Mila died several years ago after a developing kidney disease. A lock of her fur is on the altar and there are some kitty treats and kibble alongside the edible treats for my dad.

In past years others who have touched my life have made the altar in the first year after their deaths: Mark’s mom Joan, Kris’ dad Wayne, and Theo. But it’s first and foremost for my dad.