Saudi Women Driving

NOTE: the picture and some of the information used in this blog came from a NY Times Article titled: In a Scattered Protest, Saudi Women Take the Wheel

So once again the issue has come up in Saudi Arabia to give women the right to drive. This is an issue that has been plaguing Saudi women for a while. They want the same freedom that other women in the Middle East have when it comes to driving.

Just last Friday on June 17th, women from other countries that had valid licenses were encouraged to drive in Saudi Arabia running simple errands as an effort to protest the ban on women driving in the Kingdom. Women like Maha al-Qahtani and Manal al-shereif were brave enough to drive through cities in Saudi Arabia in protest.

“Women in Saudi Arabia see other women in the Middle East making revolutions, women in Yemen and Egypt at the forefront of revolutions, being so bold, toppling entire governments,” said Waleed Abu Alkhair, whose wife was one of the women taking part in the protest as she drove around Jeddah. “The women of Saudi Arabia looked at themselves and they realized, ‘Wow! We can’t even drive!’

The ruling family has made a black market out of the visas that male chauffeurs need to obtain in order to legally work as a driver in Saudi Arabia. The visa can cost as much as 3,000 and their salary is around $600 a month which some families in Saudi Arabia cannot afford.

Prince Talal bin Abdul-Aziz al-Saud, a member of the royal family has spoken out on women driving. He said “Bravo to the women!Why should women drive in the countryside and not in the cities?” --- In my opinion its quite interesting that women can drive in the countryside but in the cities they cannot where one could argue that driving is more crucial.

I understand Saudi Arabia is an ultraconservative country that has managed to not fall to western pressure. However, I do not think that a woman having the right to drive has anything to do with religion. It is just a backwards ideology that is meant to supposedly keep their women protected. However, it is a bit ironic that they will allow a male driver from a foreign country (usually South East Asia) who is not related to the women be employed as their driver? It does not make much sense that a complete stranger can be in the car with a woman he is not related to but a woman is unable to drive herself or her children around.

Twenty years ago, protests against the ban occurred but those women were immediately labeled as "infidels" and any women who were employed in the public sector were fired. Religious authorities issued fatwas that banned women from driving because according to them it went against a woman's dignity. That is what I find particularly interesting. Her dignity is intact when a stranger drives her around though? How is that possible?

Despite the fact that King Abdullah is more progressive than his predecessors, he still has not issued a royal decree that would allow women to drive. The NYTimes reported that $200 million was given to religious institutions in Saudi Arabia that backed the monarchy when all the revolutions started in the Middle East.

Even though the protests were not as widespread across Saudi Arabia as they could have been, word of the protests are being noted by the international community. In addition, the protest against the ban on women driving have been gaining momentum thanks to social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

Republicans and Islamophobia

So there is a new wave of Islamophobia coming from potential Republican Presidential candidates. In a recent CNN televised debate, Herman Cain said he would not be comfortable having a Muslim person in his administration and he would not appoint one.

That is, in my opinion, racist and down right ridiculous. Does he not realize that Muslims currently hold major government positions? Arab youth is a growing voting bloc in America so why would he make such a statement. Does he not realize or maybe he is just to arrogant to care that his attitude towards Muslims could actually cost him his bid for President?

He went on to say, "You have peaceful Muslims and you have militant Muslims — those that are trying to kill us, and so when I said I wouldn't be comfortable I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us." ---Umm buddy your statement is kinda ironic. I guess I should give him a little bit of credit because at least he can admit there are peaceful Muslims but wow how stupid could you be? When people are appointed to a government post by the President of the United States, do they not face an extensive background check? Do they not need security clearance? Are their credentials not checked out fully before the appointment is approved? So HELLO, Herman Cain, I am pretty sure you would know if that person has a background of being a "militant Muslim".

Herman Cain is not the only one spreading this bologna of anti-Islamic sentiment. The former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, noted that there was a need for caution against Muslims and "suggested a loyalty oath for Muslims". Are we serious about this? A loyalty oath for Muslims? Why is that Muslims are constantly having to defend our loyalty to the United States? Christians or Jewish people are not asked to defend their case of loyalty to this country so why are Muslims subjected to different rules than the rest of the country? Gingrich continued by saying "there are genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country, and we have got to have the guts and stand up and say no." --- Obviously he was referring to Muslims here. Does he really think Muslims are the only group of people who have bad people? Come on now. I expect a bit more from someone who was the Speaker of the House.

At the end of the debate Herman Cain said he would in fact treat Muslims differently than members of other faiths. This is an absolute outrage. The far-right has gone too far in this conspiracy theory that Muslims are infiltrating America and trying to replace the Constitution with Sharia Law. Muslim Americans are some of the most loyal Americans I know. They are proud to be American and happy to have the freedoms that they may or may not have in whatever country their ancestors or parents originated from. I think the problem with Gingrich and Cain is that they are so disconnected from the average American.

Herman Cain is so intolerant of Muslims that he even took it as far as making a comment of skepticism when a doctor with a Muslim name treated him at the hospital back in 2006. When he learned that the doctor was Lebanese Christian his fears dissipated.

I lean more towards the Republican side when it comes to politics. However, some of the GOP party really just disappoint me! We are in the 21st century and Muslims constitute for 1.7 billion of the global population. I am pretty sure its time for Herman Cain to wake up and realize that Islam is one of the fastest growing religions despite this ridiculous campaign put forth by people like Cain and Gingrich to make Muslims look bad.

New Gaza Flotilla Plans

So, a year ago everyone knows what happened when a flotilla tried to deliver aid to the people of Gaza, Israel blocked the ship from passing. There was of course casualties in the incident (one having dual US-Turkish citizenship.) ---I wrote a blog on the last flotilla incident.

"We urge all those seeking to provide such assistance to the people of Gaza to use these [established] mechanisms, and not to participate in actions like the planned flotilla," They are already anticipating that Israel will block the flotilla from going through to Gaza (once again...no shock there!) I find it really ironic that they can say there are "established and efficient" mechanisms for getting humanitarian aid into Gaza, and the situation there had improved significantly over the last year with a broader range of goods and materials available." They also said something to the effect of Flotilla passengers will face dangerous consequences if they continued to attempt to reach Gaza. So if proper mechanisms are in place then why are the people of Gaza suffering everyday? Why can't the flotilla be considered one of those mechanisms? Why can't the people of Gaza get the aid they desperately need? The economy in Gaza is already severely underdeveloped so by Israel blocking the flotilla they are just causing more harm to the economy in Gaza.

The U.S. is a staunch ally of Israel but I do not understand how they can continue to defend Israel as they violate human rights by not allowing basic necessities into Gaza. I love the US, it is my home and I think Israel is quite an impressive country if you look past all their human rights violations. Think about it--Since the establishment in 1948, Israel has the support of the world's superpower, the United States. In addition, they have created a sustainable economy and have great trading partnerships. They have a strong military and top of the line defense technology as well as top notch intelligence. However, Israel needs to be more understanding of the needs of Gaza. They are punishing an entire race of people because of the actions of one militant group known as Hamas.

Spain's Not SO Good Green Economy

So everyone knows that Spain is facing the potential issue of an IMF bailout due to the growing economic crisis in the country. Spain's unemployment rate as of early May was around 21% and it continues to rise. This is absolutely absurd and the fact that it is spiraling out of control is the even scarier part. The Zapatero Administration admitted to making mistakes and Zapatero will not be running for another term as Prime Minister of Spain.

Part of the problem for Spain’s troubled economy obviously comes from the World Economic Crisis that has been occurring for the past two years. However, Spain used to be one of the strongest economies not only in the EU but the world. So what happened? How is it that Germany, Japan, and even the United States along with China and India, two emerging economies managed to come out of this Economic Crisis with some bumps and bruises but Spain is looking at an IMF bailout? (Yes I know the Spanish Economy cannot be compared to the US or Japan but at one point it was up there with Germany.)

So Spain’s answer to unemployment? Go green!
•As of 2009, Spain has already been a leader in renewable fuels through $30 billion in public support. 1 Million green jobs were supposed to be created from this.
•Spain generates about 24.5 percent of its electricity through renewable sources, compared with about 7 percent in the U.S. (Obama was quoted on numerous occasions for saying Spain was a model country to follow for creation of the Green Economy.)
•Spain has become the world’s third-largest country for installed wind energy capacity.

So what happened? It Sounds like Spain was getting off to a good start. Obviously something went wrong.

I would say that part of the problem is the Green Economy Initiative that was launched to help make Spain a leader in green technology and green jobs. That program went wrong somewhere along the way. In an internal assessment done by the Zapatero’s administration they determined that the program must be abandoned before Spain turned into another situation like Greece.

Some stats about the so called “green economy”:

•Spain’s “green economy” program cost the country 2.2 jobs for every 1 job that was “created”.
•The “green economy program” spiked the cost of electricity in Spain from below the EU average to above the average at 5% higher. (This essentially affects household welfare because Spanish households are now paying more for electricity which they can’t afford since most households in Spain only have on average 1 adult parent currently working.)

•The competitiveness of Spain’s industries is at risk as well since energy is a key input in the industrial production processes.
Basic industries have energy costs that are three times higher than labor costs.
•Spanish industry electrical costs are 17% higher than the EU average.
The Not So Good Green Economy:
•since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.
•The programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created.
•Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro.
•The Average subsidy in the 3 fields of renewable energy per worker was around more than half a million Euro to well over 1 million Euro for photovoltaic power.

Now obviously this leaves some major implications for the average Spaniard citizen. The average Spaniard would have to deal with higher rates for electricity or higher taxes (public deficit). Reducing emissions, a major rationale for “green jobs” or renewables regimes, hits the poorest hardest. A cap-and-trade system aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by just 15% will cost the poorest quintile 3% of their annual household income, while benefiting the richest quintile. Since 2000, the renewable subsidies have created less than 50,200 jobs. (0.25% of Spain’s employed workforce)

Why did this all happen? From 1998-2007 low interests rates & easy credit allowed industries such as renewable energy to develop with great success. Between the credit bubble & the economic crisis that hit, crisis was bound to happen. From 2007, as heavily leveraged sectors (real estate, transportation & machinery) started to fall, renewable energy remained a preferred outlet for credit concessions. Specifically, photovoltaic power grew enormously from 2007 to 2008 due to economic distortions from government regulation. The purpose of “green economy” programs were to create more jobs; however the resources had to be pooled from other areas of the economy which couldn’t happen in a recession.

Critics of Spain's near economic collapse argue that the potential of an IMF bailout could lead to the collapse of the EuroZone. This has major implications on the future of the EU seeing as Spain, one of the EU's stronger economies who had unemployment rates in the 80's and 90's that were at times better than the EU average is now looking at IMF assistance. It will be a domino effect for sure on the EU countries that are also struggling in the midst of the economic crisis.

I love how Obama kept saying on at least 8 different occasions how Spain was a model country to follow as they lead the way in green economy and green job creation. So is this what Obama wants for America? Does he want the average American to see a huge spike in their electric bills? Does he want 2.2 jobs to be lost for every 1 created? Does he want to see the average American struggling more than they need to because a Green Economy Initiative looks ideal? Obama do not follow in Spain's footsteps!

a little bit of philosophy

Socrates and Plato as well as Augustine were all great philosophers of their time. Each had different ways and styles of presenting an argument. Their studies on good and evil are both very unique yet they have many similarities and differences. Socrates philosophy-his teachings relied on the student learning for himself and drawing his own conclusions. Plato’s works were similar. However, Augustine was more forthcoming with his thoughts and ideas in his work more than Socrates and Plato; he did not leave it to the discretion of the person hearing or reading his works to decide how they should be interpreted.

At first Socrates did not believe himself to be wise but after traveling and asking many questions he realized he was wiser than most. However, Socrates had his critics; he ended up poor and unable to hold public office because of his viewpoints and the questions he raised. Augustine like many philosophers including Plato and Socrates also had his critics. During the time of these great philosophers being outspoken was not something that agreed with the flow of societal norms. Their teachings and philosophies went against the Church and the way people were brought up by their families at the time. This is what I find to be most interesting because despite the fact that they would be ostracized for what they said, they said it anyway. It is not like people today who just say things because they believe it will get them the most followers on Twitter or the most Likes on Facebook. Those guys actually had something to say; something real-- something that made you actually think whether you agreed with what was being said or not.

Being a Sophist or a Naturalist were not things Socrates considered himself to be. He did not follow a particular school of thought nor did he charge for his teachings. (This is something else that I find fascinating about Socrates. People actually listened because they wanted to listen and he didn't charge them for it. This would never happen today!! Kim Kardashian gets paid to tweet that she went to the gym....its insane.) Socrates believed in everyone living an examined life; a life in which they question life. He argued that one should live their life “according to the good life." Socrates followed an ethical discourse and searched for what good is and how one should live according to it. However, Socrates never claimed or believed that he knew the truth. He believed that through reason everyone has the potential to know the truth on a subject as long as that truth is sought out through the guidance of a teacher such as himself through a technical process. Socrates does not particularly define what is good and what is evil. He believes that is something one determines on their own through a carefully examine magnify glass to life. Once they have examined something they determine for themselves what is good and what is evil. Socrates is “the rational examiner of the good life”. This is something I totally agree with. I do not like society placing labels on what is good and what is bad. I truly believe that it is something we should determine for ourselves. Now DO NOT get me wrong...I am in no way saying that drinking a case of beer then getting behind the wheel is good, for example. Obviously there are limitations to good and evil. There are boundaries--- Too much of anything is never a good thing. However, what I am saying is that I do not like how society places labels on things. I agree with Socrates that living life and exploring is the only way to determine for oneself what is good and what is evil.
It is such a shame that Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth and blasphemy because he was a great philosopher!

Socrates developed something called “Socratic Irony” that allowed the student to figure out the truth on their own. In Socrates’ comment on his death he believed that no evil can happen to a good man. This is an interesting point. Although, I do not agree 100% with it. I believe evil CAN happen to a good man because it is a test from God to see how he will react to it. It is not to say that Socrates was religious because even upon his death Socrates believed that God was all knowing because he said he was going to die and the people he was addressing were going to live- which was better? Only God knows. However, it is arguable as to whether Socrates actually believed in gods or just spirits.

Plato on the other hand, dealt with all things divine and transcendental beings. Plato followed much of the work of Socrates and was under his guidance. Most of Plato’s work is attributed to the help of Socrates. Plato would rather embrace a possible good than to avoid a certain evil. I have to ponder about this point often. Why would want to embrace a good thing that is ONLY possible but not guaranteed rather than avoid a certain evil? I suppose by embracing the potential good you are somewhat assured that you will stumble upon that good eventually. I guess its like that quote goes: "reach for the moon and if you fall you'll land among the stars." So if you surround yourself with positive energy in a quest for the possible good it will eventually come to you. However, avoiding a certain evil does not guarantee that another evil will not fall upon you. So maybe I do agree with Plato on this.

Socrates’ overall philosophy consisted of numerous points. Here are a few key points I found to be noteworthy. One point he makes is “the most blameworthy ignorance is to believe that one knows what one does not know”. Wow I think everyone on the entire planet must be guilty of this ignorance at one point or another. How many times have you heard someone speak about a topic that they have no clue about? It reminds me of my father when he talks about politics. It makes me laugh because he doesn't have the basics of how diplomacy works. He thinks you can just go into politics and do whatever you want. Socrates argues that by examining the world around you, other people and oneself to be the very essence of philosophy. I find that to be the very essence of life. Take a look around you. See all the beauty there is to see. Learn about those around you. This is advice that I can give but I can't easily take. I am writing this blog because I am feeling a bit inspired to actually start living my life....yes at 21. I feel like I have so much to examine and learn. Other injustices that one can commit in the eyes of Socrates that I have found interesting is fearing death and believing there is no God. It is none of my business if someone doesn't believe in God but I have to many reasons TO believe in God. I am not criticizing those who are non-believers but I do find it something that I just cannot agree with. I have many friends that are atheist and we discuss how since you can not see God's presence he must not exist and that is where I just have to change the conversation because it comes down to a matter of how you feel inside. Its a personal choice. Other injustices include believing one is not wise when in fact one is wise. This is something I need to learn. I guess I am committing an injustice in the eyes of Socrates. I would not call myself wise but I also have to learn that I am not stupid. I believe that everyone has there own area of knowledge; their own forte or expertise.

On the other hand, Augustine though of things as more black and white. God serves as the vital basis of good. God did not create anything evil or sinful. Everyday norms today such as creating a child out of wedlock and living with the opposite sex caused turmoil within Augustine because of his concept of what was evil and good. Augustine continuously questioned what was evil and what was good. To Augustine there was only one God who created all things good. So one of the things that Augustine questioned was if there is only one God then who created the devil and furthermore, where does evil come from?

Augustine sought to find where evil came from by asking several questions. Maybe God did not create evil but he created lesser goods. To him, this option did not suffice because creation was made by the Creator therefore, it is also good. His second question asks if God created something that had some sort of evil that was never morphed into good. Augustine wisely and rightfully so ruled out this question as well because God is all knowing. He knows everything that is going on at every second in a minute. He knows what is going to happen before it even happens. By asking all these questions, Augustine is following Socrates’ notions of living an examined life. I believe that evil is what happens when a moment of weakness occurs. I believe that evil exists because we give into temptations that are around us.
Augustine continues on to argue that evil must be removed from God then. We believe in evil and evil doings because they are not a part of what God created. They are at variance from other things. In my interpretation this means that evil exists when God is not around; when his presence is not felt. Augustine takes it a step further to say that there is an absence of God due to the presence of evil. Although, in my opinion, I believe that there is a God who allows the opportunity of evil to present itself as a way of testing the faith of those who claim to follow Him. However, I have to wonder this: If evil is present when God is not around then who created good? Augustine, in my opinion is saying that there is no good; only evil. However, if only evil exists then how can it be that there are rules and punishments or consequences for such evil? If God created only good things evil can still exist but it does not have to mean God created it. It simply means that someone deviated off that good path. This is a point Socrates makes by saying mortal sins were created. God may have not created evil but he created humans who are a product of the environment they live in and therefore, compelled to sin.

Augustine must be arguing then that to have these variances of other things such as evil and evil doings then humans are evil from birth. Evil is something that is not taught; it is not a product of environment. Rather he is saying it is within all of us from when we were born. For instance, Augustine considers it a sin when a baby cries. A baby does not know the learned teachings of right and wrong. Maybe Augustine is saying that all humans no matter how young do in fact know right from wrong because it is inside of them from birth; it is not something that can be taught or learned. Socrates also believed that certain acts equated to evil and sinning. Humans, however, inherently know right from wrong.

Augustine goes on to continue with the concept of good and evil. For him God only created mortal sins. Augustine believes that evil can be an actual event that we fear or evil can be in the act of fearing. Even though Augustine keeps shifting from good and evil and if they do in fact exist, his argument keeps reverting to the lack of God due to the presence of evil. He states falsehood which is another form of evil is “nothing but the supposed existence of something which has no being”

Clearly, for Socrates and Augustine, God is all knowing. He is the creator of all things good. However, for Socrates good is objective; it is meant to be discovered within each person. Augustine believes in a similar notion however it is not as rigid as Socrates’ ideals. Unlike Socrates and Plato, Augustine believed that it was defined. Things such as crying as a baby or living with someone whom you are not married to out of wedlock were sins. They were these defined acts of evil. I agree that good is objective and so is evil. I believe that God's presence allows for good to attempt to prevail over evil but since God's presence is not felt, evil sometimes occurs because of the temptation that exists due to most humans being products of their environment and not questioning what is around them.