You Follow Me!

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.  But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!" (Matthew 14:29-30) 

So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "Lord, and what about this man?"  Jesus said to him, "If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?  You follow Me!" (John 21:21-22)

Lately, it's been easy for me to get distracted and begin to look at the lives of those around me and compare myself to them.  I can become jealous of the way God seems to be allowing others to live, and the blessings He has given others that He hasn't given me.  I can feel frustrated when I see people in my life going in a direction I also want to go, and yet it seems like God is saying, "No, Lisa," "Not yet, Lisa," or, "Not you, Lisa."  These are feelings you deal with when friends around you have husbands, houses, steady jobs, dogs and babies; and you live in a basement, work as a nanny, and don't even own your own silverware.  Sometimes it really doesn't seem fair!  

When I look at others and say to Jesus, "What about that girl?  Why doesn't my life look like that?" I become insecure, fearful, angry and impatient.  When I, like Peter, take my eyes off Jesus and begin to look at what's going on around me, I start to lose faith and doubt God's goodness.  My wandering eyes cause me to question God, and to try to take control to make my life look like the lives of those around me. Which, unsurprisingly, usually only results in disappointment and disaster.  Jesus' response to me, when I begin to compare myself to others is, "What is that to you?  You follow Me!"

Today I am reminded that my life is not my own to do with what I please.  My life is in Jesus' hands, and I need to lock my eyes on His and follow.  I have my own path, no one else's.  I'm remembering that discipleship is about surrendering and submitting my will to God's will.  I sang the song today: "Lord, you have my heart and I will search for Yours.  Let me be to You a sacrifice."

And when I stop looking around me, stop asking the "What about this man?" questions, and start fixing my eyes on Jesus, I remember that my life is indeed rich.  That I have never lacked adventure, fun, or purpose.  And that God has always been good to me.  I remember that He has always been and always will be trustworthy.  His path for me is mine, and won't look like anyone else's.  But I know when I follow, that's when I will really live.

The lines have fallen to me in pleasant places; indeed, my heritage is beautiful to me (Psalm 16:6).     

It is FINISHED! :-)

This morning I took my final in Theories of Conflict, Violence, and War, and now that it's done, I can officially say I have completed my first semester of grad school!  It's hard to believe that after just four months, I can say I'm 1/4 of the way to my degree!

In some ways, it's hard to believe the semester is over.  It did seem to fly by, but mostly because it was so jam packed!  There were a few brief moments of reprieve between big groups of assignments, but for the most part, the semester was intense and non-stop.  The assignments and readings kept on comin' one right after the other.  I remember one week I had three papers, one midterm, and a presentation all in 7 days!  

I can say I am extremely satisfied with how hard I worked, and looking back, I'm impressed with how much I learned and grew in the last four months.  There were brief periods of doubt at the beginning, but I finish the semester even more convinced that this school, this program, is exactly where I need to be.

My favorite class was probably Theories of Conflict, Violence and War (TCVW).  Most grad students will tell you that when push comes to shove with assignments, reading tends to be the first thing to go; but not with this class.  I loved our in-class discussions about International Relations theories, concepts and explanations of violence, and the way war is changing.  TCVW challenged me to think, process and come to my own conclusions on these complex issues, and I am most proud of the papers I wrote for this class.

Quantitative Analysis, as you all know, was NOT my favorite class, but I am still extremely proud of the work I did.  Not ever having taken statistics, the class had a huge learning curve for me.  But I worked hard to learn, understand, and master the concepts, and my hard work paid off.  By far I am no statistics pro, but compared to what I knew at the beginning of the semester, I can say confidently I have come quite a long way.

Peace Paradigms was probably the class that most significantly impacted the direction I want to take in my studies and beyond.  Providing a broad overview of different paths to peace, I found myself feeling confused and out of place during the first few weeks of readings about peace through strength and world order.  Then we entered the section on peace through conflict resolution and things began to click.  Something in me resonated deeply with our readings and discussions, and it was especially apparent in contrast with my ambivalence the first few weeks. I discovered the field of Interactive Conflict Resolution (ICR), which I knew almost immediately was exactly what I want to do.  Focused on addressing the roots of protracted conflicts, such as relationships and attitudes, ICR is an innovative and refreshing contrast to traditional mediation within the power politics model.  Incidentally (or not so incidentally), my Peace Paradigms professor (also the director of the whole International Peace & Conflict Resolution program) is one of the four main contributors to the field of ICR.  Yes, I am in the right place.

All in all, a great semester.  Demanding, of course, but I don't think I could have expected it to go any better!  I'm looking forward to the remainder of my studies, but first, some much needed rest and relaxation, and 2 weeks in Fresno for Christmas!  Yes, today is a HAPPY day! 

War and Terrorism: Categories & Contradictions

For those of you who are interested, my last paper of the semester: A short reaction (though not a short blog post) to Talal Asad's book, On Suicide Bombing. 

In the United States, particularly since September 11, 2001, we are accustomed to the rhetoric associated with terrorism.  We know that terrorism—and the terrorist—is evil, irrational, and mean-spirited; yet, we can wage a ‘war’ on terror that does not evoke the same emotions, but instead represents courage, moral fortitude, and liberation.  Good and evil, light and dark, civilized and uncivilized, moral and immoral, legitimate and illegitimate, humane and inhumane—the simple use of the word ‘terrorism’, and we know immediately in which category the action belongs.  In his book On Suicide Bombing, Talal Asad challenges us to step back, drop the labels, and honestly examine what we call ‘war’ and ‘terrorism’ before categorizing them.  Upon doing so, we find that  “however much we try to distinguish between morally good and morally evil ways of killing, our attempts are beset with contradictions” (p. 2).  All our rationalized classifications seem woefully arbitrary.

The first way we denounce terrorism is by labeling it an illegitimate use of violence.  According to Max Weber, the state claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.[1]  States can wage war (within certain parameters) without incurring an international backlash.  But terrorists, as non-state actors, have no claim whatsoever to a legitimate use of violence.  Because they are not acting on behalf of a state or an army, their actions are automatically denounced.  Asad references Michael Walzer to describe this phenomenon: “What Walzer condemns in war is excess and in terrorism its essence.  States kill, too, of course, although they claim to kill only legitimately” (p. 16). This categorization of legitimate and illegitimate becomes problematic in the case of the Israel/Palestine conflict.  As Asad articulates, though both sides have grievances, Israel, as a state, is the only party who can legitimately use violence or wage war, while Palestinian violent actions are automatically classified as terrorism.  Caught in an infuriating Catch 22, Palestine, in its attempt to gain statehood, has no legitimate recourse for the use of violence because it is not a state.  “So war is a legally sanctioned concept, and the hateful killing perpetrated by unlicensed militants is not” (p. 25).     

But if violence is to be legitimized at all, why should the state have the monopoly?  Why is war not denounced as vehemently as terrorism?  Are states somehow more discerning, more moral, or more responsible with their power than non-state actors? Some would indeed say yes, but Asad acutely observes that “modern states are able to destroy and disrupt life more easily and on a much grander scale than ever before and… terrorists cannot reach this capability” (p. 4).  War has certainly been more destructive and taken more lives, military and civilian, than terrorism; yet, the idea of large-scale killing in war is much more amenable to us than the idea of suicide bombing.  Why is this so?  Is the categorization of one as legitimate and the other as illegitimate not fairly arbitrary?

Another distinction made between war and terrorism is that terrorism is brutal and inhumane, while war is conducted ‘humanely’.  War has rules; therefore, it is more palatable to us.  Asad quotes John Keegan stating that, “moral inhibitions… served to restrain deliberate barbarities of design” (p. 61) in war, but that our concept of reprehensible weapons has been eroding.  Guns, tanks and air raids are humane; landmines, cluster bombs, and nuclear weapons are questionable; chemical and biological weapons and suicide bombings are inhumane.  But how long will even these loose classifications hold?  If the line between humane and inhumane ways of killing is so fluid, how is it determined?  Who determines it?  And how is it we have come to accept any method of killing another human ‘morally good’?  Asad attributes this to “the ingenuity of liberal discourse in rendering inhuman acts humane” (p. 38).  If we take a step back and look at these ridiculous lines we have drawn, do they really make any sense, or are they full of contradictions?  A suicide bombing may indeed be inhumane, but is dropping a bomb from a military plane any more humane?

It is easier for us to accept war while denouncing terrorism when we categorize terrorists as ‘uncivilized’.  If terrorists are uncivilized, we do not need to understand them or consider that there may be logic behind their actions.  “Suicide bombing is terrorism and… as terrorism, it is an evil in need not of analysis and understanding but of moral condemnation and firm practical response” (Asad referencing Walzer, p. 22).  The civilized (Westerners), however, have a moral advantage in the performance of violence. “People at all times have, of course, justified the killing of so-called enemies and others they deem not deserving to live.  The only difference is that today liberals who engage in this justification think they are different because morally advanced” (p. 4).  The civilized may kill, but it is assumed their motives are more pure; they play by ‘the rules.’  And if you kill according to the rules (the rules you have established), the act of killing is less reprehensible.  Therefore, war becomes “a collectively organized, legitimized, and moralized game of destruction that is played much more savagely by the civilized than the uncivilized” (p. 53).  And no matter how savagely you play the game, you will never be as ‘savage’ as the uncivilized who do not play by the rules, or do not play your game at all.

Asad uses the military bombing of German and Japanese cities during World War Two as an example of moral advantage given to the civilized.  During these bombings, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed and terrified.  Yet, this violence is generally categorized as neither illegitimate, inhumane, nor uncivilized.  Why?  Because the military commander’s, but not the terrorist’s, conscience is taken into account.  It is assumed the military commander was only doing what was necessary, which makes the bombings unfortunate, but not evil.  The terrorist’s conscience, on the other hand—no matter how clean it may be or how necessary he felt his actions were—is of “no significance in the categorization of his action” (p. 26). 

We also operate on the assumption that militaries do not target civilians as terrorists do.  However, Asad points out that the new doctrine of striving for zero military losses, coupled with the bombing of ‘dual-use’ targets such as electrical power plants, results in more enemy civilian deaths.  Civilians die en masse, but they are not technically targeted (even though undoubtedly, military commanders know their actions will result in these deaths); therefore, militaries and soldiers are absolved on the basis of motive.  “Motive becomes crucial to the distinction between collateral damage and war crimes” (p. 36).  Another important distinction is that civilians who die at the hands of terrorists are often Westerners, while civilians who die at the hands of Western armies are often the poor.  The sad fact of the matter is that in the West, we value the lives of the affluent more than the lives of the poor (p. 94), and are especially indignant when the civilized die at the hands of the uncivilized.

These dichotomous categorizations are carried through to the way captured terrorists are treated while detained.  Because they are uncivilized and their actions are illegitimate and inhumane, they become part of what Asad refers to as the “torturable class” (p. 33).  Torture, though denounced clearly by the Geneva Convention and human rights law, can be used against terrorists because they do not play by the rules.  International law applies to Prisoners of War (enemy combatants who play by our rules), but “since uncivilized opponents do not abide by international law, they cannot be protected by it” (p. 35). 

Certainly the horror evoked by terrorism generally, and suicide bombing specifically, is warranted.  What is disturbing is that “there is no general sense of horror… at the numerous atrocities committed or condoned by democratic governments” (p. 34).  We have framed war and terrorism as mutually exclusive, but evidence shows that our categorizations are full of contradictions.  Legitimate and illegitimate; humane and inhumane; civilized and uncivilized; torturable and nontorturable.  These classifications are, in the end, arbitrary social constructions.  Instead of thinking critically about all forms of violence perpetrated, we hear a word (‘terrorism’) and categorize automatically.  The great sorrow in this conditioning is not that terrorism as such is denounced, but that the legitimacy of war—with all its destruction, horrors, and atrocities—goes largely unquestioned in mainstream liberal discourse.  For peacemakers, countering this acceptance of war is a much greater challenge than ‘fighting’ terrorism.  In this respect, Talal Asad does a great service to the peacemaker community by challenging his readers to acknowledge the contradictions in their categories, and to move beyond labels toward a more holistic and honest view of violence in all forms.

---

[1] Weber, M. (2002). Politics as a Vocation. In C. Besteman (Ed.), Violence: A Reader (pp. 13-18). Washington Square, New York: New York University Press.

Power Point Woes

I am certainly not a Power Point pro.  In fact, I will admit that this was the first semester I ever did a Power Point presentation!  But I do remember a few things from that good ol' Oral Comm class we all had to take in undgrad, and based on the presentations I just witnessed in my Quant class, I'm starting to think that maybe no one else does.  You'd think grad students would be a little more adept at presentations!  So, a few tips from the Lisa J. Freeman School of Public Speaking...

1. You don't need to look at the screen.  I PROMISE, if it's on the computer in front of you, it's on the big screen, too, hon.  If you are staring at the screen with your back to the audience, that's a good sign your presentation isn't going so well.
2. Please don't use font 12.  Or 14.  Or anything smaller than 18, for that matter.  If your slide is packed full of font 12 writing, I am going to immediately shut down and not even attempt to read it.  The point of a visual aid is to AID your presentation,  and if I can't read it, it's not helping me.
3. Don't read me what's on your slides word for word.  Seriously, if that's all you're going to do, print it and give me a handout.  I can read.  This is a PRESENTATION, meaning YOU are supposed to be an important part.

Just a few of my presentation pet-peeves... you know I can be critical with the best of 'em!  :-)

We Shall Die Before We Kill

So I have started reading The Moral Imagination by John Paul Lederach, and in the second chapter he tells the story of Colombian peasants caught in the middle of the conflict between guerrillas and the Colombian army.  Put in a position to join a side or risk death, they came together and decided, "We shall die before we kill."  And they developed the following principles by which their actions would be guided.  I read this and thought, "This is responding in the opposite spirit.  This is the way of Jesus."

1. Faced with individualization: solidarity.
2. Faced with the Law of Silence and Secrecy: Do everything publicly.  Speak loud and never hide anything.
3. Faced with fear: Sincerity and disposition to dialogue.  We shall understand those who do not understand us.
4. Faced with Violence: Talk and negotiate with everyone.  We do not have enemies.
5. Faced with exclusion: Find support in others.  Individually we are weak, but together we are strong.
6. Faced with the need for a strategy: Transparency.  We will tell every armed group exactly what we have talked about with other armed groups.  And we will tell it all to the community.

Peace Paradigms: DONE!

It's that time of the semester... the time when you conspicuously do not see grad students out on the weekends, and plans for social events are always accompanied by the caviat 'after the term paper/presentation/final.'  But today marks a significant day.  I turned in my paper for Peace Paradigms--the LAST assignment due in that class--meaning I have officially finished the work for my first grad school course!  This past week has been non-stop (well, in many ways, the past month has been non-stop), but today is a happy day.  I get a breather now.

Tonight I have my presentation in my Quant class (I was quite stressed that it was on the same day my term paper was due, but now that I've dealt with that, it's nice that the work is done!), and then I will be able to relax a bit this week.  The bulk of this semester's work is done.  One more term paper (not nearly as much work as the last one), one more book to read, a short reaction paper, and a final, and on December 9th, I will be celebrating the END of the semester.

Peace Paradigms: check.  One class down, two more to go... :-)

The Failure of '5 Frequent Failures'?

Granted, we never really got off to a strong start.  Two of the original five members of our YouTube channel never posted a video at all!  So you could say we failed right from the beginning.  But now, for the first time since our launch in August, the videos have ceased.  It looks as though '5 Frequent Failures' may have officially failed.

Many of you have been watching my weekly Monday videos faithfully, and may not have even realized they were part of a YouTube collaboration channel with my dear friends Derek and Becky.  What is a collaboration channel?  Well, the intention was that we would have 5 people each take a day of the week.  On your day, you would make a video, talk a little about your life, and ask a question of the other 4 people.  In addition, you would answer the 4 questions the others had asked.

Well, our channel has been through its ups and downs.  Right off the bat, we lost Steph and Rory (the previously mentioned two who never posted videos at all), leaving us without a Thursday and Friday.  We briefly gained Jen (Friday girl), but after only one week, she had multiple difficulties with video cams, YouTube, and the Internet, and eventually gave up and quit.  Derek, Becky and I, we pressed on, and continued posting videos while trying to recruit people to our channel (which proved surprisingly difficult).  But then disaster struck.  The Internet at FPU wouldn't allow Becky to post videos.  She tried for several weeks--even traveled off campus to post--but the burden proved too large, and after 3 weeks of no postings, it seems she has admitted defeat.  Derek and I, we tried to persevere.  We kept on recording videos for a few weeks; but in the end, it just wasn't enough momentum to keep us going.  No video from Derek last week meant no video from me this week... the channel has come to a halt.

We have discussed it.  We don't want to give up.  We love our channel.  But we are discouraged. Just the two of us, we can't do it alone.  And so it seems, we have failed.  Unless... unless you want to help us.  Do you want to see '5 Frequent Failures' succeed?  If you want to keep enjoying my Monday videos, consider becoming our Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday!  It would be grand!  Then we would not have to admit defeat, our channel would live on, and we would all have a ton of fun in the process. :-)

The Role of Apology in Reconciliation Processes

This morning I attended another event at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) regarding the role of apology in reconciliation.  The event began with a screening of  the film, Apology, a documentary about 'Sorry Day' in Australia.  On February 13 of this year, the Australian Prime Minister issued a public apology to the aboriginals of Australia for the atrocities committed against them in the past.  Watch the trailer.  It's stunning.

If only there were more politicians like Kevin Rudd.  Politicians who aren't afraid of appearing 'weak' by offering apologies that are rightfully deserved.  Politicians who understand that the only way forward is to deal with the past.  Politicians who understand the power of history, who understand that history lives in the present.  Politicians who are humble enough to say, 'I'm sorry.'

I appreciate what the woman in the video said: Apology is not a panacea.  It's not the end, nor the total solution.  But it is a powerful symbol.  Good faith apologies are not just empty words, but acknowledgments of history, of wrongdoing, of regret.  Apology is a first, but necessary, step in the healing process.  Apology acknowledges truth, and in doing so, creates the potential for a release of forgiveness and mercy.  It cannot right the wrongs of the past, but it opens the door for shared responsibility for the future.

Apology is disarming.  It stops the cycle of defensiveness and justification.  It is a symbol that moves in the opposite spirit of anger, bitterness, competition, and self-righteousness.  It is appropriate at all levels--individual, community, intergroup, and interstate.  Apology sets us on the path to reconciliation, the key to sustainable peace.      

Nanny Lisa, AKA Mary Poppins without the Magic Carpetbag

Most days, I am thankful for my job.  I mean, how hard is it really to drive kids around and help them with homework?  20 hours of nanny work a week for free rent (& utilities!) is a steal, I know this.  But there are some days when I think: I will never have children.  The things that drive me up the wall:

1. Complaining.  I don't want to walk to the car.  I don't want to read.  I don't want to do my homework.  I'm bored.  I'm too tired to do that.  I don't want that for dinner.  Why did you take so long?  Why do we have to wait?  Why can't I have candy for my snack?  The constant, dissatisfied, whiny tone takes its toll.  
2. Uncooperativeness.  Having every request met with some argument, some rationale for why it doesn't have to be done.  When instructions are intentionally interpreted literally to avoid cooperation, so I have to give increasingly specific directions to avoid the argument 'I'm doing what you asked!'  Or, just a simple 'No.'  When every little thing is a struggle, I want to pull my hair out.
3. Bickering.  Siblings have a way of getting on each other's nerves that must grate on parents' nerves the most... or at least the nanny's.  I could handle a blow-out fight every once in a while, but the bickering and nagging is like nails on a chalkboard.    
4. Yelling.  Loud noises generally, expressing any emotion.  I don't like them.

The kids I nanny are good kids.  Really, they are.  Most of the time, we don't have problems, and even have fun!  But some days... Some days they are quite a handful, and I think, I'm not cut out for this.  Leave me to the world of rational adults, please!!

A Sucker for Stars

Historic!

I will never, ever forget November 4, 2008.  I am convinced I will never experience an election this monumental again in my lifetime.  It was spectacular.  Incredible.  I am so proud of America.  I am so proud that Barack Obama will be my president in 2 short months, the first African American president in our history.  

I know not everyone is as proud as I am, but regardless of your views, you have to admit: magic was in the air last night.  Magic, at least, was in the streets of DC--a city that went 93% to Obama.  For an Obama supporter, there wasn't a better place in the nation to be.

I went to an election watch party with some friends, and we eagerly watched and cheered as polls gradually closed from east to west across the country, and states were called.  Every state called for Obama was met with resounding shouts of "O-BA-MA!" and "YES WE CAN!" as people yelled and hugged and high fived and toasted.  The electoral votes went up: 69, 123, 207 as Obama garnered swing states like Ohio, Indiana, Florida, and Virginia.  The atmosphere was electric as we waited in anticipation for what we all hoped was the inevitable.

I don't think any of us expected it to happen as quickly as it did.  As 11pm approached, we counted down to polls closing on the West Coast.  "5... 4... 3... 2... 1...!" we shouted together. And then seconds later, it flashed across the television screen: "BARACK OBAMA ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."  The place erupted with screams and shouts of elation!  We couldn't believe our eyes!  And then within minutes, McCain conceded and it was official.  History had been made.  Barack Obama had been elected president.  The District went wild.  On every street everywhere people were celebrating.  I laughed, I cried, I hugged, I texted, I called (YES, I called!  I called EVERYONE!  Thanks to those of you who answered and listened to me shout that WE DID IT!  WE WON!!).  Cheers of "Yes We Can" changed to "YES WE DID!"  Yes, I will remember November 4, 2008, for the rest of my life.  

Today I was talking to a classmate of mine from Egypt, who did not get to vote, but helped work the polls all day.  He told me, "America won yesterday.  Congratulations."  It made me so proud.  America, we won.  Yes, we did!

Hating on Happiness?

SIS 600: Quantitative Analysis

Statistics, essentially.  And sometimes, I feel, the bane of my existence this semester.  And if you talk to anyone else in my program, most of us agree on that point.  We are peace-loving, theory-loving, practical conflict resolution-loving people, not numbers-loving people.  We take this class because we have to, and most of us hate it the entire way through.  I admit I see the value in it, but I will not be sad when I can say I'm done with this class!!

Tonight is the midterm (actually kind of 2/3-term) and this past weekend my life has basically been devoted to studying for it.  On Saturday, I went to a cafe with free wireless internet and spent 8 hours working.  5 of those hours were spent on ONE, count them, ONE Quant homework assignment, which I, incidentally, did not even finish.  Sunday I studied more, this morning I continued, and I think I can say I am as prepared as I'm going to be.  

I know it's unlikely that this will be interesting to any of you.  But since the purpose of my blog is to give you a small window into my life, I thought I would subject you all to a little of the pain I've been feeling the last few days.  Thus, a portion of my statistics homework :-)  Enjoy!!

In your own words, define and explain each of the following terms and concepts:

I-R Measure of association/correlation  r statistics. Application, interpretation and limitations of the  r statistics The Pearson’s r measure of association is used to standardize the relationship between interval-ratio variables based on the computations from the least-squared regression line.  It measures the strength of the association between two variables on a scale of 0 to plus/minus 1.  A Pearson’s r value of 0-.3 shows a weak association, .3-.6 shows a moderate association, and .6-1 shows a strong association. If the value is positive, there is a positive relationship (the variables vary in the same direction).  If the value is negative, there is a negative relationship (the variables vary in opposite directions).  The interpretation of Pearson’s r is fairly arbitrary, so the coefficient of determination was developed, which is r squared.  This is a PRE statistic, meaning it tells us the percentage by which our error in predicting the dependent variable will be reduced taking into account the independent variable.  Pearson’s r is a very helpful and sophisticated statistic, but it can only be used with interval-ratio variables (though it is sometimes used with ordinal variables and can be adjusted to use rarely with nominal variables—but the results are less accurate).  Pearson’s r statistics also assume a linear relationship between the variables.

I-R Measure of association/correlation  R and R squared statistics. Application, interpretation and limitations of the R and  R squared statistics.  R and R squared statistics are used to show the combined effects of all independent variables on a dependent variable (measured at the interval-ratio level).  Because even independent variables are interrelated, we cannot simply add the r squared statistics together to determined the combined effect on the dependent variable.  R squared tells us the percentage of the total variance in the dependent variable that can be explained by the dependent variables combined.  R and R squared statistics can only most accurately be applied to interval-ratio variables.  These statistics are very powerful, but require high-quality data and assume that each independent variable has a linear relationship with the dependent variable.  They also assume no interaction among the variables in the equation and that the independent variables are uncorrelated with each other.  As these assumptions are violated, the statistics become less trustworthy.

Similarities and difference between, R,  R squared statistics and  r statistics. R statistics and r statistics are similar in that they both measure the association between variables at the interval-ratio level, and can provide us with the percentage of variance in the dependent variable that is explained by the independent variable(s).  The difference is that r statistics measure the effect of ONE independent variable on a dependent variable, and R statistics measure the effect of MULTIPLE independent variables on a dependent variable.

Ordinal measure Gamma. Aplication, interpretation and limitations of the  Gamma statistics Gamma is used to measure the strength of association and direction of two ordinal level variables.  Gamma is measured on a scale of 0 to plus/minus 1, with values from 0-.3 showing a weak relationship, .3-.6 a moderate one, and .6-1 a strong relationship.  If the value is positive, there is a positive relationship (the variables vary in the same direction).  If the value is negative, there is a negative relationship (the variables vary in opposite directions).  When evaluating the direction of relationship, it is important to pay attention to the way categories are coded.  Since these are ordinal level variables, categories can often be scored in two different ways, both of which are equally valid.

Ordinal measure Spearman’s Rho. Aplication, interpretation and limitations of Spearman’s Rho Spearman’s Rho is used as a measure of association between ordinal level variables when there is a broad range of scores and the researcher does not want to collapse them into categories that could be used to compute gamma from a bivariate table.  Spearman’s rho permits the retention of detail that can be lost when collapsing scores into categories such as “high” and “low.”  Instead of putting scores into categories, they variables are ranked in order from highest to lowest, and then the ranks for each case on each variable are compared with each other.  The computation of spearman’s rho is an index of the strength of association between the two variables on a scale of 0 to plus/minus 1, with values from 0-.3 showing a weak relationship, .3-.6 a moderate one, and .6-1 a strong relationship.  If the value is positive, there is a positive relationship (the variables vary in the same direction).  If the value is negative, there is a negative relationship (the variables vary in opposite directions).  If the value of Spearman’s rho is squared, it provides us with a PRE statistic.  Spearman’s rho can only be used with ordinal level variables that can be ranked from highest to lowest for each case.

Slope, Intercept, Least-Squared Regression Line. Interpretation of the regression line The slope (b) of a regression line tells us the unit change in Y (dependent variable) caused by a one-unit change in X (independent variable).  The Y-intercept (a) can be calculated once the slope has been calculated using the formula Y = a + bX.  This tells us the point at which the regression line crosses the Y-axis.  This formula is the formula for the least-squares regression line, the line that comes as close as possible to touching all conditional means of Y.  The regression line tells us the strength and the direction of the relationship between X and Y.  When all the cases are plotted on the graph (scattergram), we can see how closely they are clustered around the regression line.  The closer they are to the line, the stronger the relationship between X and Y.  If the regression line rises from left to right, the relationship is positive; if it rises from right to left, the relationship is negative.  The regression formula can also be used to predict the value of Y based on a value of X that was not included in the data.  The regression line can only be used with interval-ratio variables.

Multiple Least-Squared Regression Line. Partial slope. The least-squares multiple regression line is a modified least-squares regression line that includes more than one independent variable.  Partial slopes show the amount of change in Y for a one-unit change in an independent variable while controlling for the effects of the other independent variables.  They represent the direct effect of the associated indpendent variable on Y.  This regression line can also be used to predict the scores of the dependent variable based on scores of two or more independent variables.

Monday Video on Friday

Life has been crazy... that's why this is late.  At the moment I'm studying for my Quantitative Analysis midterm and trying to stay sane!

Reflections on Peace through Nonviolence

This is actually a paper I wrote for my Peace Paradigms class in response to our study of Nonviolence.  It is a bit lengthy, but I thought it would be a good way to share a little of what I'm thinking about with regard to my studies, while using something that is already written :-)

As a sidenote: I have gotten a few emails asking about Miami and my Monday video.  Blogs are coming, I promise!  So stay tuned...

I consider myself a pacifist.  I did not grow up questioning the legitimacy of war, but spent a significant portion of my undergraduate years grappling with the issues of war, peace, and justice in light of national interest, global interest, and my faith.  Though unanswered questions certainly remain and situations arise to which I do not have ready nonviolent solutions, I came to regard war and violence as unacceptable means by which to pursue one’s objectives—no matter how noble.  Like Ursula Franklin, I see violence as resourcelessness, and believe that when you start from the assumption that violence is unacceptable, a nonviolent solution will eventually be found.  In fact, I believe it is essential to start from the assumption that violence is not an option; otherwise, when faced with a seemingly insurmountable impasse in conflict, one might resort to violence before sufficient energy has been devoted to finding a creative solution.  Obviously, coming from this perspective, nonviolent movements are of particular interest to me as a method for resolving conflict.

The process of doing the readings and preparing a presentation on nonviolent resistance forced me to re-examine many of the questions I had grappled with before.  How viable is nonviolence in the face of what Gene Sharp calls the “hard cases” like genocide and brutal dictators?  Is it ever acceptable to use violence to end violence in these situations?  Is it true that, as Gandhi believed, it is better to act violently in the face of injustice than to not act at all?  Sharp contends that nonviolence is a realistic alternative to violence in these situations.  That, when injustice has occurred, nonviolent resistance is actually more appropriate than negotiation because brutal dictators do not deserve to “win” anything.  I agree, but it is still difficult for me to imagine how exactly nonviolent resistance could be effectively employed in a situation like the current one in Darfur or the genocide in Rwanda or the Holocaust.  When it is the intention of one group to destroy another group, would nonviolent response not just make it easier to accomplish that goal?  Is it possible that force or threats of force are the only ways to put an end to such unbridled violent destruction?  I certainly believe we have a responsibility to act early to prevent genocide and outbreaks of violence in response to injustice, but once the killing has begun, how do we stop it without resorting to more killing?

I do not have ready answers to these questions, but I want to believe Sharp is right and nonviolent action is a realistic alternative.  I appreciate his description of what he calls “political jiu-jitsu.”  When a group steps outside the box, outside the repetitive cycle of combating violence with more violence, it creates a special asymmetrical conflict dynamic.  Nonviolent response to violence reveals the power of nonviolence and the hidden weakness of violence.  I think it is possible we (and I do include myself in this “we”) are skeptical about the power of nonviolence because it is not often enough engaged, and therefore, the asymmetrical conflict dynamic is not often enough observed.  In the face of extreme violence, people understandably tend to resort to violence to protect themselves and others.  But if we took violence off the table as an option, if it were truly an unacceptable response even in the face of such extreme violence, I wonder what creative solutions humankind would develop.  I wonder if we would begin to see more widely the power of nonviolent resistance to throw the opponent off balance even in the “hard cases.” 

Nonviolent response to violence is also powerful in the way it affects observers.  Last weekend I attended a Skills Institute on nonviolent resistance to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip.  We watched videos of Palestinian nonviolent resisters, and I was struck by the vast power differential I observed.  On one side, there were peaceful, unarmed Palestinian demonstrators; on the other side, Israeli Defense Forces in uniform with helmets and machine guns.  The contrast made the vast resources and power of the IDF look ridiculous and unnecessary.  I felt like as an Israeli, I would have been embarrassed by what appeared to be such unwarranted displays of strength against a powerless opponent.  The use of nonviolence on the part of Palestinians made it much easier to sympathize with the Palestinian cause.

In this way, nonviolence often succeeds in giving resisters a moral high ground, and is therefore more effective in garnering international support.  When a group uses violence to obtain its objectives, the resistance is much easier for outsiders to ignore, regardless of the justice of its cause.  In a fight of violence versus violence, the distinction between oppressed and oppressor is often unclear to the observer.  When violence is employed, it is more likely that injustices are perpetrated by both groups, making an outsider less willing to side with one over another.  However, nonviolent response creates a clearer distinction between the two adversaries.  When one group at least has the appearance of innocence, the international community is much more likely to lend its support.   

Martin Luther King, Jr. called his activism “creative extremism.”  I appreciate the fact that nonviolent resistance requires imagination and creativity.  Perhaps it can be argued that there are creative ways to perpetrate violence, but generally, I think there is very little imagination required in picking up a gun and shooting or throwing a punch.  However, when violence is not an option in achieving one’s goals, it is amazing how many other ingenious options emerge.  Gene Sharp lists 198 methods of nonviolence in his Appendix to There Are Realistic Alternatives.  198!  And as we discussed in class, there are people like Saul Alinksky who have thought much further outside the box than Sharp.  Boycotts, strikes, sit-ins, marches, chaining oneself to trees, mock funerals, refusal to pay taxes, dirty protests during which people refuse to bathe—the possibilities for nonviolent protest do seem to be endless.  It is incredible what creativity is unleashed in the human mind when there is a refusal to engage in violence.

Unfortunately, nonviolence, even in my own mind, often carries with it connotations of passivity and submission, from which it derives much of its criticism.  The readings, however, emphasized the concept of nonviolent action.  According to Gandhi and King, nonviolence is anything but inactive.  Passivity and submission in the face of injustice and oppression are absolutely unacceptable.  These perspectives helped me reframe nonviolent resistance in this active light, as a response that requires intense organization, energy, and preparation.  I was surprised to find that much of King’s Letter From Birmingham Jail is a response to criticisms that his demonstrations were too bold, too extreme.  A far cry from the criticisms I am used to hearing about nonviolence being too passive a response to injustice. 

I began to understand that nonviolent action is actually a form of coercion, a concept I had not previously considered.  While mediation and other conflict resolution methods seek to find mutually acceptable agreements, nonviolent action seeks generally to coerce the opponent to accept the activists’ demands.  There does not tend to be dialogue or discussion of emotions, perceptions, and underlying interests; restoration of relationship and reconciliation are not usually goals of nonviolent action.  Whereas the goal of a problem-solving workshop might be to develop a creative solution that addresses all parties’ interests, the goal of nonviolent resistance is generally to “win”; through either conversion, accommodation, coercion, or disintegration, nonviolent actors try to defeat their opponents. 

My realization of its coercive nature brought clarity to the difference in approach between nonviolent direct action and more cooperative methods like Interactive Conflict Resolution.  This served to reinforce my desire to be a practitioner of the latter.  While I fully support nonviolent resistance movements, highly respect nonviolent activists, and believe they are both invaluable and necessary to the pursuit of peace and justice, I am more interested in addressing root causes of conflict and seeking mutual understanding and reconciliation between parties, which is generally not the primary goal of nonviolent action.  Nonviolent movements are peaceful in that they refrain from physical violence, but they are still combative and position parties as adversaries.  I believe in their power and efficacy, but I prefer to focus professionally on methods that emphasize cooperation and collaboration between conflicting parties.

However, principled nonviolence—or nonviolence as a lifestyle or article of faith, not just a strategy of resistance—is still an essential component my personal philosophy of peace.  I believe, with Gandhi and King, that nonviolence goes beyond simply not doing harm to actually doing good, even to one’s enemy.  Like Catharine Marshall, I believe that nonviolence involves employing an attitude that respects the humanity in all, even the opponent.  For me, this is a principle I must cling to, regardless of its ultimate effectiveness in achieving specific objectives.

When a person claims to be non-violent, he is expected not to be angry with one who has injured him.  He will not wish him harm; he will wish him well; he will not swear at him; he will not cause him any physical hurt.  He will put up with all the injury to which he is subjected by the wrong-doer.  Thus non-violence is complete innocence.  Complete non-violence is complete absence of ill-will against all that lives.   Non-violence [of the strong] is therefore in its active form good will towards all life.  It is pure Love (Gandhi, 1936).

And That Was The Last Time I Ever Saw Him...

...until TOMORROW!!!  Yes, tomorrow morning I'm flying to Miami, where Derek is currently attending a conference, and we get to hang out for five days!  PB&J reunited--I'm pretty thrilled!  I'll also get to see my cousin Sarah and her husband Jameson, and my Peace Corps friend, Will, who lives in Florida and is coming to hang out on Friday.  It's gonna be an amazing vacation!  But first, there are still a few things to accomplish here.  After I write a rough draft of my section of a group paper and do a presentation on Nonviolent Resistance, I'll be home free! Miami, here I come!

Nonviolence & Violence

I realized after watching this that I seem like a really horrible sister!  Perhaps I should have been more selective in the stories I shared.  Oh well, now it's there for the world to see!

Experiments in Video Technology

Top Ten Reasons Your Church Might Get Negative Points...

So church hunting sucks, I think we can all agree on that.  Church can be wonderful, but finding one in a new city is an arduous process.  I was talking to Derek today and he jokingly suggested that I come up with a rating system and rate all the churches I try in DC.  I don't know if I will go that far, but if I did, these ten things would certainly earn negative points...

10.  The website claims you are a place of contemplation, but when I walk in the room I am immediately accosted by audiovisual stimuli to make my head spin.

9.  The service kicks off with 4 drumstick clicks, followed by a rockin' good worship time.

8.  The worship leader at any time says we have to stand up because 'this one is a pumper.'

7.  You are located in an ethnically diverse neighborhood, yet the church is full of white people. Pretty white people at that (can anyone say 'A Team'?  That was for you, Jen :-) ).

6.  The singers, needing to be even more pretty because they are on stage, are dressed like Abercrombie & Fitch models.

5.  I close my eyes for a split-second at the end of worship and open them to find the band and MC have seamlessly and silently switched places on stage during the 'transition prayer.'

4.  The sermon starts and instead of seeing a real person, I feel like I am watching Comedy Central on 4 screens.

3.  The word 'awesome' is used more than 5 times during the service.  

2.  The whole sermon is done in yell-mode.  Angry, no.  Superhuman-sustained intensity, yes. You really don't have to speak so loudly, I'm sitting right here.  Oh, but wait.  You don't know that.  Because you are a video.

1.  Because of all the videos, loud music, fancy-schmancy lights, and yelling, I leave feeling more tense than when I arrived and need to spend quiet time with God to recuperate from church.

On a more serious note, I had another thought today.  I have often heard people say that we may not like it when churches get big, but we have to admit that God is doing something when they do.  I have always agreed with this statement, acknowledging that God works in all kinds of ways, even ways I (*gasp!*) don't like.  Now I am not saying that God is necessarily NOT moving when churches grow, but tonight I had the thought: When did we come to associate growth and popularity with the hand of God?  When thousands of people camp out overnight to buy Britney Spears concert tickets, is that God moving?  When high school students all shop at the same clothing stores, is God doing something?  When a restaurant chain sees a huge increase in its popularity, do we say, 'Man, God must be working there!'  Yet, when a church grows, we say God must be moving.  But maybe that is not necessarily the case. After all, Scripture records Jesus actually losing followers because his teaching was too difficult.  Is it possible that growth is not inherently a sign of God's work, but rather of good advertising and popular appeal?  Is this what the Church is supposed to be?  Good advertisers who appeal to people's sense of fashion? 

Food for thought.  Certainly not without blind spots, but mind food nonetheless.

Iraqi Recommendations for the Incoming Administration

One unique aspect of DC is the plethora of organizations, universities, think tanks, and government offices in the city that are always hosting public events on a variety of pertinent topics.  This is one of my favorite things about this city!  Last Friday, I attended an event hosted by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) entitled "Iraqi Recommendations for the Incoming Administration."  

USIP hosted two panels of Iraqi government officials and academics to give recommendations to the new presidential administration regarding policy toward Iraq.  It was enlightening to hear them share their visions for the future of their country, and their ideas about the role the United States has to play.  We hear so much about Iraq, what we should be doing there, how long we should stay, and whether we should have gone in the first place.  But I couldn't help thinking that these are the people we should be listening to.

I came away with a few impressions.  One, I now question whether pulling out of Iraq in 16 months according to Barack Obama's plan is really the best thing for the country.  When asked what they thought of the plan, nearly all of the panelists responded that it would be disastrous for Iraq.  Now, I was never a supporter of this war, and I think it's even more clear now that we never should have gone in the first place; but I do think that we now have a responsibility to help rebuild a nation we have helped destroy.  I don't know what that looks like exactly, but I don't think that pulling out and washing our hands of Iraq is a responsible option.

Second, that the U.S. can play a role in supporting the development of democratic institutions in Iraq, but that we should not impose our concept of democracy on a nation with a completely different cultural context and content than ours, specifically through the implementation of benchmarks.  One of the panelists pointed out that if the French had made their support of the American Revolution contingent upon the end of slavery, equal rights for women, and civil rights, we would still be colonies of Britain.  Because those things took us 200 years to achieve after our independence.  We cannot expect Iraq to deal with foundational issues of its development on an American timeline.

Finally, I left the event convinced that Iraq is going to be part of U.S. foreign policy for a very very long time.  We are now inextricably bound up with its future.  And considering the issues and problems the nation faces (dealing with corruption, resolving deeply rooted ethnic & religious conflict, building infrastructure, developing institutions, strengthening the rule of law), it undoubtedly is going to take a very long time for a healed and healthy Iraq to emerge.  I fear until now the United States has been a largely destructive force in that process; I pray in the future it can be a positive one.