The Cosmopolitan Blog

I was watching CNN’s videos this morning, and listening to what the world’s reaction is to Obama becoming the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party. Interestingly, in places like Lebanon, it was more important to them for a woman to have won. I think that the impact of a woman winning would have been greater around the world, because women’s struggle is a concept universally understood, which touches everyone in some way. On the other hand, the fact that a black man won a victory in the US is probably harder to understand for those who don’t follow US history as we do, and who don’t understand the African-American struggle.

Other reactions around the world: Germans are delighted, seeing Obama in a similar light as they did John F. Kennedy 50 years ago. In Japan, a group of female fans dream of meeting Obama. And in China, they seem happy with the fact that Clinton did not win, seeing her as a old-style hardliner who would perpetuate the impression Americans have of China. …and it India, they just want to see a president who will push India further up on the world map. Maybe they think the US government should outsource to India like the rest of us!

Well, i never considered myself an anarchist, but here you have it. I’m boycotting something. I’m boycotting CNN. Their tag line is “the most trusted name in news”. Seriously? How can we trust you, if you refuse to acknowledge that there are other countries out there. Dear CNN, did you know that the world does not, actually, revolve around the USA? That there are a few billion of us who don’t actually give a damn if we miss yet another Obama/Clinton debate? That taking a break from reporting on the primaries to spend 7 days talking about the New York governor’s affair is not actually good news reporting?

I used to fervently believe that Obama was the best democratic choice. Politics used to fascinate me. And now, CNN has single-handedly managed to turn me off politics. Maybe it’s cuz i’m generation X and i have the attention span of a goldfish, but seriously, a contest that lasts over 6 months, really, i promise you, looses steam very, very quickly.

Here is my plea to CNN, in the name of cosmopolitanism. We live on Earth. Earth is comprised of many countries. Each country, believe it or not, has newsworthy events. In order to up the awareness and IQ of your people, reporting on what is happening in other countries might actually be a good thing. Oh, and then, if you even spend just 10 minutes per hour reporting on what else is happening around the world, well then, maybe you could make a bold claim like being “the most trusted name in news”… And no, good looking anchors like Anderson Cooper not longer dissipate my anger.

But what makes me so mad (you know, like even MADDER than i was in the paragraph above!), and, unfortunately, i can’t really blame it on CNN, is the fact that i feel like we’re the only ones to see that the longer the democrats fight it out, the more power they’re giving to the republicans. I made a prediction on this blog a few months back, and i continue to maintain it. At the time, there were other democratic candidates, and i had said, if either Hillary or Obama get the nomination, then i guarantee the next POTUS will be a republican. I still believe that. Only time will tell, but in this case, pleeeease can time just hurry the hell up?

This is really not helping the general US ego. They already think that the world revolves around them, and now, what sucks is that the world does actually revolve around the US. The way they talk about the elections (ok, granted, i’m in Canada, it’s hardly very far away) on TV, you’d think it was everyone’s elections. I haven’t met someone who doesn’t know about Hillary and Barack. The republican race may be less known across the planet however, since the candidates haven’t yet been raised to celebrity status. Speaking of celebrities, i just heard that Fred Thompson (actor from Law and Order, that’s how i know him, anyway), just announced that he was dropping out of the race.

Last time around (2004), it was already bad enough, everywhere we looked there was a debate between Kerry and Bush, but at least, i feel like we were spared the primaries. And sure, in 2000, well, we all know that Bush rigged the votes and Al Gore should have been president, so, again, that had our attention.

But the primaries? Really? Seriously? We have to get involved this early in the process? It’s not, you realize, until this time next year, that the next president is sworn in… I heard on CNN that, during the New Hampshire primary, one of the voters expressed the fact that he wouldn’t vote, because he’s already so over it, and it’s overkill, he doesn’t want to go out and vote, so a bit of a backlash there.

I supposed the good news is, the more we spend time talking about the future president, the less W. is getting facetime… Which might explain why he hasn’t been feeling the love recently, and decided to give every US citizen and $800 tax rebate in the form of a check in their mailbox… Can someone say blackmail? Hey, W! You got a reputation and historical legacy you’re trying to salvage?

The thing is, like it or not, you gotta care. Like it or not, the news of possible US recession just sent the markets reeling this past week. The few shares I follow have hit rock bottom, and one’s not even in the US and is in one of the most stable industries you can get!

So, then, I ask you this. The question that’s on everyone’s lips: are Americans more racist or sexist? Are they more ready to vote for a woman or a Black man? Shame Oprah didn’t join the race, but seeing she’s Black AND she’s a woman, I think THAT, somehow is still a decade away (in my estimate) from being acceptable in such a bigotted, conservative and puritan country.

Personally, i think they’re more ready for a woman, although Barack has my Canadian vote. But here’s the truth. I honestly don’t think they’re ready for either. That is, they WILL pick either the woman or the black man, and that person will be the party’s nominee. But when it comes down to voting for the leader of the free world, my opinion is, come November 08, the Americans will chicken out, and decide not to vote for the Democrat candidate, they won’t want the woman or the Black man, and, therefore, by default, the votes will go to the Republican nominee.

So here it is: I predict that the next president of the United States will be a Republican again.

Anyway, whether you’re glued to your TV set or whether you wish the US would disappear off the face of the planet for a while, let me know what you think. There’s a new poll up (see right hand side), i hope you vote, you can select up to 5 answers.

One of the things you need to know about me is that I am addicted to the Biography Channel. In fact, biographies are one of my favorite types of books too. And since I can be just as shallow as I can be “deep and meaningful”, I’ll take as much pleasure in watching a biography on Charlie Sheen as I do on Nelson Mandela (granted, i would probably not take the time to read Charlie’s bio…).

But since this post is not in the shallow “That’s Hot” category, my post is about Nelson Mandela. This man is definitely one of the great people of this century, a hero to his country, we all know how he spent 27+ years in jail for a cause he believed in, how the people of his country remembered him and continued fighting in his name, how he came out of jail and ended apartheid, became the country’s official leader and held the first free multi-racial democratic elections in the country.

What I found particularly striking and I find reflects on the core of who he is as a man and a human being, is the fact that the lifetime he spent in jail did not remotely make him bitter or angry. He persevered until he reached his goal, and he rarely used guerrila warfare and violence. With regards to this, I want to highlight the following from Wikipedia:

Mandela explains the move to embark on armed struggle as a last resort, when increasing repression and violence from the state convinced him that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had achieved nothing and could not succeed. Mandela later admitted that the [African National Congress] ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, and has sharply criticized attempts by parts of his party to remove statements supporting this fact from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I don’t think there is anything I could say in this post that hasn’t been said before on this great man, but what I reflect on is how his struggle to end apartheid was not motivated by anger and hate, be it before or after his 30 years in prison. I believe THAT was the variable that allowed his struggle to be successful. So how does a man who sees such injustices not become bitter and enraged? The answer, I believe can be found in his childhood. Mandela was born in a very influential and important family in his region, his great-granfather was the King of the Thembu people, and his father was chief of his village. The point is, for the first 18-20 years of his life, he lived in regions of South Africa that were all-black, and therefore, he did not grow up confronted on a daily basis with racial hatred, he was never meant to feel inferior for the color of his skin. Anyone growing up in an environment of hatred, violence and racism can only end up bitter and angry. Mandela did not feel any of this growing up. THIS, i believe is the key to how Mandela chose to fight his struggle.

*warning: random thoughts ahead :)*

I find Mandela such a beautiful person. I am not someone who is very much into analyzing people’s auras (in fact, i know nothing about auras), but i believe that he must have the world’s most impressive aura. Mandela has often mentioned that one of his greatest influence is Mahatma Gandhi, and I believe this is very obvious. One of the contemporaries that he admired greatly too is ex-US President Jimmy Carter, someone I also admire for his stance on peace throughout the Middle East (yes, yes, I know, Jimmy wasn’t the world’s greatest US president, but I don’t believe this should take away from his amazing foreign policy).

So is Mandela perfect? No, i think not, and in fact, I think that anyone who could devote his entire life to his country’s struggle in such a steadfast and focused way, must be a very difficult man to live with (or without, considering that he spent most the life he shared with his 2nd wife in jail). I think he made a choice of which way his life would go, and that meant that the more time he spent struggling, the less time he spend being a private man, a husband and a father. Life must not be easy being the child of Nelson Mandela. I just think it’s important to acknowledge his family for the sacrifice they were asked to make for the sake of their country.

Last random thought: this man is now 89 years old, and he has retired from public life… Sort of… Last month, he created the council of Elders, which, I know, sounds like something out of Star Trek or Harry Potter, but is, in fact, an amazing way to unite all the great living men and women of this century who have knowledge, wisdom and experience to:

“speak freely and boldly, working both publicly and behind the scenes on whatever actions need to be taken. Together we will work to support courage where there is fear, foster agreement where there is conflict, and inspire hope where there is despair“.

I do believe that you probably have to be 70+ to join the club (i’m only 1/2 kidding, i think that to understand and share your perspective and wisdom, you can’t be 40-odd years old), and includes such greats as Desmond Tutu, Kofi Annan, Ela Bhatt, Muhammad Yunus and Jimmy Carter, each of these people having their own specialty and area of expertise.

I am thankful that there are people like Nelson Mandela in this world.

It’s strange, as women, when we hear of other successful women, we feel an extra desire to cheer them on… I’m pretty sure men don’t do this, I mean they don’t cheer other men on just ‘cuz they’re men, I guess we’ve just come that much further…

So i feel the need to acknowledge 2 woman that i greatly admire: Oprah and Christiane Amanpour, the CNN Chief International Correspondent… which, in itself, is funny, because Oprah called Christiane one of her personal heroes when CA appeared on O’s show.

*warning, tangent ahead*

Don’t get me wrong, there are many women i admire, i admire women everyday, my sister for representing the modern multitasker: 2.5 kids, 2 jobs, a spotless house, a successful marriage and an active social life. My best friend for having grown from a reckless teenager to a responsible, independent, profoundly well balanced and happy individual. My aunt for having made a name for herself in a fundamental Islamic country and having single-handedly taken the rights and options available to women miles forward. My mom for representing that older generation of women who believes in long term commitments and the true meaning of “’till death do us part”, standing strong in the face of adversity and dealing with the hard blows life can give you with perseverance and humility.

*end of tangent*

So I’m watching “God’s Warriors” on TV, a 6-hr series that looks at Jewish, Christian and Muslim fanaticism, Christiane took over 8 months to prepare this documentary. It’s a great documentary, and of course, i have tons of opinions on its content, but this post is about Christiane. She is originally Iranian, but she is Christian. She grew up in London and married a Jewish man. She’s a wife and a mother, but she’s also a reporter, and she puts herself in danger (she admits that she has become more cautious now that she’s a mother), but still, she searches for the truth, and looks to always put a human face to any situation… I found that “God’s Warriors”, amongst other things, helps us understand the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so much better because she brings it down to stories of ordinary families and the challenges they face. She makes us understand how it is that a family, a person could have ended up in such a state of despair or such a belief that they can commit such violence and feel it’s the only way forward.

Christiane is not the only wonderful journalist i admire, there are many more, many, in fact, in my family, but she makes me proud to be a woman. As i watch the Muslim segment of “God’s Warriors”, i watch her sit there and interview men that tell her to her face how they think women are inferior, i watch her be respectful and listen intensely, bringing a mix of class and honesty to every interview. Above all, she lets you draw your own conclusions, she doesn’t force her opinion on her viewers.

I found this great quote from Christiane on Wikipedia:

“There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn’t mean treating all sides equally. It means giving each side a hearing.”

She said this specifically when speaking about the Bosnian conflict in the 90s, but i can see this belief applied to all her pieces. It represents very much what I feel.

My apologies if you thought this post was about Oprah. I love Oprah, and i think she’s wonderful, and next time i feel inspired, i will devote a post entirely to her as well.

My mom is french, so French is my mother tongue. But I grew up in London, so by the age of 4, i knew both languages, my parents had made sure of it. For many years after that, I was told how lucky I was to fluently speak 2 languages, and how it’s an advantage because it helps in a child’s development and in her abiliity to learn more languages more quickly later on in life. So do Montrealers know how lucky they are? By its very history and location, Montreal is a fully bilingual city.

For those of you who don’t know, Canada has 2 official languages, English and French. English is predominent in most of the provinces in the West, all the way to East to Ontario. Quebec province is mainly french, but, Montreal, even though it’s in Quebec, is also a few kms away from Ontario, so both languages are common.

Sure, the city has a french side and an english side, but you can speak either language in either side and you will be understood. What’s amazing (my friends in the States and in Toronto still don’t believe me on this one), is that you can live in Montreal very comfortably even if you only know one of the 2 languages. All shopowners, taxi and bus drivers, business owners, everyone is bilingual. All products, restaurant menus, official paperwork, everything is written in both languages. There are parts of NDG and Westmount (areas of Montreal), where you have to search to find the french speaker, and there are still areas in Old Montreal and in the East where a shop owner will answer you in french even if you spoke to him in English, for sure, but that’s not the norm.

So, seriously, do they know how lucky they are? I don’t think so. The fact that my friends who live 3 states away in Massachussets or even those who live in the same country (in Toronto, in the neighboring province!) don’t know this, to me, means that Montreal, in it’s advertising, reputation and history does not count this as an advantage, or something to brag about. Unfortunately, I feel that language is this city is always used as a political argument or weapon (long story, i won’t get into the politics in this post), it’s always like a competition, it’s always a cause for controversy (such as deciding which school you can go to depending on the main language of your parents or where you were born).

Somehow, in Montreal, you’re constantly having to pick sides, you’re either an Anglophone or a Francophone… WHY??? I mean, sure, assert your identity and claim your preferred method of communication. Absolutely. But once you’re done with that, be proud of living in a city where there is a 2nd important language, embrace your differences!

Did no one every explain to you that 1+1=2 (and even sometimes 3: the concept of synergy, that together 2 things can have a greater effect that if they were separate, i.e. where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts)?

I don’t care how separatist you feel, surely no one can deny that having 2 languages (and thus 2 cultures) is a benefit. No, it doesn’t not mean that one will swallow the other, if you play it smart, if you value each other, your differences and your similarities. It was a benefit to me to learn 2 languages as a child, it’s a benefit today still to have Montrealer kids learn both languages, it’s a skill that will help them in their lives later on. Learning to live with someone who doesn’t speak the same language, that doesn’t have the same culture, learning this without having to leave your own city, that is priceless.

So, Montrealers, do you know how good you have it????

Part of the cosmopolitanism philosophy is the acceptance that no nation, culture or political model is better than another, that there are pros and cons for each, but that they each have a reason for existence. After all, each culture, nation and regime exists because it grew from a need for this ideology. If no one agreed with it, no one would adhere to it. There aren’t enough people in this world that can be mass-coerced to adhere. So should we be looking at the tribal way of life in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq (I mention them because they’re on our daily news, so I figure everyone knows where these countries are) and feel sorry for their backward way of life? I’m not sure.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. I think that the tyrant deserved to be held accountable for his crimes. Should we show social responsibility by sticking around once we remove a dictator to ensure that the country will fall back on its feet? Possibly. But the very least we owe the citizens of that country is to see the world through their eyes. How did they get to this point? What motivated them to remain / accept this regime? Are you telling me that 25K+ Iraqi citizens have been sitting there praying for the brave westerners to rescue them? Really? Convince me, I dare you!

But we’re there now. So let’s see the world through their eyes for one moment. Can we honestly claim that democracy is a better regime that the country should aspire to establish? Why? Because it allows individuals to have their own rights and create their own wealth? Sure, that sounds like a good reason, and apparently, in the West, we believe it is, that’s why most western countries have adopted it. But why would be so arrogant as to believe that it will work best all over the world? Why do we think we’re doing other countries a favor by encouraging democracy?

It’s like criticizing woman in Islamic societies for wearing the hijab. Have you tried speaking to one of them and suggesting that they should be independant and non-submissive? Good luck with that! Yes, there will be a large number of them who will allow themselves to dream for a couple of seconds, and imaging the independant life they could be living, with their own goals and careers. And then they will submissively resign themselves to the current state of things. But! But, there’s a huge number of them will defend their choice and their way of life. They respect it and want it that way… It’s the way they’ve been brought out, to take care of the house and the family, and to think of the community before they think of their individual desires… And this is less noble than a career-minded western woman because….?????

I’m struggling to understand all of this… I should probably not think of the state of the world at 2am… *sigh*