I saw the trailer for this movie:
Which is based on this short film:
I'm strangely fascinated...
Monday, November 15, 2010
Peace at what cost?
Last week, I attended a conference on women in Afghanistan hosted by the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Estonian Atlantic Treaty Association. One panelist was from a women's organization that seemed to be a better-organized European equivalent to Code Pink. She ruffled a few feathers when she claimed that nothing had improved for women in Afghanistan in the last few years (despite the statistics offered by other panelists that would say otherwise). Later in her speech, she claimed that war, that violence and guns, is never the answer, and that we needed UN peacekeepers, not NATO soldiers. At the very least, this took guts for her to say. A security conference is not likely to attract a crowd that is sympathetic to her argument. A faint murmur arose in the audience, many (myself included) scribbled furiously in their notebooks. The man next to me shook his head in disbelief and said to his colleague, "Absolutely from another planet, this one..."
First of all, kudos to the EMFA and EATA for including her on the panel. Honestly, I'm not sure it would have occurred to me to include someone with such strong anti-war views in a conference on security: when the goal is to discuss how to move forward on a particular UN resolution in Afghanistan, and someone doesn't think we have a right to be there in the first place, a part of me would think that this person may be counter-productive, and maybe the conference should ask someone else to speak. Having listened to the woman in the context of this conference, I still think what she had to say was a little counter-productive and distracting. However, I am glad she was there, and glad she spoke. We can all say we have considered what she told us, and our own arguments are better for having done so.
When she first told us that guns are never the answer, what I wrote down next to her name was, "Hitler, anyone?" That is one of the most clear-cut cases of when the guns must come out: madman is trying to take over a continent, trying to eliminate any undesirables in his path, and peaceful appeasement clearly had not worked. If the world stood by as this was going on because of this lofty idea that guns are never the answer, the result would have been far worse than the Srebrenica massacre- when over 8000 Bosnians were killed as UN peacekeepers watched- legally unable to do anything unless they had not been fired upon themselves. Clearly, guns are effective. But are they necessary?
Consider then the Cold War. The Soviet Empire eventually fell, and we never fought against the empire directly. (I would argue "directly" is the key word in that sentence.) However, Hitler was stopped much more quickly. Depending on when you start counting, it took anywhere from 24 years (starting the year he assumed leadership of the precursor to the Nazi party) to 6 years (starting with the invasion of Poland.) The Soviet Union lasted much longer, killed far more people within the Soviet Union- and that's before you start counting the people killed in the proxy wars. If we ignore the proxy wars for a moment, would anyone actually argue that the Cold War was morally superior to World War II? I suppose the argument would then boil down to whether more people would have died fighting the Soviets directly with guns in the short term than would have been killed by the Soviets in the long term. Of course, you'd never know the answer to this, but given that both parties involved were nuclear powers, it's plausible that a hot war would have killed more people. Of course, Afghanistan isn't nuclear (yet), so I'm not sure you can apply this argument so cleanly to the conflict in Afghanistan.
If bad people exist, and they come to power, at what point is it a moral imperative to stop them? Hitler and Stalin are extreme examples: Death tolls were in the millions, and they both had a way of making life miserable for neighboring countries. But what do you do when the death toll is in the hundred thousands? Thousands? Hundreds? Or if the injustice doesn't have a regional spillover effect? For practical reasons, a line must be drawn. For better or worse, I don't think the world wants to be in a constant state of war in order to try to maintain a perpetual peace. NATO and several partner countries have already committed themselves to Afghanistan, but NATO has had to struggle constantly against its own members placing strong caveats on the use of their troops. America is tired and overstretched. I think Europe is still traumatized from the 20th century wars, and perhaps really enjoys having the NATO safety net instead of forming stronger defenses of their own. I think many would be nervous having Russia or China police the worlds' human rights abuses. In such an era, how do you choose what is worth fighting for? It is often asked for what should we die. This question has a logical mate, but it's one we don't hear quite so often. For what should we kill? I can't pretend I have an answer, but I am quite grateful to Ms. Ebbe for bringing the question to the forefront of my mind.
First of all, kudos to the EMFA and EATA for including her on the panel. Honestly, I'm not sure it would have occurred to me to include someone with such strong anti-war views in a conference on security: when the goal is to discuss how to move forward on a particular UN resolution in Afghanistan, and someone doesn't think we have a right to be there in the first place, a part of me would think that this person may be counter-productive, and maybe the conference should ask someone else to speak. Having listened to the woman in the context of this conference, I still think what she had to say was a little counter-productive and distracting. However, I am glad she was there, and glad she spoke. We can all say we have considered what she told us, and our own arguments are better for having done so.
When she first told us that guns are never the answer, what I wrote down next to her name was, "Hitler, anyone?" That is one of the most clear-cut cases of when the guns must come out: madman is trying to take over a continent, trying to eliminate any undesirables in his path, and peaceful appeasement clearly had not worked. If the world stood by as this was going on because of this lofty idea that guns are never the answer, the result would have been far worse than the Srebrenica massacre- when over 8000 Bosnians were killed as UN peacekeepers watched- legally unable to do anything unless they had not been fired upon themselves. Clearly, guns are effective. But are they necessary?
Consider then the Cold War. The Soviet Empire eventually fell, and we never fought against the empire directly. (I would argue "directly" is the key word in that sentence.) However, Hitler was stopped much more quickly. Depending on when you start counting, it took anywhere from 24 years (starting the year he assumed leadership of the precursor to the Nazi party) to 6 years (starting with the invasion of Poland.) The Soviet Union lasted much longer, killed far more people within the Soviet Union- and that's before you start counting the people killed in the proxy wars. If we ignore the proxy wars for a moment, would anyone actually argue that the Cold War was morally superior to World War II? I suppose the argument would then boil down to whether more people would have died fighting the Soviets directly with guns in the short term than would have been killed by the Soviets in the long term. Of course, you'd never know the answer to this, but given that both parties involved were nuclear powers, it's plausible that a hot war would have killed more people. Of course, Afghanistan isn't nuclear (yet), so I'm not sure you can apply this argument so cleanly to the conflict in Afghanistan.
If bad people exist, and they come to power, at what point is it a moral imperative to stop them? Hitler and Stalin are extreme examples: Death tolls were in the millions, and they both had a way of making life miserable for neighboring countries. But what do you do when the death toll is in the hundred thousands? Thousands? Hundreds? Or if the injustice doesn't have a regional spillover effect? For practical reasons, a line must be drawn. For better or worse, I don't think the world wants to be in a constant state of war in order to try to maintain a perpetual peace. NATO and several partner countries have already committed themselves to Afghanistan, but NATO has had to struggle constantly against its own members placing strong caveats on the use of their troops. America is tired and overstretched. I think Europe is still traumatized from the 20th century wars, and perhaps really enjoys having the NATO safety net instead of forming stronger defenses of their own. I think many would be nervous having Russia or China police the worlds' human rights abuses. In such an era, how do you choose what is worth fighting for? It is often asked for what should we die. This question has a logical mate, but it's one we don't hear quite so often. For what should we kill? I can't pretend I have an answer, but I am quite grateful to Ms. Ebbe for bringing the question to the forefront of my mind.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Same same, but different
A few weeks ago, the Goethe Institute hosted a German film festival in Tallinn. I had a friend visiting from Germany, and one of my flatmates is Austrian, so we decided to check out a film called "Same Same but Different." In short, the film is about a young German tourist that falls in love with a Cambodian prostitute, finds out she is HIV-positive, and does all he can to ensure that she gets the proper medicine. The film ends with the recently-married couple discovering that she is pregnant. The real life couple on whom the film is based is still married, and the husband is still HIV-negative.
While much can be said about the film itself, what struck me most was the trailer.
The German phrase roughly translates to "In your early twenties, are you ready for the love of your life?" Ignore for the second that that phrase is a gross misrepresentation of the film... I'm not sure I would be ready to discover the love of my life is HIV-positive at ANY age. Aside from that, I can sort of see why this ad campaign might work in Europe. Several people I know seem to think that 28 might be an early age to get married. Meanwhile, it a lot of my American friends seem to think that 25 or 26 is the ideal age to get married. If I met the love of my life tomorrow, I wouldn't marry him next month, (after all, if he is the love of my life, he'll still be around in a few years, right?), but I wouldn't spend so much time trying to convince myself that he cannot possibly be "the one" because I'm only at the verge of my 23rd birthday. The film's protagonist seemed almost as concerned that he was 21 as he was concerned that this woman is in Cambodia and HIV-positive. So what do you think? If you were asked if you wanted to see a movie about meeting the love of your life in your early 20s and wondering if you were ready, would you actually want to see it? To me, it just seems too normal.
While much can be said about the film itself, what struck me most was the trailer.
The German phrase roughly translates to "In your early twenties, are you ready for the love of your life?" Ignore for the second that that phrase is a gross misrepresentation of the film... I'm not sure I would be ready to discover the love of my life is HIV-positive at ANY age. Aside from that, I can sort of see why this ad campaign might work in Europe. Several people I know seem to think that 28 might be an early age to get married. Meanwhile, it a lot of my American friends seem to think that 25 or 26 is the ideal age to get married. If I met the love of my life tomorrow, I wouldn't marry him next month, (after all, if he is the love of my life, he'll still be around in a few years, right?), but I wouldn't spend so much time trying to convince myself that he cannot possibly be "the one" because I'm only at the verge of my 23rd birthday. The film's protagonist seemed almost as concerned that he was 21 as he was concerned that this woman is in Cambodia and HIV-positive. So what do you think? If you were asked if you wanted to see a movie about meeting the love of your life in your early 20s and wondering if you were ready, would you actually want to see it? To me, it just seems too normal.
Autumn
Today is November 3. It is a fairly mild day, meaning we have a high of 48F/9C. I am wearing a long-sleeved shirt, a cardigan, a pea coat, scarf, gloves, wool cap, two pairs of stockings under my jeans, and boots. Most days, the cold doesn't bother me that much, but today I am especially put off by it. I've decided it has something to do with the fact that my dad texted me to tell me that it will be in the upper 80s back home.
It's ok. I will make hot chocolate with the mix my good friend Emily gave me as a "Thanks for letting me crash at your place for a week" gift, and all will be right in the world again.
It's ok. I will make hot chocolate with the mix my good friend Emily gave me as a "Thanks for letting me crash at your place for a week" gift, and all will be right in the world again.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The United States of Europe
One of my biggest pet peeves when discussing the United States with Europeans is the tendency some have to think we are all the same. I think if you know ONE thing about American politics, it would be how polarized it is. And despite this view some have of us being gun-toting, Republican-voting cowboys, they all want to go to New York, which is NOTHING like that. When I was studying in France at the height of the Bush administration, I learned quickly that people will be MUCH nicer to you if you identify yourself as being from California instead of saying you're from the United States.
Amidst the British budget cuts and the French protests-turned-riots, I've started to notice that Americans are just as guilty when it comes to Europe. I've read a lot of smug commentary about the "European system" is failing- and most of these articles have nothing to do with the EU. Look in American newspapers, and you'll find talk about entitled Europeans who would riot when the government tries to raise the low retirement age. Yes, this happened in France and Greece... but where are the riots in the rest of Europe? We talk about how the European social welfare system is a failure, and how the tax rates destroys their economy. This is a strange assessment considering that one of the few countries that can be smug during this recession is Germany. Real Clear Politics just published this article about how Americans have a stronger work ethic than Europeans, and I find myself wanting to ask the author if he has ever been to Estonia or Germany? (Just to single out two countries I've lived in where I've found the locals to be very hard-working.)
Lumping California and Texas together in terms of culture and governance because they are both American states is ridiculous. Los Angeles and New York are NOT the same city. Even Los Angeles and San Francisco have very different cultures. The United States and Mexico differ in several respects despite being neighbors. So why are Americans so comfortable thinking that France represents the whole of Europe?
Amidst the British budget cuts and the French protests-turned-riots, I've started to notice that Americans are just as guilty when it comes to Europe. I've read a lot of smug commentary about the "European system" is failing- and most of these articles have nothing to do with the EU. Look in American newspapers, and you'll find talk about entitled Europeans who would riot when the government tries to raise the low retirement age. Yes, this happened in France and Greece... but where are the riots in the rest of Europe? We talk about how the European social welfare system is a failure, and how the tax rates destroys their economy. This is a strange assessment considering that one of the few countries that can be smug during this recession is Germany. Real Clear Politics just published this article about how Americans have a stronger work ethic than Europeans, and I find myself wanting to ask the author if he has ever been to Estonia or Germany? (Just to single out two countries I've lived in where I've found the locals to be very hard-working.)
Lumping California and Texas together in terms of culture and governance because they are both American states is ridiculous. Los Angeles and New York are NOT the same city. Even Los Angeles and San Francisco have very different cultures. The United States and Mexico differ in several respects despite being neighbors. So why are Americans so comfortable thinking that France represents the whole of Europe?
Did they teach you that in medical school?
After a twenty minute tram ride, and another twenty minutes trying to find an office that's only three minutes from the tram stop, I arrived at my most recent medical appointment. The nurse calls me in, tells me where to put my coat and shoes, then asks me to "Go inside, lay down, and open your stomach. The doctor will come looking for it shortly."
I sort of wanted to just point to my belly and say, "Oh, don't worry, here it is."
I sort of wanted to just point to my belly and say, "Oh, don't worry, here it is."
Uks kohv, palun
"One coffee, please," may well be my most-used phrase in Estonian after "hello" and "thank you."
One aspect of Estonia that I've absolutely fallen in love with is the strong, lively cafe culture here. Not a Starbucks in sight, I have had to try the various cafes one by one in order to find the one to call my own. It's an on-going process- I'll probably still be trying out new cafes as I am packing my bags to leave next summer: but here are a few contenders for "favorite."
Kehr Wieder
One of my cardinal travel rules is to avoid the cafes with terraces on a big tourist location: it will normally be twice as expensive, not as good, and the locals won't go near it. Luckily, when my friends and I discovered this gem- located on the Town Hall Square- on a trip to Tallinn in 2008, we found the side entrance and didn't know we were about to break our own rule. It is one of the more expensive cafes I frequent, but it is just as good, and there are always several locals. To tell you the influence Kehr Wieder has on the local cafe scene: its website is www.kohvik.ee, which would be the equivalent of www.cafe.com in the US.
The cafe is slightly below ground, lit mostly by the candles on the tables, and is full of comfy chairs and sofas. I've found the melted chocolate reminiscent of Madrid's Chocolateria San Gines and Angelina's in Paris. Take a bar of very rich, expensive chocolate, melt it, and dip pastry in it, and you have an idea of how good this is. Heavenly. :) My favorite drink here is "meekohv," a latte made with lots of honey and cinnamon. A coffee or tea is 32 EEK, a meekohv is 55 EEK. (1 USD is about 11.25 EEK.)
Kohvik Kompott
This bright cafe is about 60 seconds away from my apartment, so I find myself here just about every time I don't want to cook. I've written several blog posts, including this one, here. My favorite part of the cafe is its unique decorations: I'm sitting at an old sewing table. The lightbulbs on the wall above me are covered by cheese graters, and the lights which hang from the ceiling are in jars full of colored lightbulbs. My favorite item on the (very inexpensive!) menu is the potato and smoked cheese soup, which they serve with rye bread and garlic butter. Before my student discount, the soup is 39 EEK.
Gourmet Coffee
As the name suggests, this is the coffee-lover's cafe in Tallinn: They must have at least twenty types of coffee beans to pick from. If you're not busy, the very helpful staff will help you pick the right blend. However, what's much more fun is to just get the "thermos coffee." Each day, they have one or two brews out, and you can get a mug for 25 EEK, and fill it as many times as you want. Sitting in this cafe feels rather like sipping coffee in the living room of your (very wealthy) grandmother. No wonder a local film crew showed up to shoot a movie scene here during my last visit.
Chocolaterie la Pierre
I took these two photos on my first visit. I don't think I need to say more. :)
One aspect of Estonia that I've absolutely fallen in love with is the strong, lively cafe culture here. Not a Starbucks in sight, I have had to try the various cafes one by one in order to find the one to call my own. It's an on-going process- I'll probably still be trying out new cafes as I am packing my bags to leave next summer: but here are a few contenders for "favorite."
Kehr Wieder
One of my cardinal travel rules is to avoid the cafes with terraces on a big tourist location: it will normally be twice as expensive, not as good, and the locals won't go near it. Luckily, when my friends and I discovered this gem- located on the Town Hall Square- on a trip to Tallinn in 2008, we found the side entrance and didn't know we were about to break our own rule. It is one of the more expensive cafes I frequent, but it is just as good, and there are always several locals. To tell you the influence Kehr Wieder has on the local cafe scene: its website is www.kohvik.ee, which would be the equivalent of www.cafe.com in the US.
The cafe is slightly below ground, lit mostly by the candles on the tables, and is full of comfy chairs and sofas. I've found the melted chocolate reminiscent of Madrid's Chocolateria San Gines and Angelina's in Paris. Take a bar of very rich, expensive chocolate, melt it, and dip pastry in it, and you have an idea of how good this is. Heavenly. :) My favorite drink here is "meekohv," a latte made with lots of honey and cinnamon. A coffee or tea is 32 EEK, a meekohv is 55 EEK. (1 USD is about 11.25 EEK.)Kohvik Kompott
This bright cafe is about 60 seconds away from my apartment, so I find myself here just about every time I don't want to cook. I've written several blog posts, including this one, here. My favorite part of the cafe is its unique decorations: I'm sitting at an old sewing table. The lightbulbs on the wall above me are covered by cheese graters, and the lights which hang from the ceiling are in jars full of colored lightbulbs. My favorite item on the (very inexpensive!) menu is the potato and smoked cheese soup, which they serve with rye bread and garlic butter. Before my student discount, the soup is 39 EEK. Gourmet Coffee
As the name suggests, this is the coffee-lover's cafe in Tallinn: They must have at least twenty types of coffee beans to pick from. If you're not busy, the very helpful staff will help you pick the right blend. However, what's much more fun is to just get the "thermos coffee." Each day, they have one or two brews out, and you can get a mug for 25 EEK, and fill it as many times as you want. Sitting in this cafe feels rather like sipping coffee in the living room of your (very wealthy) grandmother. No wonder a local film crew showed up to shoot a movie scene here during my last visit.
Chocolaterie la Pierre
I took these two photos on my first visit. I don't think I need to say more. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)