Great video (in pieces) on Jeffrey Sachs (my idol) traveling with Angelina Jolie (not my idol), through Africa. Really gets to the heart of why I find this stuff so powerful.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Psalm 46:10
I may or may not find it appropriate later to go into more detail about my spiritual background, but for now let it suffice to say that I am a somewhat non-traditional Christian. With that said, this is one of my favorite Bible quotes. You can click on it for the source information of the great discussion that follows below.
“Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10)
...What does it mean when God’s own are commanded to “be still”? The injunction is not given to restrict the mobility of God’s people. The duty represents a spiritual disposition that ought to characterize those to whom God’s unfailing promises have been given.
The word translated “be still” comes from the Hebrew term raphah. This word is found in various forms in the Old Testament, with different shades of meaning. It refers to that which is slack, or to let drop, or in some instances, to be disheartened or weak. When used of a person (as opposed to some inanimate object) it often has a negative connotation.
Interestingly, “be weak” is here commanded. In other contexts, those who let their hands “drop” from work are condemned. Those who are disheartened are commanded to take courage. In contexts where “being still” is condemned, we find that certain obligations were being neglected, and God’s people were admonished to take initiative to fulfill their duties.
Sadly, there are those who are far from “still”; they “do all the work” and give God none of the credit. They believe that by “lifting up their hands” and by “taking courage,” they can survive and thrive by the sweat of their own brow. They can do it all on their own, without any divine dependence.
Here is the irony in this term “be still.” While we must take the initiative to fulfill our responsibilities and live our lives, the uncertainties of living in a world of sin and woe will continually challenge us. Personal initiative is no substitute for reliance upon God (cf. James 4:13-17).
This command — “be still” — forces us to think on two things: that we are finite, and that God is infinite. That being the case, we need to drop our hands, go limp, relax, and “chill out.” Christian people ought to “come, behold the works of Jehovah,” (v. 8) that we may enjoy a calm confidence in him who gave us his Son.
“Shall he not also with him freely give us all things?” Paul reasoned (Romans 8:32). Psalm 46:10 encourages us to reflect on what God can do in the face of what we are unable to do.
Spiritual serenity, the psalmist admits, ought to be cultivated in spite of the shaking mountains and agitated waters (vv. 2-3; i.e., figures for the difficulties we face in life). This spiritual calm, that God commands, does not come from a lack of troubles; it derives from a steady, deep reflection on the ways God has intervened in history on behalf of his people (cf. Romans 15:4).
So as your world crumbles around you, the call from Scripture is: don’t flinch in faith in God. Stand still — not because of a self-made confidence, not because you are the most composed person in the face of disaster, not because “you’ve seen it all.” Be still because of what you know about God.
It is “God’s past” that provides calm for “our future.” Know that he is God! Know it, not merely intellectually, but practically, spiritually, and emotionally. He is your God. He is the ruler of kingdoms of this earth and the all-powerful Creator of the Universe.
If you are the last man or woman standing, be still. “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth do change” (Psalm 46:1-2a). Hallelujah!
“Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10)
...What does it mean when God’s own are commanded to “be still”? The injunction is not given to restrict the mobility of God’s people. The duty represents a spiritual disposition that ought to characterize those to whom God’s unfailing promises have been given.
The word translated “be still” comes from the Hebrew term raphah. This word is found in various forms in the Old Testament, with different shades of meaning. It refers to that which is slack, or to let drop, or in some instances, to be disheartened or weak. When used of a person (as opposed to some inanimate object) it often has a negative connotation.
Interestingly, “be weak” is here commanded. In other contexts, those who let their hands “drop” from work are condemned. Those who are disheartened are commanded to take courage. In contexts where “being still” is condemned, we find that certain obligations were being neglected, and God’s people were admonished to take initiative to fulfill their duties.
Sadly, there are those who are far from “still”; they “do all the work” and give God none of the credit. They believe that by “lifting up their hands” and by “taking courage,” they can survive and thrive by the sweat of their own brow. They can do it all on their own, without any divine dependence.
Here is the irony in this term “be still.” While we must take the initiative to fulfill our responsibilities and live our lives, the uncertainties of living in a world of sin and woe will continually challenge us. Personal initiative is no substitute for reliance upon God (cf. James 4:13-17).
This command — “be still” — forces us to think on two things: that we are finite, and that God is infinite. That being the case, we need to drop our hands, go limp, relax, and “chill out.” Christian people ought to “come, behold the works of Jehovah,” (v. 8) that we may enjoy a calm confidence in him who gave us his Son.
“Shall he not also with him freely give us all things?” Paul reasoned (Romans 8:32). Psalm 46:10 encourages us to reflect on what God can do in the face of what we are unable to do.
Spiritual serenity, the psalmist admits, ought to be cultivated in spite of the shaking mountains and agitated waters (vv. 2-3; i.e., figures for the difficulties we face in life). This spiritual calm, that God commands, does not come from a lack of troubles; it derives from a steady, deep reflection on the ways God has intervened in history on behalf of his people (cf. Romans 15:4).
So as your world crumbles around you, the call from Scripture is: don’t flinch in faith in God. Stand still — not because of a self-made confidence, not because you are the most composed person in the face of disaster, not because “you’ve seen it all.” Be still because of what you know about God.
It is “God’s past” that provides calm for “our future.” Know that he is God! Know it, not merely intellectually, but practically, spiritually, and emotionally. He is your God. He is the ruler of kingdoms of this earth and the all-powerful Creator of the Universe.
If you are the last man or woman standing, be still. “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth do change” (Psalm 46:1-2a). Hallelujah!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
June 28th: One Month Later
I concluded my internship this summer without this article being posted to my internship's blog, so was very happy to find that it went up a few days later!
One month and one day after the military coup of President Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, de facto President Roberto Micheletti expressed possible support of a compromise, according to a New York Times article on July 29th. The compromise led by Nobel Prize winner and former President of Costa Rica Óscar Arias is known as the San José Accord and through a 12-point plan would allow for Mr. Zelaya to finish his term as President with significantly limited powers.
Unfortunately, this news does not provide much cause for optimism. After two rounds of talks in Costa Rica, the chances of a successful resolution to the power struggle remain bleak. Micheletti reportedly warned Arias that he had not been able to persuade other parts of the Honduran government or leaders of the business community to go along with the proposal. The compromise would allow Zelaya to finish his term that ends in January but would push up elections by one month, and would grant him exemption from prosecution until the end of his term. None this seems acceptable to Honduran congressmen and the Supreme Court, who argue that the only way Zelaya should be allowed back into the country is to face trial for his alleged crimes against the Constitution.
On July 17th, I had the opportunity to hear Kevin Casas-Zamora, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former vice president of Costa Rica under Arias, speak about the situation and possibilities for reconciliation. His valuable perspective shed some light on why various primary and secondary actors in the situation hold stakes in maintaining the political gridlock. Micheletti’s government favors the stalemate because as time goes on, the simple fact that they have held the presidency for a month (with only four months to go before the elections) adds to their legitimacy. In addition, Micheletti’s government retains high domestic support, even while the international community has unanimously supported the reinstatement of Zelaya. On the other side, Manuel Zelaya is physically surrounded almost 24/7 by the leftist leaders and advisors of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua who advise him against any concessions as he hops around Latin America in Hugo Chavez’s jet. On this rare occasion the United States and Venezuela’s leader agree in demanding Zelaya’s reinstatement, but Chavez has a strong interest in preventing any victory of American diplomacy and Arias was picked by the United States to lead talks. Hopefully Micheletti’s recent conversation with Arias signals that international economic and political pressure is working to reduce the stalemate, but we have yet to see any significant signs of progress.
The most tragic part about this whole crisis is that it was so close to being an incredible victory for democracy. Had Zelaya been arrested and prosecuted with due process of law, his lawful removal would have sent a strong message to other presidents currently attempting to manipulate their constitutions. Unfortunately, the Congress, Supreme Court, and military decided to “cut the middle men” in Casas’ words, instead of dealing with the months of legal proceedings that would have undoubtedly lasted through the election. One of the most interesting things that Mr. Casas talked about was the lack of a clear, formal impeachment process in Honduras, as in many other Central American countries. Asked what this crisis would suggest for future reform of this deficiency, he responded that a general feature of a presidential system is that it does not handle these kinds of political crises as well as a “no confidence” vote in a parliamentary system which can immediately spur new elections. Those flaws, he said, are exacerbated in Honduras, and that perhaps an additional requirement for a compromise would be the integration of a formal process for removal from office.
Analysis of the political crisis provides interesting suggestions for future policy, but sadly does little to change the current situation. And as time, international attention, and patience runs out, the prospects of action before the November elections are slim.
One month and one day after the military coup of President Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, de facto President Roberto Micheletti expressed possible support of a compromise, according to a New York Times article on July 29th. The compromise led by Nobel Prize winner and former President of Costa Rica Óscar Arias is known as the San José Accord and through a 12-point plan would allow for Mr. Zelaya to finish his term as President with significantly limited powers.
Unfortunately, this news does not provide much cause for optimism. After two rounds of talks in Costa Rica, the chances of a successful resolution to the power struggle remain bleak. Micheletti reportedly warned Arias that he had not been able to persuade other parts of the Honduran government or leaders of the business community to go along with the proposal. The compromise would allow Zelaya to finish his term that ends in January but would push up elections by one month, and would grant him exemption from prosecution until the end of his term. None this seems acceptable to Honduran congressmen and the Supreme Court, who argue that the only way Zelaya should be allowed back into the country is to face trial for his alleged crimes against the Constitution.
On July 17th, I had the opportunity to hear Kevin Casas-Zamora, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former vice president of Costa Rica under Arias, speak about the situation and possibilities for reconciliation. His valuable perspective shed some light on why various primary and secondary actors in the situation hold stakes in maintaining the political gridlock. Micheletti’s government favors the stalemate because as time goes on, the simple fact that they have held the presidency for a month (with only four months to go before the elections) adds to their legitimacy. In addition, Micheletti’s government retains high domestic support, even while the international community has unanimously supported the reinstatement of Zelaya. On the other side, Manuel Zelaya is physically surrounded almost 24/7 by the leftist leaders and advisors of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua who advise him against any concessions as he hops around Latin America in Hugo Chavez’s jet. On this rare occasion the United States and Venezuela’s leader agree in demanding Zelaya’s reinstatement, but Chavez has a strong interest in preventing any victory of American diplomacy and Arias was picked by the United States to lead talks. Hopefully Micheletti’s recent conversation with Arias signals that international economic and political pressure is working to reduce the stalemate, but we have yet to see any significant signs of progress.
The most tragic part about this whole crisis is that it was so close to being an incredible victory for democracy. Had Zelaya been arrested and prosecuted with due process of law, his lawful removal would have sent a strong message to other presidents currently attempting to manipulate their constitutions. Unfortunately, the Congress, Supreme Court, and military decided to “cut the middle men” in Casas’ words, instead of dealing with the months of legal proceedings that would have undoubtedly lasted through the election. One of the most interesting things that Mr. Casas talked about was the lack of a clear, formal impeachment process in Honduras, as in many other Central American countries. Asked what this crisis would suggest for future reform of this deficiency, he responded that a general feature of a presidential system is that it does not handle these kinds of political crises as well as a “no confidence” vote in a parliamentary system which can immediately spur new elections. Those flaws, he said, are exacerbated in Honduras, and that perhaps an additional requirement for a compromise would be the integration of a formal process for removal from office.
Analysis of the political crisis provides interesting suggestions for future policy, but sadly does little to change the current situation. And as time, international attention, and patience runs out, the prospects of action before the November elections are slim.
Summer's Political Crisis in Guatemala
My first blog post for my internship this summer, regarding the political situation in Guatemala.
In recent weeks, Guatemala’s political institutions have been dealt a harsh blow by accusations pertaining to the murder of a prominent lawyer, Rodrigo Rosenburg. The controversy surrounds a posthumously released video recorded by Rosenburg, declaring that if he was murdered, President Alvaro Colom and his advisors were the ones responsible. In the video, Rosenburg expressed suspicion that he might be murdered for representing Khalil Musa, a prominent businessman who was murdered along with his daughter in March.
President Colom has vehemently denied the claims, but the damage done by the speculation is undeniable. More than 35,000 signatures have been collected by a group of lawyers demanding that Colom’s political immunity be revoked so that he can be tried for the murder, and thousands have taken to the streets in demonstrations on both sides of the controversy. Those protesting against Colom, predominantly from the middle and high socioeconomic classes, have demanded “justice,” an end to immunity, and for Colom to step down. Demonstrators in support of the president have come mainly from the rural areas, were largely transported by the official party (the National Union of Hope, UNE) and according to critics, may have been paid for their presence.
What is clear is that the allegations of murder have polarized and threatened to destabilize a fragile democracy, in a country that emerged from a 36-year-long civil war in 1996. The country has been deeply scarred by civil conflict between the indigenous Mayan populations, making up half of the population and many not speaking Spanish, and the Guatemalan government. As called for by President Colom, a UN-backed commission and the U.S. FBI will lead investigations in the case. José Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Organization of American States, visited Guatemala this week and concluded in Washington on Wednesday, discussing his concerns over the potential threats to public security. At the same time, Insulza declared that “the citizens of Guatemala have demonstrated their ability to live together in democracy and to protect the strength of their political institutions.”
Hopefully, the presence of international investigators will support Guatemala in protecting its democratic institutions while also delivering justice to the perpetrators of the crime. The resolution to this crisis will have great effects on the potential for Guatemalan citizens to trust in an accountable, democratic system of governance.
In recent weeks, Guatemala’s political institutions have been dealt a harsh blow by accusations pertaining to the murder of a prominent lawyer, Rodrigo Rosenburg. The controversy surrounds a posthumously released video recorded by Rosenburg, declaring that if he was murdered, President Alvaro Colom and his advisors were the ones responsible. In the video, Rosenburg expressed suspicion that he might be murdered for representing Khalil Musa, a prominent businessman who was murdered along with his daughter in March.
President Colom has vehemently denied the claims, but the damage done by the speculation is undeniable. More than 35,000 signatures have been collected by a group of lawyers demanding that Colom’s political immunity be revoked so that he can be tried for the murder, and thousands have taken to the streets in demonstrations on both sides of the controversy. Those protesting against Colom, predominantly from the middle and high socioeconomic classes, have demanded “justice,” an end to immunity, and for Colom to step down. Demonstrators in support of the president have come mainly from the rural areas, were largely transported by the official party (the National Union of Hope, UNE) and according to critics, may have been paid for their presence.
What is clear is that the allegations of murder have polarized and threatened to destabilize a fragile democracy, in a country that emerged from a 36-year-long civil war in 1996. The country has been deeply scarred by civil conflict between the indigenous Mayan populations, making up half of the population and many not speaking Spanish, and the Guatemalan government. As called for by President Colom, a UN-backed commission and the U.S. FBI will lead investigations in the case. José Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Organization of American States, visited Guatemala this week and concluded in Washington on Wednesday, discussing his concerns over the potential threats to public security. At the same time, Insulza declared that “the citizens of Guatemala have demonstrated their ability to live together in democracy and to protect the strength of their political institutions.”
Hopefully, the presence of international investigators will support Guatemala in protecting its democratic institutions while also delivering justice to the perpetrators of the crime. The resolution to this crisis will have great effects on the potential for Guatemalan citizens to trust in an accountable, democratic system of governance.
I'm a sucker for inspirational quotes.
Some favorites I've collected over the years. I've got a few longer Christian ones tucked away that I will hopefully be doing a bit of blogging about.
“In the center of your being, you have the answer; you know who you are and you know what you want.” –Lao Tzu
“To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.” –Ralph Waldo Emerson
“This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.” –Ralph Waldo Emerson
“Make the most of yourself, for that is all there is of you.” –Ralph Waldo Emerson
"When I was a child, I always thought that the world was mine, that it was a stomping ground for me, full of opportunities. I always had this attitude that I was going to go out into the world and do all the things I wanted to do." -Madonna
“A man without ambition is dead. A man with ambition but no love is dead. A man with ambition and love for his blessings here on earth is ever so alive.” -Pearl Bailey
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
"We can do no great things, only small things with great love." -Mother Teresa
“In the center of your being, you have the answer; you know who you are and you know what you want.” –Lao Tzu
“To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.” –Ralph Waldo Emerson
“This time, like all times, is a very good one, if we but know what to do with it.” –Ralph Waldo Emerson
“Make the most of yourself, for that is all there is of you.” –Ralph Waldo Emerson
"When I was a child, I always thought that the world was mine, that it was a stomping ground for me, full of opportunities. I always had this attitude that I was going to go out into the world and do all the things I wanted to do." -Madonna
“A man without ambition is dead. A man with ambition but no love is dead. A man with ambition and love for his blessings here on earth is ever so alive.” -Pearl Bailey
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
"We can do no great things, only small things with great love." -Mother Teresa
A New Attitude in Our Backyard
This is the article that gave me the idea to start this blog. During my internship this summer I worked with a non-profit that is basically a governmental organization (confusing I know), so when I wrote this piece for our "development blog" it was gently declined by the web person because it included personal opinions on government policy. I wanted a place to share it, hence this blog began. Written Summer 2009.
President Obama’s speech at Cairo University on Thursday was a clear step forward in the United States’ Islamic affairs. However, the content of his speech had strong implications for the new administration’s policy towards other parts of the world as well, especially here in our own hemisphere.
One of Obama’s main topics of focus was democracy and America’s role in promoting it:
“…let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.” Read the full speech
Over the last decade, Latin America has undergone a dramatic swing to the left, in what can be viewed as a backlash against American hegemonic influence. On Thursday, the Organization of American States reached an agreement to lift the suspension of Cuba from the organization for the past 47 years. While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton originally fought for certain conditions to be required before consideration of such a proposal, she supported the final compromise calling for possible readmission to be based on a "process of dialogue" in line with OAS pro-democracy "practices, proposals and principles".
Last Tuesday, Mauricio Funes was sworn in as the new president of El Salvador, the first leftist to rule the country since 1992. While some fear that Funes will join the ranks of Venezuela’s Chavez & Co. in their harsh anti-American attitudes, it appears more likely that Funes is casting himself as a moderate, alluding to the “strong examples” of President Obama and Brazilian President Luíz Inacio Lula da Silva as “proof that progressive leaders - instead of being a threat - can be a new, safe alternative for their people.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended the ceremony in San Salvador and congratulated the Salvadorian people on this demonstration of democracy. Chavez and Ortega were notably absent from the ceremony.
I think the new tone of American influence abroad as articulated in Obama’s speech in Cairo, will lead us to an overall better position in the region. While some have decried Secretary Clinton’s compromise at the OAS as appeasement to a dictatorship, this resolution represents something much more pragmatic. It represents the sentiment that you don’t have to agree with your neighbors in order to talk to them, and in fact a policy of “keeping your friends close and your enemies closer” can improve national security and intelligence. It also reflects the understanding that by engaging with and respecting your international counterparts such as President Funes, you undercut the extreme-left’s arguments of American “tyranny” in the region. Most importantly, the Obama administration’s new tone demonstrates a core commitment to democratic principles on the international scale, where we are just one country in a regional organization of 34 members.
The United States will continue to lead the way towards democratic reforms around the world. Organizations such as CIPE play a crucial role in fostering opportunities for political and economic freedom by partnering with local organizations to promote homegrown reform. Instead of forcing Latin American leaders into black-and-white worlds of allies and enemies, these projects create the demand for democratic institutions organically. The result of this approach is long-run, sustainable development produced in a truly democratic fashion.
President Obama’s speech at Cairo University on Thursday was a clear step forward in the United States’ Islamic affairs. However, the content of his speech had strong implications for the new administration’s policy towards other parts of the world as well, especially here in our own hemisphere.
One of Obama’s main topics of focus was democracy and America’s role in promoting it:
“…let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.” Read the full speech
Over the last decade, Latin America has undergone a dramatic swing to the left, in what can be viewed as a backlash against American hegemonic influence. On Thursday, the Organization of American States reached an agreement to lift the suspension of Cuba from the organization for the past 47 years. While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton originally fought for certain conditions to be required before consideration of such a proposal, she supported the final compromise calling for possible readmission to be based on a "process of dialogue" in line with OAS pro-democracy "practices, proposals and principles".
Last Tuesday, Mauricio Funes was sworn in as the new president of El Salvador, the first leftist to rule the country since 1992. While some fear that Funes will join the ranks of Venezuela’s Chavez & Co. in their harsh anti-American attitudes, it appears more likely that Funes is casting himself as a moderate, alluding to the “strong examples” of President Obama and Brazilian President Luíz Inacio Lula da Silva as “proof that progressive leaders - instead of being a threat - can be a new, safe alternative for their people.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended the ceremony in San Salvador and congratulated the Salvadorian people on this demonstration of democracy. Chavez and Ortega were notably absent from the ceremony.
I think the new tone of American influence abroad as articulated in Obama’s speech in Cairo, will lead us to an overall better position in the region. While some have decried Secretary Clinton’s compromise at the OAS as appeasement to a dictatorship, this resolution represents something much more pragmatic. It represents the sentiment that you don’t have to agree with your neighbors in order to talk to them, and in fact a policy of “keeping your friends close and your enemies closer” can improve national security and intelligence. It also reflects the understanding that by engaging with and respecting your international counterparts such as President Funes, you undercut the extreme-left’s arguments of American “tyranny” in the region. Most importantly, the Obama administration’s new tone demonstrates a core commitment to democratic principles on the international scale, where we are just one country in a regional organization of 34 members.
The United States will continue to lead the way towards democratic reforms around the world. Organizations such as CIPE play a crucial role in fostering opportunities for political and economic freedom by partnering with local organizations to promote homegrown reform. Instead of forcing Latin American leaders into black-and-white worlds of allies and enemies, these projects create the demand for democratic institutions organically. The result of this approach is long-run, sustainable development produced in a truly democratic fashion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)