95. To care deeply is to hurt deeply

It is far easier not to care, so much so that I am often envious of those people who seem to wander through life unaffected by the world around us. Perhaps, on some accounts, this is not a completely fair observation; however, I do know that if you do not care, you cannot get hurt.

For those that engross themselves in life, there are a number of injustices that must be reconciled. To care, and debate, about the consequences of each human action can make life a nearly unbearable endeavor. I have written of these instances consistently over the last four years. For example, to eat a hamburger can move some to tears over the life and death of the cow. To wear a diamond ring may bring to mind the wars fought over such luxuries. To read of war wrenches the soul of all the young lives wasted. And to witness the homeless and impoverished can be infuriating when we consider the incredible wealth shared by so few. It is easy to be a social critic; there is much to be critical about.

For those involved with social issues, there is a difference between caring, sharing compassion and offering support. The distinctions that follow are mine, as dictionaries tend to indistinctly blur their interpretations. There are a number of ways to live our lives, but it is a mistake if we do not realize that every decision we make has an effect on a number of other social, political and environmental conditions. On the other hand, to fret over every decision would bring our lives to a mental paralysis. We must consider a balance, one in which we support some issues, and truly care about others.

To care about an issue is to be willing to make a personal sacrifice in order to change things. If one cares about something, the passion is often consuming- to the depth that it affects one's soul. The level of activism nears obsession, as one makes personal sacrifices and works to persuade others. The sacrifice includes opportunity costs, and it may be financial or political as well as a significant time commitment. Many activists are even willing to go to prison in support of their cause.

Compassion is the recognition that an undesirable condition exists. It is cognitive-driven ideology, not an action-driven movement. There is typically an emotional involvement, usually sympathy; however, this emotional state is not strong enough to inspire more than a moderate amount of action.

The support of an issue or condition is generally an agreement that the condition exists and with those taking action. It lacks cognitive emotion, and any action is usually symbolic. The support at this level does not include the willingness to research the subject; much less make any personal sacrifices.

Vegetarianism, in terms of animal cruelty, is a simple example. Some people will support the issue, reacting only to the worst examples- such as those covered through the media. Those offering compassion to the issue may adopt the vegetarian ideology- perhaps also becoming vegetarians. However, those that really care about the issue, not only become vegetarians or vegans, but they also donate time and money to the cause. They attend lectures, inform others and maybe even get involved in picketing or protesting the worst offenders. For these people, it is often difficult to understand why everyone does not share their beliefs.

These ideologies require us to make personal decisions. Individuals must decide for themselves what level of commitment to submit to. I attended a lecture recently in which the speaker made this point, "People often say they love animals, but by eating them, they are supporting the miserable conditions in which they live and die." It is easy to understand that every chicken we eat encourages farmers to grow more chickens, as quickly as possible - often through methods that have proven the most profitable, regardless of the affect on the chickens. And under the assumption that most people know this condition exists, it is unfortunate that more are not willing to put forth the effort to alter their eating habits - because reality suggests that it takes more than the passion of a few to make a difference.

Most commit to their passions and either gloss over the rest or ignore that certain conditions exist. Life can be an overwhelming, but I am convinced that a little effort could make the endeavor better for everyone.

94. Ending poverty the right thing to do

Americans benefit from great wealth. In fact, the United States is among the wealthiest countries in the world. Most of us enjoy a plethora of national resources, such as education, infrastructure and the widespread availability of food and fresh water. Beyond the necessities, a majority of the population enjoys a middle class life, complete with homes, cars and other luxuries. And of course, a small percentage of Americans enjoy great wealth, the life of privilege and excesses. There is, however, another, often forgotten about, silent class of Americans- the poor.

Their silence is two-fold. They do not have financial or political power, which directly affects their ability to be a social consideration. They neither have the ability to financially entice politicians; nor do they vote with consistent regularity. Secondly, their interest, rightfully, is self-centered. It is difficult to allocate precious time and resources to social standing and influences when one is concerned with putting food on the table. It is Maslow's hierarchy of needs psychologically and socially exemplified.

Thus the responsibility of their representation belongs to others, those that might be able to offer the financial and social influence to make a difference. The quandary presented, however, is that those people that are financially secure more often than not lack the experience of being poor. A lot of people think they are poor, or perhaps believe that they have experienced difficult times in the past. But few people really understand what it means to live in poverty. This lack of perspective makes it difficult to fairly represent the reality endured by the unfortunate.

To offer a brief microcosm of what it is like to live in poverty, Leadership Lorain County hosted a Community Action Poverty Simulation. I was privileged to participate in the simulation; to experience the hassle and challenges of being poor. James E. Gepperth, of the Catholic Charities Family Center of Lorain, introduced the program, and made an important point- there is no "system" in place for the poor. There are a number of, often unconnected, places of public and non-for-profit assistance - but no single agency that can act a single resource for support.

Participants were divided into families and guided to work through real life situations. Each family worked through their circumstances which included challenges such as unemployment, caring for grandchildren, and foreclosure - all while attempting to work through the "system." The simplest task was often time-consuming; the day itself was mentally and physically exhausting. While mindful that this was just a simulation, the experience nonetheless offered a small perspective into the lives of millions of people. Reflection offered an increased understanding of poverty, and a greater appreciation for personal good fortune. Although I personally suffered a job loss in 2001, I lacked insight into what it really meant to struggle. Now, more than ever, I am thankful every morning I awake with an agenda that includes going to work.

Information supplied at the poverty simulation defined two types of poverty- generational and situational - based on an article written by Kerry McCormick of West Virginia University from "A Framework for Understanding Poverty," by Dr. Payne. The distinction is rather self-evident, though the impact differs. The generationally poor are defined as two or more generations living in poverty; whereas, situational poverty is a result of a change in circumstances. The generationally poor survive as a matter of culture - the result of a "much lower level of educational attainment." Their coping skills are, interestingly, better than those thrust into poverty as a result of a job loss or divorce.

I did not lead with the poverty statistics, because it is the lives behind the numbers that matter. However, the numbers also paint a bleak picture. Lorain County, with the loss of its manufacturing employment (20 percent between the second quarter of 2000 and second quarter of 2005 (Center for Learning, Oberlin College)) has been especially vulnerable - which has translated, along predatory lending, into record numbers of foreclosures. In addition, there seems to be an educational correlation, as Lorain County has consistently had fewer college graduates compared to numbers across the state. Furthermore, according to 2000 U.S. Census figures, 1 in 4 in the city of Lorain and 1 in 5 in Elyria do not finish high school.

Lorain County is particularly difficult on minorities with 34 percent of African-Americans and 28 percent of Hispanics living in poverty. It is not surprising that poverty is highest among female-headed households. In 2003, there were 10,463 Lorain County children living in poverty. For these families, the emphasis is on putting food on the table, not saving money to send their children to Harvard.

Poverty is a community issue, one that needs to be addressed by its leadership. This first step is erasing the stigma attached; most specifically that poverty is a choice. The attitude is often that the poor do not work hard, that they would rather work the "system." The second step is a movement toward creating opportunity, and it needs to be created whether or not it comes with campaign contributions or election votes. Rather it needs to be created because it is the right thing to do.

93. Diamonds not so friendly

Diamonds are said to be a women's best friend. It is a relationship that many clever marketing slogans have promoted, such as the idea that, "A Diamond is Forever." Their beauty is used to symbolize love and commitment; their size and value insinuates affluence and privilege.

About ten years ago, like many other couples considering engagement, my future wife and I went shopping for a fitting, yet affordable, diamond ring. We made the tour through the mall, looking for the perfect size and price. I made note of her favorites- so that upon an official proposal, she would not be disappointed. Later, I purchased a ring, making payments over several months, and waited for the right moment.

In December of 1996, we took a trip to Toronto, Canada, to see the Phantom of the Opera at the famous Pantages Theatre. On the way, we stopped at Niagara on the Lake and stayed at the Prince of Wales Hotel. It turned out to be a beautiful night, fallen by a brisk but romantic snow. It was here that I proposed to my wife. As special as that night was for us, it is a ritual that has taken place a million times before.

In terms of the commitment, the ring was an afterthought. Not because it was not endearing, but because I did it without any specific reason. In other words, I did it out of tradition- because that is what "everybody" does. I did not consider where the diamond came from, where it was cut and polished, or even if it was a fair price. The rule of thumb (an ironic reference if you know the origin of the phrase) is that men are supposed to spend two months salary on the ring.

Since I could not afford much, I pledged secretly to myself that after five years I would buy her a bigger diamond. And that is what I did. For our five-year anniversary, I snuck off with her ring and replaced it with a larger diamond. I thought the larger diamond was not only a gift of her commitment and sacrifice over the previous five years, but also a reflection of our growing relationship.

Now, ten years later, having learned about diamonds and the diamond trade, I have some regrets in the process. Diamonds have a tumultuous history, inclusive of greed, power, war and slave labor. Unfortunately, what now sparkles nicely on my wife's finger is a better reflection of the world we live in.

Americans, with their great wealth, purchase 50 percent of all the diamonds produced in the world. To this end, DeBeers, the world's largest diamond seller, has been accused of controlling the supply of diamonds to drive up prices. But the story goes much deeper than the supply chain that provides Americans the diamonds they so much adore at exaggerated prices. Diamonds have been the source of human rights violations and atrocities in terms of slave labor and the many wars and conflicts fought over control of the diamond mines.

The following excerpt is from an MSNBC.com series on diamonds by Petra Cahill:

"The search for diamonds is not exactly easy. Many miners and diamond diggers in sub-Saharan Africa travel great distances to find work and submit to gruelingly long hours for low wages - or sometimes no wages - in substandard conditions.

The informal mining industry is where workers tend to be most exploited. In the Wild West atmosphere of many informal diamond mines, the quest for the "big find" - and the financial gain it promises - is the all-encompassing goal, and all other issues of morality or civic responsibility go out the window."

In addition to the slave-like labor often used to excavate the diamond mines, war often breaks out between the groups and countries- which are funded by these valuable diamond mines. Amnesty International reports,

"Conflict or blood diamonds fuel conflict, civil wars and human rights abuses. They have been responsible for funding recent conflicts in Africa which resulted in the death and displacement of millions of people. During these conflicts, profits from the illegal trade in diamonds, worth billions of dollars, were used by warlords and rebels to buy arms. An estimated 3.7 million people have died in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Liberia, and Sierra Leone in conflicts fuelled by diamonds."

The History Channel also ran an exposé on the history of the diamond trade inclusive of gruesome pictures and narrative from people who suffered in the battle over diamonds. The rebel organization, Revolution United Front, trademarked amputation as a reminder of their objective to control the diamond mines. One individual, who was interviewed, had both his hands cut off because he had voted for the "wrong" political party. Many others, including a shocking number of children and women, had legs and arms cut off.

In response, Amnesty International and other organizations were successful in lobbying the United Nation General Assembly to adopt legislation that eventually led to the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme- a process which is designed to break the link associated with conflict diamonds and human rights violations. This self-regulated certification, in short, tracks the shipments of diamonds and maintains that they are "conflict-free." Governments and industry are only to engage in trade with the diamonds that are ethically obtained- which, in theory, renders the "blood diamonds" worthless.

There are discrepancies as to the effectiveness of this process, but at least the issue has been brought to the table. And, more importantly, people are starting to learn about the diamond trade.

While a diamond ring might symbolize love and commitment, a relationship is built on more than a dynamic arrangement of tetrahedrally-bonded carbon atoms. Had I known that people may have suffered or died in the acquisition of the diamond that my wife now wears on her hand, I would have considered alternatives. Unfortunately, when you are in love, and burdened with the weight of tradition, your focus often narrows to the exclusivity of a world- often based on greed and exploitation- that silently exists.

92. Animal cruelty big business

How much does freedom cost? The answer is that it depends. If you are a chicken, it costs about a dollar per dozen eggs. That is the difference in purchasing a dozen eggs from a factory farmer and purchasing the same dozen eggs from a free-range chicken farmer. Whereas "factory farmed" chickens often live in deplorable conditions, producers of free-range eggs are required to make open spaces available for the chickens to roam.

Unfortunately, chickens, other poultry, and fish are excluded from the Humane Slaughter Act (rabbits are considered poultry under this Act). The Act only applies to cows and pigs, although there is considerable debate how well these laws are actually enforced. Many people witnessed the inhumanity displayed at the Wiles Farm in Canton when several news channels broadcasted the story. As a result, according to the Human Farming Association (GFA), the prosecutor assigned to the case "received literally thousands of letters, faxes, emails, and phone calls from citizens all across the nation who were appalled by the horrific events at Wiles Farm, and who were asking that appropriate criminal charges be filed in this case."

The story, as too often the case, is about corporate profits and the disappearance of family farms. The result of corporate interests is harm to the environment in addition to the animal suffering. The GFA reports,

"The take-over of agriculture in the U.S. by large corporations has allowed a larger number of animals to be produced more quickly and for less money. Agribusiness has reaped great profits while keeping consumer prices low. But the real costs of factory farming - in terms of the loss of family farms, food-borne illness, damage to the environment, and animal suffering - have been tremendous."

Since poultry is not included in the Humane Slaughter Act, the mistreatment of these animals is nothing short of disturbing. Joy Mench, who runs the Center for Animal Welfare at the University of California, notes that often eight chickens or more are crammed into cages measuring 20 inches wide by 19 inches deep. This many birds in one cage barely allow the chicken to stand, let alone turn around. In addition, their beaks are often removed; Mench reports,

"...the hens you'd see on most egg farms wouldn't have any beaks. The farmers cut them off, so you'd see a hen face with a stump. Farmers do that because when chickens get crowded together, they develop abnormal behavior, they can peck each other to death."

Unfortunately, good intent often goes unrealized as many "free-range" policies are so loosely defined and enforced that one can never be certain that even these chickens live as required. However, I would rather take a chance on these eggs than the alternative. The bigger picture, however, is the cruelty of factory faming, and the idea that many Americans remain oblivious to this idea.

The following quote by moral philosopher, Peter Singer, in his book "Animal Liberation" is quite powerful, which in addition to the insights of many vegitarian friends, has prompted my conversion to a vegitarian diet. Singer wrote, "Those who, by their purchases, require animals to be killed have no right to be shielded from the slaughterhouse or any other aspect of the production of the meat they buy. If it is distasteful for humans to think about, what can it be like for the animals to experience it?"

This realization applies to every aspect of human consumption that inflicts pain and suffering on animals. To ignore this reality is synonymous with actively supporting it. For years I avoided the idea of vegetarianism and justified my diet any number of ways. Surprising, I have found that it has not been that difficult without meat, as there are a lot of great meat substitutes. But most importantly, I feel a lot better about myself- even if I am a dollar poorer every time I buy a dozen eggs.