What happens when an entrenched system faces competition?
We found some of this out last week. For years, I have been working with a diverse group of people to promote that all people know their HIV-status as the starting point for stopping the spread of HIV (see www.mosaicinitiative.org for more about this work). We have worked with HIV/AIDS organizations in Illinois, DC and western Kenya. I have seen people who want to volunteer their time to helping stop the spread of HIV, and be told that they can deliver meals once a week. I’ve met with senators, elected officials, and other government folks to see what we can do to make testing more accessible – including making tests more portable, and removing the pre-test history questions from the process. All to no avail, despite conflicting messages and policies between federal and state authorities. There has been a protective nature to tests and testing that borders on territorial. I have seen people turned away because there are not enough tests, while also hearing that testing is being under-utilized in other areas. I’ve seen “Catch-22’s” where there are no laws against distributing HIV-tests, but no access to acquiring tests. And I’ve seen panel discussions where organizations blame everyone else and call for National Strategies, but resist change. No wonder HIV continues to spread – the institutions need it to stay viable.
A chink in all of this took place last week. A few weeks ago, I heard about a home test kit that can be purchased on-line (http://www.anytestkits.com/hiv-aids-test-kit.htm). It’s not FDA-approved, but I ordered some anyway. We started to promote that we were going to be distributing these tests. Out of the blue, last week 8 FDA administrators got on a conference call to tell me to cease and desist. I responded that, unless there could be some kind of movement (speeding up FDA approval of home-test kits or removal of pre-test questions to name two possibilities) that I did not see why I should. Plus, after years of trying to reach people to see how we can make a difference, it took possession of these tests to catch attention. Now, a week later, there has been a meeting with one of these FDA people, plus the head of the White House office on AIDS and an MD within CDC who has done research to support greater access to and portability of tests. In talking with these folks, one thing is clear: the current system is not working. The other thing that is clear is that “AIDS, Inc.” is as entrenched in maintaining the status quo as anything else that is out there. Perhaps what has been most interesting is the extent to which people have been forthcoming with information, although there is tacit agreement that much of this information is “off the record”.
Interestingly, as we promoted and collected signatures for home-based HIV-testing (or, perhaps more appropriately, since we are really looking to promote a creative dialog, we should call it “portable testing”), it has been mostly the white gay community that has been the least receptive to this idea. I think there are two possible theories: the gay community still very much carries the scars and trauma of AIDS, and/or AIDS was the first legitimate social institution to have openly gay people leading. It has also been gay people that have said we have to do testing within the law. I maintain: when did any good laws come about without the bad laws being broken?
So, what to take from this:
• Viable options creates more opportunities for change than simply staying within the status quo.
• There has not been a real new idea regarding HIV-prevention. “Portable testing” might be just the ticket to spur new, creative dialog. Look at the doors possession of such tests opened.
• When you can catch people’s attention, you can take a 30 second conversation and turn it into a 5 minute conversation. For example, when someone says he/she is against home-testing, consider where these might be useful (i.e. for women who take home-pregnancy tests, or for repeat testers, or for couples where one partner is positive). I like to envision doing college classes, with visualizations of testing, and then giving options for testing.
• For HIV-testing organizations that say they want to empower people, I say you don’t empower by limiting options.
• On the sly, I was also told by a reliable source that the US-approved HIV-tests are inferior to what are used in other parts of the world.
• I have also now seen research that shows:
o 93.6% of people who do home-sample collections can do it accurately. 95% of clinics do it accurately. So the issue of poor sampling at home is minimal.
o The majority of people who do home-sample collections (the Home Access mail-in tests) are people who would not go to an MD or clinic for an HIV-test).
o People who have access to testing of any type are 47 times less likely to contract HIV.
Where do we go from here? I’m going to be following up with exerting pressure to speed up and open up approvals for options. I’ll also see how we can help facilitate community dialogs and pilot programs. One of the messages is that we don’t need a multi-million dollar marketing campaign to raise awareness; we need a 2 year campaign to get everyone to know his/her status, and we need to change the starting pronoun from “them” to “us”, including all of us.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Home-based HIV-testing and the AIDS Inc. Racket
There was a time when people with HIV and those around them were actively banging on and banging down doors of legislators, public health officials, and pharmaceutical companies. If there was even a whiff of a possible treatment there were calls, letters, and protests to get these treatments out to people with HIV even if the treatments had not completed their rigorous trial phases. At the same time, countless alternative and experimental treatments were being done. Some of these at worst were benign (such as massage, acupuncture, meditations, etc.), and for many of us, were instrumental to our need to stay actively engaged in our treatment. There were other types of remedies that were being promoted – such as drinking one’s own urine – that spoke to the desperation of the times. Clearly, the big enemies of the times were the politicians, federal regulators, and the corporate pharmaceutical companies that were slow on investing in the development of products that could help slow the progress of the virus.
At the same time, there emerged a similar fight around means to stop the spread of HIV Condom distribution and needle-exchange programs continue to be political and cultural hot-potatoes, as the liberal left tend to be for full-dissemination of these programs, whereas the conservative right tend to resist such programs, regardless of statistics. The two sides have become so polarized that they often don’t see the emerging new threats out there such as the energized gay porn industry that is increasingly marketing unprotected sex, and the rise in unprotected sex in bath houses, events like the International Male Leather convention in Chicago every Memorial Day, and in solicitations on-line. This, for much of the gay HIV-industry, is like the crazy aunt. We know she’s there and a member of the family, but we don’t dare speak too loudly about it lest our enemies catch wind of what’s going on. Some of this has to do with an AIDS bureaucracy that, to this day, still has not adopted its message about HIV/AIDS to meet the new realities – that HIV is not the deadly disease it was, but is very much something we don’t want to see spreading. This is really a topic for another time.
Despite all of this, however, there is one interesting observation that I have seen over the past few month, that I find both interesting and troubling: home-based testing. For clarity’s sake, home-based testing is simply a test that one can self-administer and get the results within 20 minutes. The technology for doing this has existed for twenty years – it’s a simple assay test that screens for HIV anti-bodies It’s the same test that one gets in a clinic. For many who are afraid to go to clinics to get tested because of the lack of anonymity (you can’t be anonymous if you have to go to a public place, can you?), or for those who live in areas where medical providers may not be warm to the idea of testing their patients, or for those who do home-pregnancy tests and want to also make sure of their HIV-status, or for those who are in mixed “HIV” relationships and want to simply do what they can to insure that they are being responsible, or for those who are willing to spend $10 for a test at home rather than go through a lengthy process, or for countless other reasons, the option of home-tests may be just the kind of thing that can help people access testing and ultimately slow the spread of HIV.
So, where’s the outrage? Why is the FDA making Orasure, one of the manufacturers of self-administered HIV-tests (the very ones that are used in many HIV-testing clinics) go through a lengthy process to get approval to sell these directly to the general public? Where are all those organizations and activists that are demanding more funds and looser rules regarding needle-exchange programs, condom distribution, and mobile testing units? Why aren’t they lining up demanding that the FDA speed up this process, just as they did with HIV-medications that we now know were sped through an approval process despite minimal positive effect and high toxicity? Because they are lined up against approval of greater distribution of self-administered HIV-tests, and for many of them, testing is a job.
I have been engaged recently in an effort to advocate for approval and dissemination of self-administered tests. Perhaps naively at first, I was taken aback by the resistance of HIV-testing organizations. Over time, as I have settled into listening to the reasons why there is the resistance, I have come to see that many of the concerns are not permanent barriers. But there is a lack of conversation stifles creativity and possibility. Furthermore, many of the concerns about home-based testing already exist: many people do not follow-up with care, and the current tracking system is not accurate (notice the sharp increase in the estimates of newly-infected last year from 40,000 to 56,000 – still just estimates), nor is it timely as it tends to track where the leading edge of the virus has already been, not where it is going next. Finally, if the current system worked well, there would be no need for this conversation.
Cynically, I have to say that what I have seen is this: the very people who were demanding more action twenty years ago to get government to do something, still will make demands, but have also staked a turf around testing and do not want to see that go away. I don’t think that there is a real consciousness on the parts of the people working in these systems to do this: I really think it is more a matter of a movement becoming an institution (and perhaps becoming a bit of a racket).
One of my favorite expressions: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Other than when applied to computers, this generally holds true. I am not saying that home-based, self-administered testing will solve all the problems. But I do think it can bring about a new level of dialog and passion. That’s what we are venturing into (see www.dontguess-test.com). Join us.
At the same time, there emerged a similar fight around means to stop the spread of HIV Condom distribution and needle-exchange programs continue to be political and cultural hot-potatoes, as the liberal left tend to be for full-dissemination of these programs, whereas the conservative right tend to resist such programs, regardless of statistics. The two sides have become so polarized that they often don’t see the emerging new threats out there such as the energized gay porn industry that is increasingly marketing unprotected sex, and the rise in unprotected sex in bath houses, events like the International Male Leather convention in Chicago every Memorial Day, and in solicitations on-line. This, for much of the gay HIV-industry, is like the crazy aunt. We know she’s there and a member of the family, but we don’t dare speak too loudly about it lest our enemies catch wind of what’s going on. Some of this has to do with an AIDS bureaucracy that, to this day, still has not adopted its message about HIV/AIDS to meet the new realities – that HIV is not the deadly disease it was, but is very much something we don’t want to see spreading. This is really a topic for another time.
Despite all of this, however, there is one interesting observation that I have seen over the past few month, that I find both interesting and troubling: home-based testing. For clarity’s sake, home-based testing is simply a test that one can self-administer and get the results within 20 minutes. The technology for doing this has existed for twenty years – it’s a simple assay test that screens for HIV anti-bodies It’s the same test that one gets in a clinic. For many who are afraid to go to clinics to get tested because of the lack of anonymity (you can’t be anonymous if you have to go to a public place, can you?), or for those who live in areas where medical providers may not be warm to the idea of testing their patients, or for those who do home-pregnancy tests and want to also make sure of their HIV-status, or for those who are in mixed “HIV” relationships and want to simply do what they can to insure that they are being responsible, or for those who are willing to spend $10 for a test at home rather than go through a lengthy process, or for countless other reasons, the option of home-tests may be just the kind of thing that can help people access testing and ultimately slow the spread of HIV.
So, where’s the outrage? Why is the FDA making Orasure, one of the manufacturers of self-administered HIV-tests (the very ones that are used in many HIV-testing clinics) go through a lengthy process to get approval to sell these directly to the general public? Where are all those organizations and activists that are demanding more funds and looser rules regarding needle-exchange programs, condom distribution, and mobile testing units? Why aren’t they lining up demanding that the FDA speed up this process, just as they did with HIV-medications that we now know were sped through an approval process despite minimal positive effect and high toxicity? Because they are lined up against approval of greater distribution of self-administered HIV-tests, and for many of them, testing is a job.
I have been engaged recently in an effort to advocate for approval and dissemination of self-administered tests. Perhaps naively at first, I was taken aback by the resistance of HIV-testing organizations. Over time, as I have settled into listening to the reasons why there is the resistance, I have come to see that many of the concerns are not permanent barriers. But there is a lack of conversation stifles creativity and possibility. Furthermore, many of the concerns about home-based testing already exist: many people do not follow-up with care, and the current tracking system is not accurate (notice the sharp increase in the estimates of newly-infected last year from 40,000 to 56,000 – still just estimates), nor is it timely as it tends to track where the leading edge of the virus has already been, not where it is going next. Finally, if the current system worked well, there would be no need for this conversation.
Cynically, I have to say that what I have seen is this: the very people who were demanding more action twenty years ago to get government to do something, still will make demands, but have also staked a turf around testing and do not want to see that go away. I don’t think that there is a real consciousness on the parts of the people working in these systems to do this: I really think it is more a matter of a movement becoming an institution (and perhaps becoming a bit of a racket).
One of my favorite expressions: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Other than when applied to computers, this generally holds true. I am not saying that home-based, self-administered testing will solve all the problems. But I do think it can bring about a new level of dialog and passion. That’s what we are venturing into (see www.dontguess-test.com). Join us.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Gays
In this morning's Washington Post, some military folks wrote an editorial about gays in the military - and how they should not be allowed (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041402704.html). What is most interesting for me is not so much what these writers adhere to (and the amazing loopholes in their thinking - it's not as if you can tell who's gay by his/her skin color, and it is not uncommon for people to come to grips with their sexual orientation at about the same time they would be in the military); what is most interesting are the comments made by readers. They are a clear example of the desperate need for the art of dialog. I have written before that love and logic will be the means through which our world will come together; both of these are necessary. Unfortunately, we too often start with logic; I think we need to start more with love, and then engage in dialog. (Perhaps one of the internal dialogs could also be that we actually support no gays in the military as a starting point to getting everyone out?)
I also think learning, practicing and engaging in dialog that is led by love is something that those of us who are truly passionate about non-violence and doing what we can to remove the occasions for future violence should start to embrace. Anywhere we turn in the world, it seems that there is an edge of violence in the air, and we can expect more as people become more fearful, and more vulnerable. I know that for many, glbt issues are not at the forefront of people's minds but, as with HIV-prevention, I think that how we can engage in these issues can be good opportunities for practicing how to deal with some of the more difficult issues. The issues are becoming more prominent in the media (two examples: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid78359.asp, and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041403455.html), so we may as well get involved.
I also think learning, practicing and engaging in dialog that is led by love is something that those of us who are truly passionate about non-violence and doing what we can to remove the occasions for future violence should start to embrace. Anywhere we turn in the world, it seems that there is an edge of violence in the air, and we can expect more as people become more fearful, and more vulnerable. I know that for many, glbt issues are not at the forefront of people's minds but, as with HIV-prevention, I think that how we can engage in these issues can be good opportunities for practicing how to deal with some of the more difficult issues. The issues are becoming more prominent in the media (two examples: http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid78359.asp, and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/14/AR2009041403455.html), so we may as well get involved.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Progress on Gay Rights
Over the past few months, there has been an enormous amount of movement on the rights of same gender-couples to get married. We all know about California and the voter decision to support Prop 8. There was also, in November, legislation in Florida and Arizona that put various restrictions on same gender families. But then, this week alone, Iowa courts and Vermont legislature made same-gender marriage a reality in those states. The District of Columbia is taking similar action. On a national level, there has been increased discussion about letting civil unions be the rule of the land for all people, and marriages be the acts of churches - a compromise that for many seems to have merit.
At the same time, in Iraq, (see NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/middleeast/08gay.html?_r=1&emc=eta1) there is a backlash in some of the more conservative regions against gay men. As quoted from the article: "Clerics in Sadr City have urged followers to help root out homosexuality in Iraqi society, and the police have begun their own crackdown on gay men. 'Homosexuality is against the law,' said Lt. Muthana Shaad, at a police station in the Karada district, a neighborhood that has become popular with gay men. 'And it’s disgusting.' For the past four months, he said, officers have been engaged in a 'campaign to clean up the streets and get the beggars and homosexuals off them.'”
All progress has elements of violent reactivity. No doubt that there is a rapid change in the expansion of gay rights, but we can expect an increase in reactivity as well, unfortunately. It always seems to be a part of the struggle.
I think it is important that we as Friends and Friend-communities look to see what we can do to support the movement. Paradoxically, I do not think that what we should do is create a litmus test for gay marriage. I just don't think society as a whole is there yet. But I think we can create allies for gay marriage among those whom are not yet there, but who are repulsed by people such as Fred Phelps (see www.godhatesfags.com), and by the attitudes of Lt. Shaad as quoted in the Times. Patience and perseverance will get us there, with a dash of faith. We know that opponents to gay marriage are gearing up, and their tactic is going to be to divide, and let gay marriage be the dividing issue. If we react along these lines, rather than continue to reach across these lines to those who are not at the far extreme but just on other side of the line, we will do more harm than good. To react divisively plays right into the "us vs. them" game. I, for one, will continue to look to expand who the "us" is rather than focus on "them".
At the same time, in Iraq, (see NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/world/middleeast/08gay.html?_r=1&emc=eta1) there is a backlash in some of the more conservative regions against gay men. As quoted from the article: "Clerics in Sadr City have urged followers to help root out homosexuality in Iraqi society, and the police have begun their own crackdown on gay men. 'Homosexuality is against the law,' said Lt. Muthana Shaad, at a police station in the Karada district, a neighborhood that has become popular with gay men. 'And it’s disgusting.' For the past four months, he said, officers have been engaged in a 'campaign to clean up the streets and get the beggars and homosexuals off them.'”
All progress has elements of violent reactivity. No doubt that there is a rapid change in the expansion of gay rights, but we can expect an increase in reactivity as well, unfortunately. It always seems to be a part of the struggle.
I think it is important that we as Friends and Friend-communities look to see what we can do to support the movement. Paradoxically, I do not think that what we should do is create a litmus test for gay marriage. I just don't think society as a whole is there yet. But I think we can create allies for gay marriage among those whom are not yet there, but who are repulsed by people such as Fred Phelps (see www.godhatesfags.com), and by the attitudes of Lt. Shaad as quoted in the Times. Patience and perseverance will get us there, with a dash of faith. We know that opponents to gay marriage are gearing up, and their tactic is going to be to divide, and let gay marriage be the dividing issue. If we react along these lines, rather than continue to reach across these lines to those who are not at the far extreme but just on other side of the line, we will do more harm than good. To react divisively plays right into the "us vs. them" game. I, for one, will continue to look to expand who the "us" is rather than focus on "them".
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Voting Rights vs. Statehood
As recently as Sunday afternoon (three days ago), I would have been much more joyful about the prospect of the citizens of Washington, DC getting a vote in the House of Representatives, and very skeptical of the notion of statehood ("are you kidding me? A governor, statehouse, two senators, etc., all for one city?" I thought).
Then, along comes Mike Brown, one of the Districts two elected "Shadow senators", and within 15 minutes, there goes my worldview (again!) Here's what I quickly learned:
1. Getting a vote on the house floor will not effectively change the governmental structure of the District, nor will it give the government any more autonomy.
2. The trade-off at the house level is that Utah will be granted a new seat in the house as well, giving that state 4 seats (and almost assuredly a Republican seat knowing that Utah is, by voting record, the most Republican state in the nation).
So, while the citizens of the District will most assuredly now have a voting person in congress, the District government will be no more autonomous, and in fact could very-well be further away from that autonomy. Why? Becuase on a national level there could very much be a sense that now that there is a voting voice in the House, the District should just be quiet about any other complaints.
What other complaints could there be? Well, here's three examples:
1. This city, with its high rates of HIV, cannot establish its own policies regarding such things as needle-exchange programs (which have been proven to be effective in reducing HIV-transmission). Thankfully, last year, President Bush authorized needle-exchange for the district, but it should not come to this.
2. The district cannot tax the incomes of people who work in the district but live in Maryland and Virginia. This is the only city in the country not doing this. As the Brookings Institute pointed out, it's like a restaurant being forced to serve all-comers, but only being able to charge one-third of the clientele.
3. The federal government effectively can establish gun laws in the District, moreso than in any other city.
This lack of autonomy effects so many things, including environmental policies, water policies, education policies, and the list goes on.
This city has so many challenges - internally and externally. It is a very divided city (just sit in Starbucks in Potomac Palisades, and Starbucks by Eastern Market, and you'll see the difference - and that's just within Starbucks). It has such a long history of disenfranchisement. That history continues. So, while it seems certain that there will finally be a DC voice (1 in 436) on the House floor, and Holmes-Norton may finally get her wish, it may be the long-time citizens of the District who will continue to suffer.
Then, along comes Mike Brown, one of the Districts two elected "Shadow senators", and within 15 minutes, there goes my worldview (again!) Here's what I quickly learned:
1. Getting a vote on the house floor will not effectively change the governmental structure of the District, nor will it give the government any more autonomy.
2. The trade-off at the house level is that Utah will be granted a new seat in the house as well, giving that state 4 seats (and almost assuredly a Republican seat knowing that Utah is, by voting record, the most Republican state in the nation).
So, while the citizens of the District will most assuredly now have a voting person in congress, the District government will be no more autonomous, and in fact could very-well be further away from that autonomy. Why? Becuase on a national level there could very much be a sense that now that there is a voting voice in the House, the District should just be quiet about any other complaints.
What other complaints could there be? Well, here's three examples:
1. This city, with its high rates of HIV, cannot establish its own policies regarding such things as needle-exchange programs (which have been proven to be effective in reducing HIV-transmission). Thankfully, last year, President Bush authorized needle-exchange for the district, but it should not come to this.
2. The district cannot tax the incomes of people who work in the district but live in Maryland and Virginia. This is the only city in the country not doing this. As the Brookings Institute pointed out, it's like a restaurant being forced to serve all-comers, but only being able to charge one-third of the clientele.
3. The federal government effectively can establish gun laws in the District, moreso than in any other city.
This lack of autonomy effects so many things, including environmental policies, water policies, education policies, and the list goes on.
This city has so many challenges - internally and externally. It is a very divided city (just sit in Starbucks in Potomac Palisades, and Starbucks by Eastern Market, and you'll see the difference - and that's just within Starbucks). It has such a long history of disenfranchisement. That history continues. So, while it seems certain that there will finally be a DC voice (1 in 436) on the House floor, and Holmes-Norton may finally get her wish, it may be the long-time citizens of the District who will continue to suffer.
Monday, February 9, 2009
A model of non-violence is detained
Over this past weekend, I heard through the facebook network that Phil Rizk, someone I had known when he was at Wheaton College, had been abducted by the Egyptian police. The circumstances surrounding Phil’s detention are still not clear, and are unfolding as I write this. Phil’s parents have gone to Cairo to be with his sister and to do what they can to get Phil released (Phil is half-Egyptian and half-German). Amnesty International has sent lawyers in to protect the family from unwarranted harassment by the police (who were apparently trying to force Phil’s father to go with them to the police station as well, and were doing illegal searches of home and office without warrants). Technology (in this case facebook) has allowed hundreds of us who know Phil to follow things minute by minute. It has been as eye-opening as it is troubling to get e-mails and updates of what is happening in the moment, as opposed to an event that is in the recent past, for example, seeing posting from Phil’s sister asking people to make calls for an immediate intervention.
I first met Phil in late 2002. He was a junior at Wheaton College, and had become actively involved in Student Global AIDS Campaign fresh on the heels of Bono’s Midwest AIDS/Poverty caravan. Phil and a fellow student, Brian Davis, were the two early leaders of SGAC on this Christian campus, and were also two of the handful of students who fairly quickly looked beyond AIDS in Africa, building relationships with local people with HIV (such as myself) and local services (such as the one I was working for). The passion, compassion, and thoughtfulness of Phil and Brian (I also need to mention John Campen here as well) opened my eyes to something I had not expected: openness, respectfulness, and a profound dedication to service and making the world a better place. All three of them continue to be models for doing what Quaker author Parker Palmer wrote about – letting one’s life speak. John remains dedicated to his love of music and his dedication to family – sharing the joys and the struggles with friends and family while addressing some of the social and corporate inequities of our world. Brian has spent much of his post-college career with his now-wife Susan in Kenya and Uganda committed to serving others, most recently opening up a cyber-café in Uganda that is both a social and a training center for youth. He and Susan have also included me in family events both in Illinois and in Kenya, further crumbling the misperceptions I had about Christians and not just tolerance but real acceptance of sexual diversity.
But it is Phil I really want to write about. While I have kept in some contact with Brian and John over the years, I lost touch with Phil. After helping open the door for Wheaton College to get involved in HIV/AIDS work, I remember Phil spending his last winter college break in Iraq – this was after the US invasion. Phil went on a mission trip to try and bring healing and reconciliation through community-building. After that, we maybe saw each other once more before he graduated. Then, earlier this year, came across a blog written by Phil. Apparently he had been spending much of his time in the West Bank, mainly, from what I could tell, writing about the impact that the Israeli/Hamas battles were having on Palestinians. He has also done some films that are meant to simply bear witness to the day-do-day lives of people caught in the crossfire (To see more, go to http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=18931) It seems that it is because of some of these writings and films, and his subsequent involvement in calls for action that focused on human rights over nationalism, that he has been apprehended (he was part of a demonstration in Cairo over the weekend; all the other demonstrators were released).
For those of us who consider ourselves pacifists, I think all three of these young men are models for us, and in very different ways. John demonstrates the importance of caring for family and friends (it was John who first drew my attention to Phil’s plight), and Brian completely dedicates and immerses himself in what he does. Unlike so many people who stay in the comfort of their own homes and try to solve problems elsewhere, Brian and Susan have completely dedicated their lives to what they are doing.
Phil takes this to an entirely different level. He has gone into the heart of conflict – first Iraq, then the West Bank – not to engage in military conflict, but to intervene on behalf of human rights. A quote from the article linked above says it best about Phil’s latest movie: The other unspoken message that Rizk captures through his lens is a creed of nonviolent resistance that each of the individuals portrayed in the film have made part of their daily lives. In continuing to cultivate fields, rebuild destroyed homes and simply refusing to yield their places on the land to others, these Palestinians embody a relentless steadfastness, shunning the weapons of their adversaries that would’ve automatically allowed the world to question their moral authority had they been employed. For Rizk, showing the rootedness of nonviolent resistance in the lives of his characters was a central aim of the film. “We wanted to address the fact that violent forms of resistance, widely reported by international media outlets, overshadow more common non-violent forms of Palestinian resistance like sumoud, longsuffering and perseverance in the face of Israeli occupation,” he explained.
Military soldiers are often noted for what they are willing to die for. Each one of these men are models of what it is to commit your life to something, at great personal sacrifice and commitment. When I think about the Quaker youth that we work with, and all youth who refuse military service, I think about people like Brian, John and Phil who also do not pick up guns as service. But they also do not pick up protest signs from the comfort of a safe place. They put themselves out there. And, as we have seen over the weekend with Phil, at great peril. It is a reminder to me of what true pacifism is all about – not just standing on the sidelines in judgment, but a full-on life-and-death commitment to create a better world through non-violence no matter what the personal costs. At times over the past 7 years, they have been my inspirations to step out my comfort zone, and to really see what my commitment is to a more just world. Especially these days, perhaps we can all look to Phil as the ultimate model, and pray that he can continue to be that model.
I first met Phil in late 2002. He was a junior at Wheaton College, and had become actively involved in Student Global AIDS Campaign fresh on the heels of Bono’s Midwest AIDS/Poverty caravan. Phil and a fellow student, Brian Davis, were the two early leaders of SGAC on this Christian campus, and were also two of the handful of students who fairly quickly looked beyond AIDS in Africa, building relationships with local people with HIV (such as myself) and local services (such as the one I was working for). The passion, compassion, and thoughtfulness of Phil and Brian (I also need to mention John Campen here as well) opened my eyes to something I had not expected: openness, respectfulness, and a profound dedication to service and making the world a better place. All three of them continue to be models for doing what Quaker author Parker Palmer wrote about – letting one’s life speak. John remains dedicated to his love of music and his dedication to family – sharing the joys and the struggles with friends and family while addressing some of the social and corporate inequities of our world. Brian has spent much of his post-college career with his now-wife Susan in Kenya and Uganda committed to serving others, most recently opening up a cyber-café in Uganda that is both a social and a training center for youth. He and Susan have also included me in family events both in Illinois and in Kenya, further crumbling the misperceptions I had about Christians and not just tolerance but real acceptance of sexual diversity.
But it is Phil I really want to write about. While I have kept in some contact with Brian and John over the years, I lost touch with Phil. After helping open the door for Wheaton College to get involved in HIV/AIDS work, I remember Phil spending his last winter college break in Iraq – this was after the US invasion. Phil went on a mission trip to try and bring healing and reconciliation through community-building. After that, we maybe saw each other once more before he graduated. Then, earlier this year, came across a blog written by Phil. Apparently he had been spending much of his time in the West Bank, mainly, from what I could tell, writing about the impact that the Israeli/Hamas battles were having on Palestinians. He has also done some films that are meant to simply bear witness to the day-do-day lives of people caught in the crossfire (To see more, go to http://www.thedailynewsegypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=18931) It seems that it is because of some of these writings and films, and his subsequent involvement in calls for action that focused on human rights over nationalism, that he has been apprehended (he was part of a demonstration in Cairo over the weekend; all the other demonstrators were released).
For those of us who consider ourselves pacifists, I think all three of these young men are models for us, and in very different ways. John demonstrates the importance of caring for family and friends (it was John who first drew my attention to Phil’s plight), and Brian completely dedicates and immerses himself in what he does. Unlike so many people who stay in the comfort of their own homes and try to solve problems elsewhere, Brian and Susan have completely dedicated their lives to what they are doing.
Phil takes this to an entirely different level. He has gone into the heart of conflict – first Iraq, then the West Bank – not to engage in military conflict, but to intervene on behalf of human rights. A quote from the article linked above says it best about Phil’s latest movie: The other unspoken message that Rizk captures through his lens is a creed of nonviolent resistance that each of the individuals portrayed in the film have made part of their daily lives. In continuing to cultivate fields, rebuild destroyed homes and simply refusing to yield their places on the land to others, these Palestinians embody a relentless steadfastness, shunning the weapons of their adversaries that would’ve automatically allowed the world to question their moral authority had they been employed. For Rizk, showing the rootedness of nonviolent resistance in the lives of his characters was a central aim of the film. “We wanted to address the fact that violent forms of resistance, widely reported by international media outlets, overshadow more common non-violent forms of Palestinian resistance like sumoud, longsuffering and perseverance in the face of Israeli occupation,” he explained.
Military soldiers are often noted for what they are willing to die for. Each one of these men are models of what it is to commit your life to something, at great personal sacrifice and commitment. When I think about the Quaker youth that we work with, and all youth who refuse military service, I think about people like Brian, John and Phil who also do not pick up guns as service. But they also do not pick up protest signs from the comfort of a safe place. They put themselves out there. And, as we have seen over the weekend with Phil, at great peril. It is a reminder to me of what true pacifism is all about – not just standing on the sidelines in judgment, but a full-on life-and-death commitment to create a better world through non-violence no matter what the personal costs. At times over the past 7 years, they have been my inspirations to step out my comfort zone, and to really see what my commitment is to a more just world. Especially these days, perhaps we can all look to Phil as the ultimate model, and pray that he can continue to be that model.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Unjust Prejudices
The other morning, I was sitting in Meeting for Worship, and there was a man sitting doing some kind of knitting. This completely disturbed me and was something I have noticed about. It is completely against everything I believe and stand for to have the kinds of reactions that I have to men knitting. I try to really promote and live that we love and accept things as they are without judgment. Heck, as a gay man living with HIV, who am I to sit in judgment of anyone? But when it comes to men knitting, I struggle.
So, what do I do? I think I have found an answer that works for me, at least for now. Rather than try to repress my negative feelings that morning, I reveled in them. I let the vision of me going up to this complete stranger, slapping the needles out of his hands, and saying "what the heck is wrong with you?" As I did this, what I released was not a cathartic sense of my righteousness, but instead the complete absurdity of my prejudice. Am I completely over it? No way. But what is different, is I have embraced my prejudice - my emotional reactivity - for what it is, just silly and funny. I have defused its potency. I think when we deny our prejudices, the repression may come back to bite us. It's tricky business. It's not pleasant to admit we have prejudices, but we all do. Perhaps when we can learn to accept them, we can learn to dishonor them and laugh at them. At least, for me for right now, it's a way to move through it and perhaps now connect in a deeper, more meaningful way with the male knitters of the world.
So, what do I do? I think I have found an answer that works for me, at least for now. Rather than try to repress my negative feelings that morning, I reveled in them. I let the vision of me going up to this complete stranger, slapping the needles out of his hands, and saying "what the heck is wrong with you?" As I did this, what I released was not a cathartic sense of my righteousness, but instead the complete absurdity of my prejudice. Am I completely over it? No way. But what is different, is I have embraced my prejudice - my emotional reactivity - for what it is, just silly and funny. I have defused its potency. I think when we deny our prejudices, the repression may come back to bite us. It's tricky business. It's not pleasant to admit we have prejudices, but we all do. Perhaps when we can learn to accept them, we can learn to dishonor them and laugh at them. At least, for me for right now, it's a way to move through it and perhaps now connect in a deeper, more meaningful way with the male knitters of the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
