I often feel that I should be more active in following world politics; that being fed the information passively leaves me vulnerable and uninformed. So, I resolved to read the political pieces in the national newspapers, but found them rife with bipartisan personal opinion or spin. Not my idea of being informed. Turning to the national newscast, I found that much of it centred on U.S. issues which seemed to be filtered right from the American media. I got that odd feeling of vulnerability again because it seems that spin is what the American media is all about. This feeling becomes stronger as more flashy graphics and celebrity journalists appear on CNN. I, like many others, retreat and hope that someone more objective will come along to clarify and present us with the big picture.

That man finally came along. The opportunity to hear Noam Chomsky speak is to stand outside the box and peer inside. Chomsky began by invoking the words of the chief U.S. prosecutor at the start of the Nuremberg trials. In order for those trials to have any merit, they had to be held under the principle of universality; that all countries will be held liable and punished for future acts of international aggression or genocide. However, as Chomsky noted, the only upheld principle of universality is that nothing is universal. That the accepted climate of morality, upheld by the media, allows those in power never to ?drink from the poison chalice.? He began to outline the framework that allows for such a thing.

Chomsky clarified that an international aggressor is anyone that enters uninvited and takes power from a country, regardless of whether or not there is an official declaration of war. This encompasses U.S. actions against Iraq and many other countries. However, the U.S. government has used the media to present its actions as a noble effort to bring stability to these regions. Chomsky divulged how the U.S. has managed to commit, but never stand trial for, its own crimes. He also asserted that the U.S. is not a functional democracy because its media is not free and transparent.

He explained that stories often leaked from the government appear in a lone suburban newspaper, often a subsidiary of a larger company like the New York Times who will not print it. The story is invariably a true and unflattering view of U.S. foreign policy, which will only be hinted at a few days later in the national newspapers. Furthermore, Chomsky recounted how the U.S. has used the media in a powerful tactic. When the government makes a huge mistake, they never deny it because denial opens up a forum for discussion and dissent. Instead, they simply use the media to reposition the event as noble and heroic, like an effort to maintain stability. The media is their tool that toes the party line. The trick is that the party line is never uttered, and if it is never uttered, it can’t be disputed, debated, laughed at, or rejected. What is that line? It is that the U.S. owns the world, and so it can never be an interloper or an international aggressor. Therefore, it can commit no crime and can never be held accountable. This is very fortunate due to its long history.

U.S. foreign policy has long been concerned with bringing stability to regions. They did this in Chile, where the official media reported that destabilization of the country was necessary in order for the Americans to re-stabilize it. This occurred again in Nicaragua; Reagan avowed that the instability of this poor country?which could march on Texas in a mere two days?posed a great threat to U.S. security. The subsequent massacre led Nicaragua to charge the U.S. with international terrorism at the World Court, an impossibility as the U.S. cannot be tried for any international crimes. The World Court labelled U.S. actions as international terrorism. The U.S. simply vetoed the ruling to hold the U.S. responsible, a provision it stipulates in many of its international agreements.

In fact, the U.S. brings more instability to the regions they purport to be saving. The presence of U.S. soldiers increases violence. They are the target in 75% of attacks in Iraq, according to official polls and the surrounding region. U.S. interference also kills any hope of success for more moderate uprisings in fundamentalist Arab countries like Iran and Afghanistan. U.S. threats are an excuse to crush moderate movements and increase control over the population. Also, in the name of stability the U.S. has actually provided support for the fundamentalist Afghan regime rather than the countries more favoured moderates.

The most interesting case that Chomsky cited is that of the Iraq ? U.S. relationship. The U.S. itself removed Saddam Hussein from an international list of terrorists in order to facilitate a trade relationship in weaponry. As the relationship thrived, Iraqi officials were even invited to attend an international symposium on the effects of shockwaves in weapon detonation. The U.S. then used their power to prohibit an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When Iraq did invade Kuwait, the U.S. pronounced Hussein an international aggressor.

At almost the same time, the U.S. invaded Panama, killing many more people than had the Iraq invasion. The media kept silent about Panama, with no investigation of the victors being permitted. Instead, Iraq was sanctioned. The humanitarian Oil for Food program was devised to bring aid to the Iraqi population. Again, the media ignored the resignation of two leading international diplomats from this committee, both citing that the U.S. was acting in violation of the Genocide Convention. In the end, only Saddam was sentenced to pay for the 150 lives he took sometime in the 1980s.

Chomsky then recounted the U.S.’s own interestingly constant polling results over the last four decades. They show that 75% of the public viewed the Vietnam War as morally and fundamentally wrong. That phenomenon continues today, with 75% of the U.S. public asserting that the war in Iraq is not just a mistake, but immoral. The media continues to not reflect the view of the people, nor does their government.

Chomsky summed up his talk by quoting a recent speech made by Condoleezza Rice in which she claimed that the U.S. deems all transfers of foreign weapons and foreign fighters into the U.S. as acts of international terrorism. Yet the U.S. engages in this behaviour frequently. Again, he pointed out that the U.S. is never considered responsible because they are never a foreign aggressor; after all, they own the world. This imperialist attitude even appears within their constitution, wherein there is a reference concerning the need to diminish the threat of those foreign savages.

?Foreign savages . . . oh, you mean the natives?? Chomsky chuckled.

Noam Chomsky is Professor Emeritus at MIT in the department of Linguistics and Philosophy. He is a linguist, theorist, and political activist. He has written well over 100 books and articles and is one of the world’s most cited scholars.

That man finally came along. The opportunity to hear Noam Chomsky speak is to stand outside the box and peer inside. Chomsky began by invoking the words of the chief U.S. prosecutor at the start of the Nuremberg trials. In order for those trials to have any merit, they had to be held under the principle of universality; that all countries will be held liable and punished for future acts of international aggression or genocide. However, as Chomsky noted, the only principle of universality upheld is that nothing is universal. That the accepted climate of morality, upheld by the media, allows those in power never to ?drink from the poison chalice.? He began to outline the framework that allows for such a thing.

Chomsky clarified that an international aggressor is anyone that enters uninvited and takes power from a country, regardless of whether or not there is an official declaration of war. This encompasses U.S. actions against Iraq and many other countries. However, the U.S. government has used the media to present its actions as a noble effort to bring stability to these regions. Chomsky divulged how the U.S. has managed to commit, but never stand trial for, its own crimes. He also asserted that the U.S. is not a functional democracy because its media is not free and transparent.

He explained that stories often leaked from the government appear in a lone suburban newspaper, often a subsidiary of a larger company like the New York Times who will not print it. The story is invariably a true and unflattering view of U.S. foreign policy, which will only be hinted at a few days later in the national newspapers. Furthermore, Chomsky recounted how the U.S. has used the media in a powerful tactic. When the government makes a huge mistake, they never deny it because denial opens up a forum for discussion and dissent. Instead, they simply use the media to reposition the event as noble and heroic, like an effort to maintain stability. The media is their tool that toes the party line. The trick is that the party line is never uttered, and if it is never uttered, it can’t be disputed, debated, laughed at, or rejected. What is that line? It is that the U.S. owns the world, and so it can never be an interloper or an international aggressor. Therefore, it can commit no crime and can never be held accountable. This is very fortunate due to its long history.

U.S. foreign policy has long been concerned with bringing stability to regions. They did this in Chile, where the official media reported that destabilization of the country was necessary in order for the Americans to re-stabilize it. This occurred again in Nicaragua; Reagan avowed that the instability of this poor country?which could march on Texas in a mere two days?posed a great threat to U.S. security. The subsequent massacre led Nicaragua to charge the U.S. with international terrorism at the World Court, an impossibility as the U.S. cannot be tried for any international crimes. The World Court labelled U.S. actions as international terrorism. The U.S. simply vetoed the ruling to hold the U.S. responsible, a provision it stipulates in many of its international agreements.

In fact, the U.S. brings more instability to the regions they purport to be saving. The presence of U.S. soldiers increases violence. They are the target in 75% of attacks in Iraq, according to official polls and the surrounding region. U.S. interference also kills any hope of success for more moderate uprisings in fundamentalist Arab countries like Iran and Afghanistan. U.S. threats are an excuse to crush moderate movements and increase control over the population. Also, in the name of stability the U.S. has actually provided support for the fundamentalist Afghan regime rather than the countries more favoured moderates.

The most interesting case that Chomsky cited is that of the Iraq ? U.S. relationship. The U.S. itself removed Saddam Hussein from an international list of terrorists in order to facilitate a trade relationship in weaponry. As the relationship thrived, Iraqi officials were even invited to attend an international symposium on the effects of shockwaves in weapon detonation. The U.S. then used their power to prohibit an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. When Iraq did invade Kuwait, the U.S. pronounced Hussein an international aggressor.

At almost the same time, the U.S. invaded Panama, killing many more people than had the Iraq invasion. The media kept silent about Panama, with no investigation of the victors being permitted. Instead, Iraq was sanctioned. The humanitarian Oil for Food program was devised to bring aid to the Iraqi population. Again, the media ignored the resignation of two leading international diplomats from this committee, both citing that the U.S. was acting in violation of the Genocide Convention. In the end, only Saddam was sentenced to pay for the 150 lives he took sometime in the 1980s.

Chomsky then recounted the U.S.’s own interestingly constant polling results over the last four decades. They show that 75% of the public viewed the Vietnam War as morally and fundamentally wrong. That phenomenon continues today, with 75% of the U.S. public asserting that the war in Iraq is not just a mistake, but immoral. The media continues to not reflect the view of the people, nor does their government.

Chomsky summed up his talk by quoting a recent speech made by Condoleezza Rice in which she claimed that the U.S. deems all transfers of foreign weapons and foreign fighters into the U.S. as acts of international terrorism. Yet the U.S. engages in this behaviour frequently. Again, he pointed out that the U.S. is never considered responsible because they are never a foreign aggressor; after all, they own the world. This imperialist attitude even appears within their Declaration of Independence, wherein there is a reference concerning the need to diminish the threat of those foreign savages.

?Foreign savages . . . oh, you mean the natives?? Chomsky chuckled.

Noam Chomsky is Professor Emeritus at MIT in the department of Linguistics and Philosophy. He is a linguist, theorist, and political activist. He has written well over 100 books and articles and is one of the world’s most cited scholars.

I am no exception. My family moved from Poland to Italy when I was a child. There I began a long relationship with Pope John Paul II. On my first visit I was a couple rows from where the Pope was greeting people in St. Peter’s Basilica. I was on my father’s shoulders, a girl of five, yelling “Pope, Pope,” in polish. He, with his great love reached out his hands over the heads of rows of people. I reached for him, leaning and leaning, people bowing their heads down to make way. The Pope grasped my hands and it was that moment that he grasped my soul. The two of us connected for one moment in time.

The second time I met the Pope at one of his regular Wednesday audiences. I was eager to see him again and so nervous that he might not see me. He approached me and I looked up at him and again said “Pope” in polish. He looked at me and said, “Child, how did you get here?” Then, he took me into his arms and kissed my forehead. When he put me down I was red and stunned. I knew joy and kindness that I had never known before.

For many years (though I am only 20), I followed the Pope on his pilgrimages and attended his masses in Poland. Each time our bond was strengthened by shaking his hand or seeing his face.

My story is one that reflects the great love that filled this man, a man who loved youth. He was not a man that hid behind doctrine and teaching. In Poland, during his priesthood and when he became a Bishop, he would take groups of youth hiking and tell them to call him “uncle.” This was a precaution against the tyranny of communism because his actions were illegal. This beautiful man would take young couples and counsel them about life and love while canoeing. There is much talk about the Pope’s conservatism on contraception and yet he was the first to address the importance of sexual satisfaction for women. In his 1960’s landmark book, Sexuality and Responsibility, he told men to pay attention to the needs of women and cease to be sexually egocentric. He was a complicated man full of conviction.

He was a man loved by all people. He was a man loved by his people: he would sit by his window in Krakow where he sat and talked with theme. This was the way he won over the world, with his sincerity, his humility and his smile.

There is much left to say about Pope John Paul II, and so much that does not even need to be said, but is simply understood. He is the kind of person that made even unbelievers wish that heaven does exist, so that he may enter it. He made Poles proud to be Poles. He made people in the most dire straits and times of hopelessness know that someone is praying for them. This is why the whole world is watching and grieving. He was for us and we were for him. Now our hearts and our tears forever belong to him.

Much like the whole world, I am relieved that his pain is over. I am inspired that he finished his life with such dignity. I am overjoyed with every smile and joke he made. I am brought to tears by every picture. I am hopeful that he sees how we mourn him. I am saddened that I will never see that smile again nor hold that hand. I love him, Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II.

In November of 2003, The Voice published 21st Century Pope: The Challenge of the Coming Conclave, by Stephen Murgatroyd (v11 i41). The article discussed the process of selecting a new pope, and how this process has changed through the years. The article can be found here: http://www.ausu.org/voice/search/searchdisplay.php?ART=2112

* photo of the author and Pope John Paul II, courtesy the author.

What would you do if one day your body no longer followed the biological rules, and your mind no longer flowed in long, logical streams of consciousness? What if your body was no longer your own? Most of us dread the idea of waking up with a sudden breakout–vanity is a powerful beast, a beast that may control a good part of our psyche. Tell me, what if your life became a Russian roulette of days; at any time all your precious building could crumble and you were left to start from the bottom and rebuild. Not just today, but again and again for an unknown number of times into your future. Would you give up. Would you have that choice?

Many people are not aware that such a scenario exists as the effects of a harmless-sounding medical condition: Celiac disease. Called the great mimic by doctors and, perhaps, a dictator by sufferers. Celiac disease is an autoimmune disease triggered by the attack of gluten in the small intestine. Gluten? Yes, the little “poison” that is all around you, hiding everywhere. Gluten is the protein that is found in wheat, barley, and rye and that contaminates oats. It is added as a binder to many of our foods and spices, and is a sticky little sucker that stays on everything it touches, takes up permanent residence in the pores of wood or Teflonâ?¢ and cannot be destroyed by heat. One little molecule of gluten is enough to hurt a celiac sufferer.

So, at this point you might be thinking that this goes along the lines of a food allergy. Sadly, no. Sure, with a food allergy your immune system responds, but with celiac disease, it begins attacking your body.

Imagine this: you know you have to avoid gluten, and everyone respects this (which is rarely the case.) They prepare you a salad and fresh fruit, but they cut it on a thoroughly scrubbed wooden cutting board that in a time far, far away was used for bread. Now every reaction for every person is different, but this time you get nauseous, sweaty, light-headed and you feel that diarrhea-like stomach pain. Now here come the worst part: you get dizzy, your eyesight blurs and you become so tired and so hungry. Your stomach bloats inhumanly, gas and the works come to greet you. You sleep for 12 hours, wake up drenched, your muscles hurt so much you can barely put on your clothes, but you’re still so hungry. You eat and you’re nauseous, the bathroom becomes your office and Pepto your friend. This goes on for a week…or two. You can barely sleep, but you’re still tired. Your face and legs are swollen and your skin is a volcano. There is also a curious little rash all over your body, your hands tingle, your bones ache and the migraines are non-stop. Your intestines feel like shredded paper and you like you’ve been hit by a truck. Guess what?! You have to go to school/ to work/ to a meeting/ on a date/ to an audition. Who will understand you? You studied hard and may have to drop school. You worked hard and may have to quit. You worked out and ate right and your body goes into disarray within a few days. You fall continually and continually you must rebuild.

This disease is currently very under-diagnosed in North America and 1 in 150 people have it (more than Crohn’s or Thyroid disease). Those that are undiagnosed have a very high risk for lymphoma, diabetes, anemia, osteoporosis, infertility and many other serious autoimmune conditions (many due to malabsorption or malnutrition.) The sad thing is many doctors still know little about it and many who have it know nothing at all. The best thing to do is to be aware of the symptoms; diarrhea/constipation, abdominal pain and bloating, swelling of your body etc. There are many symptoms; some people experience only a few, some none at all, while others feel like they are dying. The important thing is to know it is out there.

If you do not have any experience with this disease, be aware that many around you do and that psychologically and physically the condition is very demanding. It strikes at any age, any target and requires a long battle for diagnosis. A Celiac patient must maintain a life-long gluten-free diet and an inhuman strength for rebuilding their life. If you have Celiac disease, I commend you. If you do not, I am explicitly glad for you. However, the blessing and the bane of this disease is that we are faced with one very important revelation in our lives… how fragile we are.