Drawing a line between apartheid and local culture?

I wrote this post in response to an interesting thread on the RH Reality Check blog about French President Nicolas Sarkozy's move to ban the wearing of the very conservative Muslim burqa in France. A user named John posted a comment as described below, and my response follows.

John, I appreciate your points, as well as your open-minded stance in reminding us that there are many cultures, and many different norms and mores.

However, there is clearly a global double-standard when it comes to human rights being denied to women, as a particular group.

You said,

"Because our culture has grown to embrace new values, and rid ourselves of old taboos, does not give us the right to interfere with those who believe in and adhere to old values."

I agree, but I think that it does not trump the more important concept that human rights exist, and that one actual right is the right to defend those rights, whether in one's own case, or in another's. Some might even say we have a moral duty to defend those rights, but that may be a separate argument.

Think back to the Apartheid struggle in South Africa. Half the world was "interfering" in that country's society, through various external pressures, to make sure black citizens got their rights. Nobody rational said, "hey, that's their culture. Maybe that's just how they are and how they live. Let them evolve at their own pace."

And thank God they didn't, or millions of South Africans might still be languishing without fundamental human freedoms to this day.

So why is it that when the oppressed demographic simply happens not to include males, that it is suddenly just their culture, and so on?

Why, when men and women are oppressed, as in South Africa, is it unequivocal oppression, but when just women are oppressed, as in beatings of people not wearing a burqa, is it "culture?"

Why was the South African governmental system of denying one demographic group (blacks) the vote considered to be an illegal, rights-abrogating Apartheid worthy of American sanctions, but the Saudi Arabian governmental system of denying one demographic group (women) the vote is considered to be legitimate culture that in no way should infringe upon American business relations with that nation?

People in France who don't wear a burqa, whether they be Muslim, Afghan, Swedish, American, Christian, Arab, or whatever... people who don't wear a burqa in all likelihood don't wear it because they don't wish to wear it. And that should be all that is needed for civilized people to know that it is wrong for anyone to be forced to wear a burqa, or be punished for not wearing one.

---

Aside:
Imagine that a new law in the U.S. required all women to wear hats and attend a particular Christian denomination's services two times weekly, and that the law's apologists claimed the new law simply represented what millions of American women already, or recently, practiced. Regardless of its truth, that defense would be particularly spurious since the fact would remain that the law would represent behavior entirely unwanted by, and unfamiliar to, most American women, regardless of the several million who might indeed already follow such practices.

I don't believe that cultural relativism needs to be appeased. Nevertheless, let's point out that this burqa-wearing and/or total covering-up, and the "house-binding" of women is actually not a recent part of culture for many of the women to whom it is now happening. Go back and look at photos of Iranian women pre-1979. They are wearing the same fashions as American women here were wearing then (tee-shirts, calf-length skirts, same hairstyles, no head covering, or loose scarf, or hijab, as they chose). In pre-Taliban Afghanistan, for heaven's sake, about half of lawyers and doctors were female, many women wore no head covering, and few city women wore a burqa.

Wheel of Fortune

I am not as serious as I might seem if you only know me through my posts. Tonight, while watching Wheel of Fortune, (yeah, I watch that), the first letters to be called resulted in a bit of a funny game board. I snapped this picture and uploaded it to FailBlog via I Can has Cheezburger?.

You can also see, vote, or comment on my entry at:

http://cheezburger.com/view.aspx?ciid=4779699&vk=2yZ%2fQidCJNqonYv4tFFx8PIR1wBhlZQF9EMMWQ0E8esxkC7LQ4Q3%2fcPg2b6nsReX

Are we safer now than we were immediately after 9/11, or have we just been lucky?

This is a piece I originally published on Helium.com in 2007. It continues to be the most highly-ranked Helium article on this topic, so it may be worth re-publishing here even if circumstances have changed considerably in the past 1 1/2 years.

America is not safer today than it was immediately following the attacks of September 11th. While many Americans, as well as certain branches of America's government, may be more aware of security than they previously were, the steps our nation has taken during the past 6 years [now 7+ -ed] have set the stage for long-term security threats to America and its citizens at home and abroad.

Relative safety must be examined in terms of both our efficacy in defending against a security threat, and the existence of such threats.

Following the first Gulf War of 1991, the security threat to America increased greatly. While the threat was understood at high levels of government, America's ability to mount an effective defense was hampered by partisan bickering, bureaucratic red-tape, and frankly, near total disinterest in the topic by the American population at-large.

Simultaneously, anti-American and anti-Western sentiments grew pervasively, enabling Islamic fundamentalists to make easy inroads among poor, disaffected Muslim youth-especially in the Middle East, South Asia and Britain.

In 1993, when the World Trade Center was first bombed, Americans missed a critical opportunity to improve their security situation, either by improving actual defense, or by learning about the nature and origin of the threat, and perhaps acting strategically to decrease those threats.

By the time the events of 9/11 unfolded, 10 years had passed during which America had hardly defended against the security threat, and the existence of threats had greatly increased. Following that tragic day, the tendency of Americans to wonder "Why us?" underscored how dangerous the situation had become. Most Americans seemed to have completely forgotten the original WTC bombing, and to be woefully unaware of the atmosphere that had been developing outside the U.S. for many years.

Since 9/11, America has done much to ramp up domestic security and keep physical threats at bay. Although some of these efforts have arguably weakened core aspects of American democracy, they have likely helped to stop potential attacks on American soil. Substantive proof, however, is lacking, since the government has declined or refused to divulge almost any salient details of foiled plots.

During the same time, anti-American sentiment spread swiftly following the second Gulf War. The massive outpouring of global support for America in the wake of 9/11, and the near universal support for America's military campaign in Afghanistan, were squandered terribly as the U.S. became inextricably tangled in the Iraq debacle-a conflict for which there is virtually no remaining support, either domestically or in other nations.

It is this unparalleled dislike-even hatred-of America that is the greatest threat to our safety. America cannot realistically surround itself with a wall. Nor can it purge those within its borders, be they citizens or not, who wish harm to Americans.

The only real way for Americans to enjoy long-term freedom and security is to seek to understand, and then to strategically reduce and eliminate, the causes of anti-Americanism.

Unfortunately for Americans, it has been impossible to make progress in this direction, and for this, we have only ourselves to blame. Because influential members of the government and the media insist on presenting this approach in the context of a moral judgment on America, it is impossible to get down to the business of strategy. But strategic management of America's image has nothing to do with whether one agrees or disagrees with terrorists and extremists. In fact, it is absurd even to give such people a footing for dialog. But it is a terrible shame, and a failure of our innovative national spirit, that we cannot manage to craft a strategy that increases our critical understanding of the world beyond America, and improves the international standing of America to its former high level.

Until now, we have been lucky to escape another attack of mass-destruction. But experts seem to agree that it is a matter of "when," and not "if," another attack will occur. Luck eventually runs out.

Benefits of using PayPal to collect online donations to non-profits

Based on an answer I originally posted at LinkedIn.

As someone with many years' experience in the non-profit sector (as an employee, executive, volunteer, and friend), I'd like to weigh in with some pragmatic thoughts about using PayPal to collect donations to non-profits.

I have noticed some confusion about PayPal, and perhaps even some anti-PayPal sentiment, among non-profit organizations. I am not sure that this reaction comes from a legitimate concern about PayPal's functionality. It could stem, at least in part, from qualms about doing business with a perceived monolith.

Recurring Donations
One misconception I've seen is that Paypal does not allow recurring donations to be set up. In fact, it is extremely easy to set up recurring donations via Paypal. A non-profit could use this feature not only to collect recurring donations, but also to collect recurring contributions such as Board pledges or member dues.

Here is an example of a non-profit site that uses PayPal to process recurring donations for monthly tuition expenses of the Ugandan children it sponsors. And here is PayPal's informational page on recurring donations.

Donor Choice
Some non-profits have expressed concerns about limiting donor choice of how to make a donation. It is fairly simple to offer donors multiple ways to donate cash, but what about the many non-profits that raise funds through the sale of goods, or that solicit sponsors?

If you are transacting anything besides straight cash, it is definitely harder to offer multiple payment gateway options because most shopping cart options logically require the set-up of a single check-out mechanism.

PayPal integrates easily into many open source shopping cart software packages. That makes it an attractive option when you've got a really small development budget, or you are even looking at doing the whole thing yourself.

I also like Google Checkout, but as with all the wonderful Google products, you can't use it without registering for an account. For donors not already hooked up to Google, it's a barrier to ask them to set up an account just to donate. As much as I love Google, that's a tough sell.

PayPal does not require account-registration to make a payment. For one non-profit client, I integrated PayPal into their shopping cart, but also offered a Google Checkout button for any Googlers wishing to bypass PayPal.

PayPal Aesthetics
Some have also mentioned that PayPal buttons are less than gorgeous.I think that's true. But why not make your own PayPal buttons that match your website, rather than using the default PayPal buttons? If you have enough talent on staff to have any sort of a website, you ought to be able to get some branded or matching PayPal buttons going pretty easily!
The button shown above is a typical PayPal button, created by default. The button shown below is a simple, custom-made button that matches its site look-and-feel, and communicates a much nicer message.

If you need more information about how PayPal can be used to help your non-profit organization, you can check out PayPal for Non-profits. It's PayPal's own informational section.

If you need additional assistance, or think you might require a few paid hours of work to help you with any of the issues discussed here, post a reply, or consider getting in touch with me professionally, at Dartmouth Design.

Bombing in Pakistan: Who tried to kill Benazir Bhutto?

This is a piece I originally wrote for Helium.com, who had asked its readers to write on the topic of who was behind the unsuccessful October 2007 assassination attempt on Benazir Bhutto.

Benazir Bhutto foretold the October 18th, 2007 blast that tore through her homecoming procession, killing 140, including 50 of Bhutto's own guards. What many had hoped would be a triumphant moment for Bhutto, who returned to her homeland after 9 years of exile, instead culminated in what was then one of the deadliest terror attacks since September 11th, 2001.

Bhutto herself narrowly escaped, only to be assassinated in an attack a mere ten weeks later.

There is no shortage of Pakistani political and social factions that opposed both Bhutto and the democratic process she gave her life for. Tribal groups, religious extremists, feudal-style landlords and corrupt bureaucrats still stand to lose power, influence and wealth to Pakistan's still-nascent, ever-struggling democracy.

Of these, perhaps the most virulent hatred of both Bhutto and democratic principals has been espoused by religious extremists, who simply could not stomach the prospect of a woman leading one of the world's most powerful Muslim nations.

Bhutto herself is said to have named names prior to the October 2007 bombing. Speaking to CNN the morning following that assassination attempt, Arnaud de Borchgrave, UPI editor-at-large and a longtime friend of Benazir Bhutto, reported that a week before the attack, Bhutto had named three men - Baitul Masood, Hamza bin Laden, and a militant affiliated with Islamabad's Red Mosque - as having been dispatched to assassinate her.

It is not publicly known how this intelligence was divulged to Ms. Bhutto, but the claim was hardly implausible. Particularly tragic is that only now, in May of 2009, as bomb after bomb rips through Pakistan's major cities has the international news media even begun to mention Baitul Masood's name with any frequency.

Baitul Masood is a Taliban leader who had emerged at least by autumn 2007, after earlier leaders were killed during American and allied offensives in Afghanistan. Masood also lead the group likely responsible for the September 2007 abduction of 250 Pakistani soldiers in South Waziristan.

Hamza bin Laden is a son of Osama bin Laden. The younger bin Laden was said to be battle-hardened as a teenager, and was already a rising figure in the Afghan al-Qaeda hierarchy at the time of the Ocotber 2007 attempt on Mrs. Bhutto.

The Red Mosque, site of July 2007's bloody conflict between local extremists and Pakistani security forces, was a symbol of the looming showdown between supporters of Taliban-style extremism and pro-democracy ." But with 2 of Pakistan's 4 provinces firmly under extremists' control since 2007, it should surprise no one that extremism has reached into Pakistan's capital, and that, as reported by Agence France-Presse nearly two years ago, that the outlying "tribal areas have become the global headquarters of the Al-Qaeda-led terrorist movement."

Media commentators now debate whether this spring's attacks are Taliban-related or the handiwork of Al Qaeda, and whether men such as Baitul Masood have concrete ties to Al Qaeda. One might surmise that working with Hamza bin Laden would be sufficient evidence of a tie to Al Qaeda, but that information seems to have slipped into the distant past.

Then again, one might also presume that having known the brutal example of Al Qaeda in Sudan, and Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, Pakistan's leadership might have seen fit to invest less interest in what America was doing next door, and invest more energy into the goings-on amongst its own ranks. Perhaps the Pakistani people themselves might have had a little insight about what was inevitably barreling down upon them.

It is true that were a great many who stood to lose much had Benazir Bhutto's come to fruition. Perhaps none more so than al-Qaeda, which found itself in need of another nation willing and able to hand itself over to become the next stomping ground of religious militants and Western armies. And while such forces surely pulled the trigger, there is perhaps as much blame for Mrs. Bhutto's assassination to be laid at the feet of the people and the politicians - the wealthy, the comfortable, the well-educated, the influential, and the powerful elite, who chose ignorance and aversion over the unsavory task of focusing their gaze on the fanaticism in their own backyard.

Recipe: Chilled Shrimp & Tomato

This is a very simple shrimp dish that I made last night. I served it hot. It was good. I refrigerated the leftovers and ate them cold for lunch today. It was even tastier served chilled, and I think that's how I'll serve this dish in the future.

Ingredients
20 jumbo shrimp
4 small, flavorful tomatoes
1 small yellow onion
2 cloves garlic
2 tbsp Parmesan cheese
1/4 cup extra virgin olive oil
1/8 cup half-and-half
1/2 a fresh lemon
freshly-ground black pepper
(salt)

Preparation

1. Peel and dice the tomatoes. Toss them well in a colander to get rid of most seeds and juice, then leave them to drain more in the colander.
2. Peel, de-vein, and remove tails from shrimp.
3. Coarsely chop the onions.
4. Chop the garlic.
5. Thoroughly juice the 1/2-lemon and remove the seeds but retain the pulp and juice in a bowl.
6. Heat the olive oil over medium heat in a wide pan.
7. Add the onions and coat them with the oil. Saute for several minutes. Do not allow onions to brown.
8. Add the garlic and continue to saute for a few minutes more, not allowing mixture to brown.
9. When onions are glossy, limp, and yellow, add some pepper, and the tomatoes, and cook for 2 or 3 minutes. Increase heat only slightly, if necessary.
10. Add the shrimp, continuing to saute.
11. When shrimp are almost pink, stir in the Parmesan cheese and cook for a minute or two.
12. Reduce heat to medium-low and stir in half-and-half. Keep stirring. Don't let sauce boil too much or the consistency can be too thick and/or grainy.
13. Reduce flame to very low (if electric stove, remove from heat) and stir in lemon juice and pulp.
14. Season with salt if necessary.
15. Serve chilled.

Notes
This dish might also work if you were to add one of the following: salt-packed capers, fresh rosemary, fresh dill, or fresh basil. It should also go well with cucumber. You can take a shortcut and use cooked, frozen shrimp; just wait a little longer to add them, and take care not to overcook them.