cutting

I'm in the middle of a strange process that I need to talk with someone about. Forgive this for being a little trite, but it's real nonetheless. I am going through my list of "friends" on facebook and passing judgment on each person, and either keeping them or deleting them. It feels cold, yet necessary. The underlying assumption to this process is that it matters. I have yet to come to conclusion on that question, but let's assume it does.

So of these 429 people I call friends, who passes the test? Well, let's be honest about what the test is. There are some clear criteria:

1. Are we currently friends or colleagues in real life? Meaning, have we interacted in a personal/professional manner in the past 3 years. Work with me...

2. Do you have something that I want now or may want at some time in the foreseeable future? This could be information, skills, access, proximity to something/someone, or a stretch hummer.

3. Do I just think you're cool and get some kind of pleasure out of being associated with you?

4. Would I want to go on a date with you if it came up? If yes, then we're good.

5. Would there be other social ramifications to us not being friends on facebook? Am I willing to live with those? This is really about the weird-factor: will it be weird if I delete you?

6. Are we related? Family get's a bye no matter how close we are.

I assure you, if you're reading this, then you've passed on criterion number one. I would never be so cold as to just have you as facebook friend because you're a cute girl and I like having an excuse to be associated with you. We don't do that, right?

So how legit is my social network? Some of these folks I would take a bullet for. Others I met one day and may not meet again, but am glad that I've accumulated them. Is there shame in such disparity on a single plane of social contacts? Should my mom, my boss, my best bud, someone from 8th grade homeroom, the hot friend of a friend, my college adviser, my neighbor, a good friend I see every few months, someone I made out with once, someone I got arrested with once, my step-sister, and a former co-worker's girlfriend all be equitable? Maybe there's a way to prioritize these people. But that feels dirty and judgmental, and would not be well-received by those no on the top shelf. Right?

I just want to be honest. But I don't think that's the point here.

Trumping all this, my ego is not feeling like acknowledging that only 50 or so of these 400+ people I get the luxury of calling "friends," are anything more than acquaintances or people I used to know. I've put a screen on the social cycle so as to not let people out of my network once they've come in. So beware, should you have a quality conversation with me at a wedding someday. You might be opening yourself up to years of seeing what my college roommate thinks about that drunken picture of me in Mexico, and my egocentric, faux-intellectual blog post announcements. Maybe we should consult each other on this before I walk back over to the bar and you get caught up with the bride's cousin, who wants to dance, but chooses to make a comment about the straps on your dress instead. You'll feel weird about refusing my friend-request next week, and I'll feel weird about deleting you in two years when I can't remember where we met. Should we just avoid the whole thing? Cause I don't know if this is going anywhere, no matter how cute and/or sophisticated you are. No, let's keep it open. See what happens. Maybe someday I'll look through your New Zealand vacation pics and be inspired to restart that conversation about the parenting-in-the-21st-century book that we could write.

Until then, keep a picture up that let's me recognize you, and we'll be fine. Seriously.

See....

pig flu

We are 41 days into what may be one of the most important outbreaks of the past 43 days.

The World Health Organization posted its first update on the swine flu situation last Friday. In that first update, WHO discussed the history of Mexican surveillance of an influenza-like illness (ILI) which was detected in Mexico City--currently my favorite place in the world. And since then--50,000 news stories, millions of surgical mask purchases, and 91 confirmed cases on American soil, later--swine flu has become the hottest thing going. Oh swine flu. It's all the rage, yet it's not. As of today, WHO reports 148 confirmed cases globally, including 8 deaths, all in the US (1) and Mexico (7). The loss of human life, particularly among young people, is tragic. The American death was a Mexican toddler in Texas. But I don't recall hearing anything on the news two weeks ago when twice as many children died of influenza in the US--yes, that would be 2. And that same week, confirmed cases of "seasonal" influenza in the US (151) topped the global rate of swine flu over the past month (148), according to the CDC. And April is the tail end of the American flu season. Since the final months of 2008, there have been more than 25,000 confirmed cases of influenza and 55 pediatric deaths resulting from the flu in the United States. Standard procedure for a year in between the Atlantic, Pacific, Canada, and Mexico--maybe a little better, actually.

So why are we freaking out about swine flu? Why are we sanitizing schools and wearing pointless surgical masks? Humans get this thing all the time. And this appears, so far, to be no more aggressive than regular old flu. The CDC's major clinical recommendations have really been no more than reissues of those related to seasonal flu: young children and pregnant women are at high risk. And pig flu appears to be just about as responsive to antiviral drugs as regular flu. On the other hand, the following remark is the most cause for special concern I've seen so far, from CDC or anyone else qualified to be saying something about it: "The more recent illnesses and the reported death suggest that a pattern of more severe illness associated with this virus may be emerging in the U.S. Most people will not have immunity to this new virus and, as it continues to spread, more cases, more hospitalizations and more deaths are expected in the coming days and weeks." Ok, guys. I get it.

Call me an optimistic cynic. I have a feeling this is not going to be the apocalyptic finale we've been waiting for. But I actually don't know that much. So I'm going to pay close attention to this over the next week, and try to report back as often as I can. Most world issues are treated like sporting events (elections, wars, epidemics), so I'm hoping that a blackberry application that one-clicks me to the epidemiology of pig flu is ready in the next couple of days. But until then, I'll do my best to stay on top of it. And so will CDC, I hope: www.cdc.gov/swineflu/.

[[[SIDE-NOTE: I have to say my #1 favorite national response to swine flu has got to be Egypt. They have capitalized on the moment and ordered the slaughter of all pigs in the country. Given that it's a Muslim country, and the only folks with pigs are Christians, some might suggest this amounts to religious persecution based on inflated public health threats. How exciting! Here we're blaming Mexicans and there they're blaming gentiles. Gays, Jews, and drug users, you have the week off.]]]

Three paths ahead: 1. I get vindicated and people stay healthy while this whole thing blows over. 2. I get sick and believe it because the only thing that really matters in my narrow personal experience. 3. I get converted by the hype and fill my bathtub with hand sanitizer, and set CNN on the sink. Until then, however, I think I'll stand by the words of two great Detroit philosophers:

william scott, 2pac, and sugule ali ain't never did a crime they ain't have to do

pirates are hot. but aside from that, they might have history, rationale, and even some politics. but the standard news sources wouldn't have you think they were anything but mindless thugs on a mission for cash, with an appetite for american blood. a read-through of some of today's stories gives little perspective on the Somali pirate situation. the new york times, bbc, wall street journal, and even the cape times make sure to avoid asking any questions about the reasons why so many ships are coming under fire and occupation in this very particular part of the world. the only commentary to be easily accessed in the press is that which "knows" that all these thugs want is money, and that when they want money, it's wrong.

i wanted to get another take on this. the issue is back on the front page, but the story has been hot for about a year now. i know where i come from, and i know that when all else fails, indymedia can get me started on some real journalism. johann hari wrote an excellent editorial on the situation on saturday. his main point is that pirates, and trends in piracy, have historically emerged from patterns of economic subjugation. william scott, a british seaman-turned-pirate from the 18th century (i think it's 18th), made an apparently emblematic statement about his forays into piracy: "What I did was to keep me from perishing. I was forced to go a-pirating to live." Scott was among the many poor young men of england who were basically conscripted into the merchant marine service in his time. Their captains were the same who sailed ships full of Africans across the atlantic. The story of William Scott and other pirates of the "golden age" can be found in Marcus Rediker's book, "Villains of All Nations."

hari's article also sent me to another source for analysis and news i've often overlooked: the indigenous press. on sunday, Muuse Yuusuf, a Somali writer for wardheernews.com, wrote the story i've been looking for: "The Armada is not the solution." Yuusuf, in old-school journalistic fashion, called out other media for not looking deep enough into the story. according to Yuusuf--and the UN??--rampant illegal fishing by international companies (and somalis, i suppose) combined with reckless toxic waste dumping off the coast of somalia by non-somali entities (corporations, governments, and the italian mafia) have had a profound negative impact on the smaller-scale fishing that somalia's coastal communities rely on. you have one of the world's most destitute nations getting further stripped of a reliable resource, by law-breaking industrial fishers. and this isn't the highway robbery form of resource theft ("gimme yo shit..."), this is the "gimme yo shit, and i'm also going to degrade your surf to the degree that you won't ever be able to get what you had again from it," form of imperial resource robbery. al jazeera ran a great summary of this side of the story as well, last october.

according the al jazeera and wardheer.com pieces, numerous pirates have made statements to the effect that the piracy has two principal motivations: 1. to recoup some of the immediate and long-term financial losses resulting from other nations' overfishing and waste dumping in somali waters--by way of collecting ransoms, and 2. to recoup some of the self-respect that washes away when other nations over-fish and dump toxic waste all through your national waters--by way of revenge violence.

my kneejerk is always to sympathize with whatever faceless group from an oppressed nation is being demonized in the press. but don't hate, i'm a just a pavlovian leftist. it seems every time there's a new crazy globally-southern movement with guns, the cnn wants to tell me they don't have a right. The fishermen in somalia have a different opinion, according to Yuusuf's report. i agree "mr. hussein" (whomever you are), the western media is, "talking only about the piracy problem in Somalia, but not about the destruction of our coast and our lives by these foreign ships."

the ships are no effigy. they are a direct representation of the still brutal, still chilling, still functioning programme of resource colonization going on in africa. what an opportunity the somali pirates have seized upon. they have raised the profile of their plight (well, their response at least) to that of an international crisis, raised some capital, and actually interfered with the global trade regime which has systematically screwed them. what if they weren't the only ones who were so ambitious?





(photo credit: Jean-Marc Bouju/AFP/Getty Images, from The State of the Environment in Somalia: A Desk Study. United Nations Environment Programme )

pre-exposure

I've really been sinking my head into this PrEP (Pre-exposure prohylaxis) stuff lately. It is very exciting being in on the ground-level of a truly new advance in HIV prevention. As I feel about most of the questions that come up as we dance with this epidemic, PrEP will provide another opportunity to deal with our stigmas and determinations about who deserves healthcare, and who should be persued about being healthy. Gay men, drug users, and sex workers are traditionally some of our strongest pariahs. And our constructs of hiv risk-taking behaviors haven't done much to dismantle any thinking that folks who make "bad" decisions deserve "bad" outcomes. But those at highest risk will likely be the most plausible population for the drug that could prevent HIV infection.

PrEP, if it's as efficacious as I hope it can be, won't be useful for everyone, or even every person at high risk for HIV. But it will be an opportunity for us to acknowledge that the problem of AIDS doesn't go away until we start making some ground on the problem of our bad decisions/bad outcomes line of thinking with regard to people's health. Risk-takers deserve access to the best healthcare too. PrEP gives us a chance to aggressively pursue the health of those whose lifestyles, decisions, or time and location place them at greater risk for HIV than most of us. I'm not sure we're going to be starting out on that foot, but that's what I'll be fighting for. 28 years into this thing, leaving the least of us out in the cold should not be an option. That's what I believe my predecessors have been fighting for. ~cb