I haven't heard much discussion from either the media or our politicians on Earth Day. Are we actually back to the place we were in 1969 when the state of our environment was a non-issue? Has Earth Day become a local weekend entertainment event where bands and celebrities play music and preach to the choir?

Earth Day was founded in 1970 by Senator Gaylord Nelson to put the environment into the political "limelight." It provided a forum for Americans to express their concerns and tapped into the anti-war sentiments of America's youth. Earth Day 1970 drew more than 20 million people to demonstrations and teach-ins at thousands of schools and local communities. Today celebrations are worldwide and draw more than 500 million participants. But where are our leaders? How come when I listened to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton yesterday I heard nothing about Earth Day?

The fun and incredibly compelling documentary King Corn (which I reviewed for The WIP in November) is currently showing on PBS. I'm so happy that this important film, which I often find myself thinking of, is available for everyone to see!

Funny how topics seem to emerge out of the blue and suddenly begin to take on a life force of their own.

Rose-Anne Clermont's thoughtful explorations in her series "A Current between Shores" of the role different life issues have played in the lives of her mother and her mother in law have always been interesting. Other people's lives and views always are, to me. But her joint interview "On Religion" seems to have special relevance this week.

Starting on Sunday evening, in what seemed to be a total departure, the political dialog in the United States has been strangely focused on defining the place and merits of religious faith -- something many believe should be exclusively a matter of private choice, not a matter of public policy. On Sunday the curiously named (and to me, even curiously conceived)first-ever "Compassion Forum" was televised from Messiah College in Pennsylvania, in which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two Democratic contenders for the presidency, took questions from two TV reporters, a select group of ministers from various religious traditions, and from an evangelical Social Justice outreach group called the Sojourners.

The candidates responded thoughtfully and at length as to how their Christian faith informed their political views and how it would influence their leadership if they should become President. Topics ranged from "Why does a loving God allow innocent people to suffer" to predictable and surprisingly blunt issue-focused questions such as "Do you believe that life begins at conception?" Regardless of their answers to specific questions, what was clearly demonstrated was the very real role that faith plays in the lives of both Democratic contenders. The very revelation that these highly educated, highly intelligent people put a high value on faith makes some of their more secular supporters squirm with discomfort...

The event also marked the emergence of a Democratic party which seems to have finally realized how important faith, and the values informed by faith, are for much of the American electorate. It is also an acknowledgment of the historic role that faith-informed values have played in the American experience. In past elections, this entire topic was presumed to be an area reserved more for Republican politicians.

My own adult daughter was close to horrified to hear Barack and Hillary speaking of having faith and was definitely offended that ministers and Sojourners were getting to press their concerns. My own feelings were more ambivalent.

I was raised by devout Irish Catholics who never questioned their faith. It never occurred to them that their children might not continue to live that faith as fervently as they had done. I have one first cousin who is a priest, who worked among runaways and street people in Boston for years and later ran a parish for decades. His sister was the President or head of a national order of nuns. Although we are more than 20 years apart in age and I grew up in suburban DC, not in an Irish neighborhood in Boston, I know them to be exceptionally bright people who committed themselves very early on to doing what they could to make the world better for others, and who consciously committed to living their own lives in a continuing attempt to be the best human beings they could. I believe such people exist and that their motives and efforts are to be respected. I do not believe they are always right in their judgments, but that they try compels my respect. I place equal value on their fellows among Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and every other religious or ethical group making an honest attempt to live a spiritual, selfless life. They may not succeed, but they try.

To my amazement I realized that the focus on faith would take on yet another dimension on Wednesday, April 16th, when Pope Benedict will arrive for a six day visit to the US amidst a huge media blast. Curiously enough, in the first such move in his presidency, President Bush together with Mrs. Bush and his daughter Jenna will meet the Pope's plane, "The Good Shepherd," on the tarmac in Washington DC. The Pope will go on to appear in New York City after DC. The response of the faithful will border on the frenzied, I would think.

Planned or not, all this is taking place in the midst of a hotly contested political primary race. The next primary election will be held in Pennsylvania on April 22nd. There are nearly 70 million Catholics in the United States, about 20 percent of the electorate, and they represent about 30% of the Pennsylvania electorate. This has led to speculation that Catholics, who could tip the balance in a close contest, especially in Pennsylvania, may be looking to the Pope for some guidance. Yet what he spoke of pre-trip (admirably) was that he was "ashamed" of the rampant pedophilia which has been exposed within the US Church in recent years. As he should be. His positions on abortion, on Islam (hostile), on immigration and on solving poverty are also sure to get attention. Whether one of those issues turns into a political football because of what the Pope says remains to be seen.

Rarely in my lifetime has religion garnered so much attention in a political campaign in one week. "On Religion" gives us a historical context in which to view this week's events. Although it's a long time since I've considered myself religious, perhaps it's time we took a dispassionate look at the concerns of those who are, and give them credit for what they feel and what they contribute to our society. There has to be room for us all at the table or we are not the people and society we think we are and want to be.

Feedback?

IN my previous post on this section, I mentioned that some Zimbabweans were excited about a possible new president and a new speech on Independence Day, April 18.

It would seem as if the people were doomed to think like that. It would seem as if I was also doomed to even entertain such thoughts.

April 18, Zimbabwe's Independence Day is upon us and God knows what will happen on that day.

We hoped March 29, the election day, would solve that puzzle for us but Robert Mugabe (I do not know whether I should still prefix his name with the word President) thinks otherwise.

The Movement for Democratic Change (aint sure either if I should still prefix their name with the word "opposition") has since announced its president Morgan Tsvangirai won the presidential race and should be endorsed as the legitimate president of Zimbabwe. The opposition also won majority seats in parliament that most people here now talk of the ruling party MDC and the opposition Zanu (Pf) the latter being Mugabe's party which is clinging to power despite confirmed defeat.

As for Mugabe, it seems as if he is far from surrendering. So far,about seven polling officers have been arrested on allegations of robbing him of some votes and inflating Tsvangirai's. Elections administrator, Zimbabwe Electoral Commission has been ordered to recount the votes and Zanu (Pf) continues to talk about an impending run-off between Mugabe and Tsvangirai. What baffles most people here is that the result for the first round is not yet known although people believe Mugabe lost the election and hopes to win in the second round. But if the next round is held in a transparent manner, Mugabe is likely to be more humiliated because even those who had shunned the box on the first round are determined to help vote him out.

But the question now is who will preside over the Independence celebrations? Since 1980, Mugabe has led the nation in these celebrations although last year there were two separate gatherings to mark this day, one presided over by Mugabe and another by labour body Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) which was protesting against the attrocious Mugabe regime. People are already pinning their hopes on April 18 to see what twist the country's troubled life takes.

So far, ZCTU has called for an indefinite national strike starting today and the armed forces, including soldiers and the police are out terrorising people. The judiciary has rejected MDC's application for an announcement of results for the first round of the presidential race and ZCTU says a nationwide strike could help bring the results, and most people hoped that will happen before April 18 although it is now clear that this is just one of those many unfortunate dreams of this troubled nation.

In fact, most people think April 18 has since lost its significance. They feel it is unworth celebrating, with others saying they would rather celebrate independence from the Mugabe regime than from Britain as Mugabe's excesses have since overshadowed most of the events in the pre-1980 period when Zimbabwe was a British colony.

The theme of violence, especially against women and children, has really taken hold on these pages as a subject of conversation since, unfortunately, women in great numbers continue to suffer from violence or be exposed to it around the world. And if we don’t continue to raise our voices and point out incident after incident after incident after incident then surely there will never be a cessation of hostilities. But since I tend to be a micro person, seeing everything through the lens of my life, and trying to understand the big picture through the daily comings and goings of my life, I have to bring up another type of violence that we see far too often, a self-inflicted form of violence—suicide—that has “visited” my life in the past week. A boy at the high school where I teach committed suicide. For what is suicide if not violence against the self, and, perhaps, against society too? And the thoughts that have swirled around my head, though different than when contemplating violence inflicted on another, cause me to pause and contemplate how commonplace violence has become in our world.

The horror of a young man deciding to cut short his life was exacerbated, for me, when I heard my 12-year old daughter’s response to my telling her what had happened. I was going to use his tragic death as a segue to give her the “suicide is wrong and there is always a resolution to any problem” speech, but after I told her about what had happened, she looked at me and told me that a boy in her class this year had committed suicide. A seventh grade boy had committed suicide and a seventh grade girl hadn’t been upset enough about it to tell her mother that day when she got home from school. I was stunned. Stunned by the implicit acceptance of such a tragic act. Stunned by the non-stun factor this news was to her. Stunned from how sad it is that this is the world my daughter lives in. Every adult to whom I had told about this young man’s death had chills when I told him or her. But here, my sensitive daughter accepted it as part of the flow of life. It was not an aberration to her. And when I had my classes do a free write in the days following the suicide, only a few students commented on it—and those were generally children who had known him or knew someone who had known him. The others had either forgotten about it or it had never really entered their consciousness—both equally upsetting responses. (Granted, the school hadn’t stressed how he had died, but word gets around—if it did to the teachers, surely it did to the students.) So I guess the stun factor is the non-stun factor itself.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry says that “suicide is the third leading cause of death (behind accidents and homicides) for teenagers. Each year more than 5,000 U.S. teenagers commit suicide.” And that doesn’t even touch on the number who attempt suicide or contemplate it, which apparently are highest in middle adolescence.

Which brought me to thinking about the meaning and purpose of life. Do too many of our children have none? (Do too many of us have none to transfer to them?) Do they not take life seriously since it is so often treated slightly in movies and TV and games? What is the point—a point—that will get them to see a point? I had seen middle age (admission here) as a time when I would be confronted with illness and death and sorrow, why are tweens and teens dealing each other—and themselves—these cards?

Women's International Perspective hosted its first ever speaker panel on Friday April 4, 2008, at the Monterey Institute of International Study. The organization, barely one year old at the time of the event offers a woman's perspective of violence against women and children around the globe.

Joyce Laker, a human rights worker and women's advocate in Uganda shared her experiences about violence against women and children. Uganda, known for its child soldiers has been riddled with violence and conflict for decades. Forced to join the armed resistance of the Lord's Resistance Army, children as young as ten years old are often forced to kill their own parents first, to sometimes drink their blood or cannibalize their bodies, and then enter into a never ending cycle of violence.

As sociologist and scholar Riane Eisler points out, violence against women and children around the world is actually, "normal," and calls it, "the most ubiquitous human rights violation in the world." As evidenced by Joyce Laker's experience in Uganda, Riane Eisler's point carries great weight.

Joyce Laker shared alarming statistics representing reported sexual violence. Throughout Uganda, anywhere from 26 to 52 percent of the female population has experienced sexual violence. However, as Laker points out, these numbers are likely not accurate as the reporting and investigation of a rape for women is costly and tedious at its best, and further degrading at its worst. Women are forced to pay police to conduct the investigations at the rates of 3.00 for the police to come and take the report, 10.00 to provide transportation for the police to come take the report and 20.00 to provide transportation for the perpetrator to the police station.

These human rights violations and atrocities are rarely, if ever reported in United States mainstream media and do not gain the attention they deserve. As American media outlets and politicians continue to ignore developments in Africa, the Bush Administration has dramatically ramped up the militarization of the continent since 2002, flushing the area with over $130 million dollars in military sales, financing, and training expenditures for what the US considers strategic for the "war on terror."

However, as the think tank Foreign Policy In Focus rightly queries, the fundamental question for many is whether the US will utilize this increased military presence to support freedom, self determination, growth, prosperity, and accountability on behalf of the majority of nearly one billion people in Africa or if this new initiative will instead serve to oversee surrogate nations whose leadership is accountable first to U.S security and economic interest. (Gerald Le Melle, "Africa Policy Outlook 2008," (Waahsington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, February 7, 2008).

Under the Bush administration, AFRICOM's (Africa Command) structure would "place humanitarian work previously done by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development under the directive of the Department of Defense." (Le Melle 2008) As evidenced by circumstances on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and numerous countries around the globe, US interests rarely coincide with human rights, the sickness of the global society in regards to the rights of women and children around the globe should determine which countries the US does and does not call an ally.

As Le Melle points out in the Africa Policy Outlook conclusion, "Despite being the most stretched out campaign in American history, the 2008 presidential election is marked by the typical absence of any serious discussion of Africa. It is as if Africa has already been ceded to the Department of Defense and therefore out of the view of the American public. In contrast with the accelerating militarization of the U.S Africa relations described above, this silence is deafening."