ISSUE EIGHT 123
editor’s note Welcome to Week 12 and my second-last edition of Insight! Time passes me by so quickly. It’s so strange to think that this is my ninth semester at Bond (with three to go... this is what happens when you un-accelerate your degree), third Christmas spent working offensive hours while everyone else is holidaying, and the eighth time I battle with Photoshop for days trying to curve the edge on every photo. But here she is, as always, full of goodness. Until next time, Kristie xx
WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE FINAL EDITION OF INSIGHT? SEND ANY CONTENT (YOU HAVE THE HOLIDAYS TO THINK ABOUT IT!) TO KRISTIE.MEGG@STUDENT. BOND.EDU.AU.
Editor | Kristie Megg Designer | Kristie Megg Cover Image | Ash Peplow Ball
president’s report A NOTE FROM THE HSA PRESIDENT, ALAN WHITE
Words | Alan White
‘Stand up, act upon a though and remove the term apathetic from everybody’s vocabulary’ To whoever might be reading what is another fantastic edition of Insight, hello! To whoever isn’t currently reading what is another fantastic edition of Insight, all I ask is…where the bloody hell are you? In my time as HSA President over the past 12 months, I will openly admit that this has often been a question on my mind. As contrite as it may sound, I feel like the student volunteers across BUSA, FSA’s, clubs and societies often give generously of their time to create social, cultural and sporting events, expand faculty competitions, offer reliable academic services and allow students to have their work published in print and online – yet, as is often the case, the student body (that’s you) simply don’t engage! In my earlier years at Bond, (circa 092) I would have felt slighted by the fact that students didn’t want to come to the social event or competition I was running and would often find a way to insert the word ‘apathetic’ into any given sentence to justify the fact. I think now though, over the past 12 months, I have had the opportunity to learn a lot about Bondies and what makes them tick, and personally, what makes me, myself and I tick too! I’ve realised that no two Bond students are the same – therefore, their degrees, interests, passions and lifestyles may not align. No one should ever have this held against him or her, and simply by being different, labelled ‘apathetic’. No, you’re not apathetic, you just have different interests to me – and in coming full circle, I am actually really glad that’s the case – if there were 100’s of Alan Whites, god help us all and if there were hundreds of you…well…I just don’t know how to finish that sentence. The many students in representative committees do a fantastic job though, no matter what result they might see from any given project they undertake. It’s important to remember that simply by standing up, acting upon a thought or idea of how to expand the student experience at Bond, an impact is being made and being felt, even it may only be from one individual.
So what exactly do my ramblings above actually mean? They mean I want you. Each sentence above is designed to make you stand up, act upon a thought and remove the term apathetic from everybody’s vocabulary, and ensure people like myself never label you with the term again. In January of 2012, the HSA will be the first elected student representative group to remove the ticket system from Bond student elections and enforce an independents policy, where all students running for election will do so of their own standing, their own accord and be voted for on their own merit, not the popularity of a t-shirt contest. Put simply, everyone suggests you get involved from the moment you get here at Bond – it’s time that we have more students like YOU representing those students that aren’t represented, making sure we don’t have minimal engagement with the Bondy student body. I don’t know best with regard to what the student body may want in their elected representatives, but I have a feeling you might. Have a think about how you might make in impact in someone’s life at Bond and get back to me in January. Wishing each of you a safe, happy and festive holiday. Onwards we go into 2013. Alan White HSA President
have you joined? THREE NEW CLUBS TO TAKE YOUR FANCY
the young lnp (ynlp) BRINGING POLITICS TO BOND
“[WE] SEEK TO SHOW THE STUDENTS OF BOND THAT POLITICS CAN BE INTERESTING, FULL OF PASSION AND DRIVE, AND YES, EVEN FUN SOMETIMES.”
Words | Shintaro Koido Pictures | Shintaro Koido
We’re one of the few political clubs on campus, being the on-campus representatives of the Australian Liberal Students’ Federation and the Young LNP. People are usually wary of supporting political causes in their youth, feeling disenchanted with the system, or they don’t feel it connects to them. The Bond Young LNP seeks to show the students of Bond that politics can be interesting, full of passion and drive, and yes, even fun sometimes. Over the year, we’ve been involved in two campaigns, the very successful state campaign, where Bond students travelled to the Sunshine Coast, Brisbane and around the Gold Coast to learn campaign tactics, and the local elections, where we played a role in the victory of Tom Tate, who was also a guest of ours here at Bond last semester. I’ve also had the opportunity to travel to the ACT to learn about their electoral system and campaigning styles. We have plenty of exciting networking opportunities on campus. In addition to Tom Tate, we’ve had Senator Ian McDonald, the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, Jarrod Bleijie, the State Attorney General, and we seek to have Jann Stuckey, the Small Business Minister and George Brandis, the federal Shadow Attorney General come in the latter part of the semester. We stand for the individual, his rights, his freedom from state control, and the opportunity to make successful enterprises, to quote Sir RG Menzies. We in the club have sought to make a framework where young people can have an opportunity to have their voices heard, get involved to make a difference in the country, and give them confidence in meeting the challenges of the future.
bond university exchange club SUPPORTING EXCHANGE STUDENTS
buds BOND UNIVERSITY DRAMA SOCIETY
Words | Marcus de Courtenay Pictures | Marcus de Courtenay
Words | Isabel Dickson Pictures | Isabel Dickson
The Bond University Exchange Club is a club formed in 113 to cater for students involved in the Bond exchange program. This includes our friends from abroad who are studying at Bond for a semester or two (‘incoming students’) and Bondies who opt to spend time away at one of our partner universities (‘outgoing students’). Since its inception, the Exchange Club has had a terrific response from students surrounding its three key initiatives run each semester.
The Bond University Drama Society (BUDS) strives to bring creative, entertaining and interactive events to the Bond community every semester, with our most recent being a production called An Adaption of the Laramie Project in 123. The play was a huge success, and BUDS are looking forward to getting more Bondies involved in drama and working on creative projects, as it is not only rewarding but presents the opportunity to grow as an artist, a public speaker, and make strong friendships. BUDS are currently devising imaginative events to present next year, so stay tuned for ways you can get involved!
First, each semester we organise a Buddy Program for incoming students. This program gives the incoming students a point of contact in Australia. Second, we throw a Welcome Barbecue each semester to give the incoming students a taste of the classic Australian meal. We also organise a trip to a local tourist destination each semester for incoming students to get to know Australian culture. Finally, half way through the semester the Exchange Club invites students who are thinking about heading out into the wide World to an information evening. There, they hear from past outgoing students who share experiences from the different partner universities. We genuinely believe that exchange will be the experience of your university career so get involved! We are always looking for enthusiastic members or buddies so feel free to contact us at email@example.com! The Exchange Club.
romney’s five-point plan and five places he could have put it (you know, had he won)
JONATHAN HOLTBY LOOKS BACK ON THE POLICIES AND PROMISES OF THE US ELECTION
“THE AMERICAN FISCAL SENTIMENT IS OFTEN OVERLY RICH-AVERSE, BUT MITTENS WAS STILL DREAMING.”
Words | Jonathan Holtby Pictures | Jonathan Holtby
In the past election, you may have been the 47 percent of America that the Republican candidate did not care about. Or, alternatively, a contributor of the over 40 percent of American wealth that is contributed by just one percent of its earners. The Economist magazine, identifying in one of the best arguments during the election cycle the division in perspectives about wealth redistribution, showed that you don’t have to be one or the other, but in the American electioneering, citizens were too often either maligned, hardworking beatniks, owed more than they got, or they were a ‘job creator’ whose wealth generated, for millions, prosperity they hadn’t earned.
He would also save money that would be spent on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Healthcare. His plan is a bit bold. Savings in healthcare would be great, but they are mostly hoped-for under Obamacare, and you don’t save money from not being at war, you save money from cutting the defence budget, which President Obama hasn’t said he will do yet. Increasing revenue from high earners will also be a nebulous promise, until he provides details about which exemptions are to be cut. The Republicans on the hill are violently opposed to raising the actual tax rate in any way. Still, at least his plan recognizes the need for both a r eduction in spending and an increase to revenue.
Though it is in some ways more fun to be argumentative, we do not really need to be polarised to disagree about this. Taxation is a challenging moral and technical issue that often boils down to something deliciously simple. The budget deficit arguments, for instance, have intricacies, but generally nations earn when their citizens create, trade, purchase, and earn. They spend on armies, healthcare, research, the poor, the old, and the unemployed. And if they spend more than they earn, they have a deficit. Earn more than they spend, and have a surplus. These either add to, or reduce, the public debt.
Romney’s solution, by contrast, was a harsher cut to federal spending: down to 20 percent of gross domestic product. (Obama’s is only 4 trillion dollars, far less). He would have cut taxes almost universally, and also eliminated some of the deductions offered to incentivized industries. He hoped, in this way, to keep tax revenue pretty much even. While he had hoped, he said, for increases in revenue, these were almost entirely speculatory. He was banking on a growing economy that would generate more money for the federal coffers, growth incentivized by reductions to regulation and the repeal of Obamacare, intended to make business’ work easier. Generally, banking on economic growth was a safe bet for both candidates. Ultimately, no one expects another four years of poor economy or recession. But that means revenue should increase no matter who is President.
Because Americans haven’t been shedding weight for some years now, they have amassed… some debt. Over 16 trillion dollars of it by the end of this year. They have been adding to that total to the tune of over one trillion dollars for four years running now. And a big portion of the problem is that it was not insignificant during the reign of the last administration. -THERE’S A VISINE FOR THATThe two Presidential candidates running for office in the US had a policy on that fiscal deficit. President Obama proposed keeping tax rates depressed and investing in job retraining and education. He hopes to increase federal revenue by raising taxes on high-income earners to 35% and 39%, where it was pre-Bush, and disallowing exemptions that cause income to be taxed at a lower rate if it is earned outside of America, or in certain incentivized industries, or is paired with contributions to charities.
The question, if both candidates care for low taxes, really seems to be: What is a better idea, decreased business regulation and federal spending, or consistent federal spending and heaping a larger burden upon highest-income Americans? And does military spending need to stay at current levels, or can it be reduced after the war? -I WISH I MAY, I WISH I MIGHTThe statistics that indicate a growing economy are easy to also translate into direct benefits for individual citizens. When businesses are making money, and they are increasing sales and exports, they are more inclined to spend on their employees and increase the number that they have of them. It is not a guaranteed relationship, but enough successful companies crave growth and top-end employees that it is reliable enough.
“MITT ROMNEY’S FIVE POINT PLAN WAS UNDULY TOP-HEAVY, AND IT AVOIDED RECOGNISING THAT FOR ALL THE GREAT ASSET PROVIDED BY THE US BY ITS CLASS OF SUCCESSFUL HIGH EARNERS, THEIRS IS NOT A CADRE THAT NEEDS HEAVY POLITICAL SUPPORT.”
But when one tries to add another level, to bring the relationship to one between corporate taxation and an individual citizen’s prosperity, it adds murk. Low corporate taxes do mean that businesses paying those taxes have fewer burdens to their bottom line. But assuming that the increased profit will automatically mean more hires is a position that is difficult to justify. Prosperous businesses are certainly more likely to hire, just as they are more likely to compensate better and to invest, but it’s not a foregone conclusion. So corporate tax rates’ relationship to the employment rate is a bit like guesswork. It should work out that there is a direct relationship between a low rate and increased hires, but there isn’t really a guarantee. The guessing is not arrested at corporations either. Low income tax rates are intended to make individuals richer, and more willing to consume, and invest in, their surroundings. High taxes in turn increase federal revenue, but also risk depressing peoples’ spending by making them just that little bit poorer. If we reserve the higher tax rates for wealthier individuals, the thinking goes, then the deterrent impact of taxation is mitigated by both an ability to afford it and the wealthy’s accommodation to a lifestyle. One that they are willing - even enthusiastic, if it’s a status symbol like a home or car - to pay for. The assumption is that higher tax rates for the poor and middle class may siphon money more freely into the federal pot, but it will also reduce consumer confidence and result in less prosperity for the retailers and service providers that surround those demographics. Unfortunately, however, there are millions more of the latter, so much more money (in raw numbers) can be raised. -I HOPE THEY CHOKE ON THEIR DELICIOUS CAKEIn general, rich people individually are asked to spend much, much more money on the federal government than are the poor and middle class. They simply have more to contribute. President Obama likes to speak on the necessity that the wealthy pay their fair share, but that is rhetoric, coloured to cater specifically to those who are not rich. His wording has been noticed by many of America’s elite. By independent assessments of fairness (ie, arithmetic) upper income brackets already pay far more than their fair share: their benefits are the same as any other citizen’s, but they contribute many more dollars. If tax rates were not scaled to rise as income increased, the individual rich would already be contributing hundreds of thousands more each year to federal income taxes than their poorer counterparts - but they are! So in addition to the added money they contribute simply by earning a larger value, they are asked to offer a larger share of that value as well.
Do the rich benefit more from federal spending than do the poor, to justify their increased contributions? Probably not. Of the limited examples of government expenditure I listed earlier - armies, healthcare, research, the poor, the old, and the unemployed - the rich arguably benefit as much or more from just the military that protects them (because they have more goods to protect), and government research (because wealth could make it easier to take advantage of technological developments). Many of the other services offered by the government get quickly replaced by the wealthy in favour of more luxurious private sector alternatives. So in addition to spending more money than their poor and middleclass counterparts, they also leave a bigger share of what they’ve paid for to those who need it. Why does so much of the developed West’s political narrative rest upon vocal demands that those with riches contribute to what those without need most? -MMM, DELICIOUS KOOL-AIDThere is a paradox within the rhetoric of our economic system. We value highly the benefits of wealth when discussing it as economic prosperity or employment, but vilify success when it comes in the form of corporate largesse and excessive compensation. The resultant message is that it is only socially acceptable to be a certain amount of successful. That is for a simple enough reason. As the most populous demographic group in our societies, the poor and the middle class are the ones defining the political narrative. Upper classes of earners do have some exclusive benefits: Fiscal privileges afforded by capital worth, like the low tax rates that incentivize investment earnings and the deductions that are allowed for owning second homes and contributing to charitable causes. But these benefits were not put in place to make easier the lives of those with excess - they serve a purpose. For the privilege of saving money on earnings made on capital gains - like lucrative investments or real estate - they must surrender the capital that earns those gains to the investments generating them. That money goes towards providing capital-hungry ventures with the means to accomplish their own successes. The deductions from charitable giving and second homes help incentivize the rich to spend their money on real estate, or give it away, rather than sitting on it. Money is garnered for the state, from those who have lots of it, when they save, when they spend, when they invest, when they donate, and when they die. We should promote wealth, and we should be grateful to the wealthy.
-BRINGING IT BACK TO MITTENSBut generally, in an election, we don’t - at least not loudly and in public. Democracy is about catering to the electorate, and the most populous electorate in the western world is the lower-middle class. Plus, democratically speaking, there may be nothing of more importance than prioritizing the needs of the majority over the needs of the outliers. The five point plan that the former Governor of Massachusetts profiled while he was running did not do that. He campaigned on energy independence - recently projected as attainable by 2035, education and skills training, trade for America, deficit cuts, and small business championship. Training programs, to take one example, were also the focal orientation behind the stimulus spending that President Obama put in place over his term to help stem the blood loss from the recession - along with massive infrastructure investment. These are programs that fall pretty squarely in the discretionary spending area of the budget and are thus the part of the budget that would have been cut heavily to 20% of GDP. Prioritizing domestic energy is another area where his plan was similar to that of the President, but he was interested in keep keeping tax revenue neutral by removing subsidies to the energy industry. Depending on how cynical you are, you may believe that those eliminations would have fallen entirely on the green energy industry and spared both shale gas and oil drilling - popular piñatas of the left. But where the Governor truly strays from the lower income portions of the country is in his plans for the removal of Obamacare - ostensibly to support small business. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act intends the provision of health insurance for those who would struggle to afford (or find) it, and helps focus the healthcare insurance industry around providing care for all Americans. Governor Romney’s only provisions for small businesses - outside of the corporate tax shelter that he and President Obama already agree on - would be the removal of this bill. More responsible health insurance coverage of the bulk of the middle and lower-middle class is not a boon to the wealthy any more than that it would eventually mean reduced healthcare expenditure by the federal government as insurance companies do the work of covering the most destitute. But to the families and earners who are beneficiaries it means a better lifestyle, more financial stability, and a higher lifetime earning potential because of a lower risk of debilitating health crisis.
Essentially, though undue benefit need not be heaped upon the wealthy, our financial system prioritizes the creation and use of wealth in a number of ways that makes life easier for those with excesses of capital. But it does not provide justification for blindness, corruption, willful ignorance, pandering, or misplaced hope, and it does not, at least not at the moment, need bolstering. The wealthy provide great benefit to the United States, and income taxation is a progressive system, but they also reap institutionalized benefits. The best focus for the economy, and the most democratic plan in the running this past election, was Barack Obama’s focusing on the lower and the middle class. Mitt Romney’s five point plan was unduly top-heavy, and it avoided recognizing that for all the great asset provided the United States by its class of successful high earners, theirs is not a cadre that needs heavy political support. The less individually wealthy are.
looking beyond bond
ELLEN SCOBIE LOOKS AT A GRADUATE OPPORTUNITY AND HOW YOU CAN GIVE BACK THIS CHRISTMAS
Words | Ellen Scobie
“I CHALLENGE YOU... WHEN CHOOSING A GIFT FOR A FRIEND OR RELATIVE, THINK OF THE RECIPIENT OF THE GIFT AND SOMEONE ELSE.”
AUSTRALIAN YOUTH AMBASSADORS FOR DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY PROJECTS WORLDWIDE
Not sure what you are going to do once you graduate? Seeking an overseas adventure? The AYAD program is an excellent opportunity for young Australians and permanent residents (aged 18 – 30) to utilise their skills and assist a disadvantaged community.
This fabulous online store boasts beautiful, culturally inspired products from homewares to jewellery and Toys. The store creates a market for products made in small communities around the world, providing employment, encouraging community self-help and improving the quality of life of disadvantaged artisans.
This AusAID initiative provides: • Paid volunteer work through Living allowances • Training before, during and after your Africa, Asia or The Pacific volunteer assignment • Medical and emergency support whilst in-country • In-country support to all Australian abroad volunteers to help you settle in AusAID (2012) If this interests you, start becoming familiar with the website and program now. Each month new assignments are advertised and you must apply by the 21st of each month. The application process involves at least 8 stages including a four-day briefing workshop.
It’s motto …. ‘Empowerment through employment’. You can support this fantastic initiative and purchase a Christmas gift by visiting it’s online store http://www. communityprojectsworldwide.com.au/3716_About CPW.html.
To learn more about this incredible opportunity go to http://www.ayad.com.au/?view=featured.
While you are at it, check out Wear Social products and support Michelle Larsorsa as she pioneers a grassroots project in Tanzania (http://www.wearsocialcouture. com/).
RED CROSS SHOP
Christmas is my favourite time of year. For me it is more than one day. It involves constant celebrations with good friends and family, houses draped in lights and a friendly, happy vibe that captures the community.
Red Cross shops stand apart from other dusty, 80’s inspired op shops. With a boutique layout, Red Cross shops sell good quality, fashionable clothing whilst maintaining a vintage feel.
But the essence of Christmas is giving and thinking of others.
Red Cross aims to provide ‘Relief in times of crisis, care when it’s needed most and commitment when others turn away.’ (Red Cross, 2012). Take a study break and visit the one in Coolangatta.
So I challenge you... When choosing a gift for a friend or relative, think of the recipient of the gift and someone else. Think about the young labourer who made the item or the environment in which it was produced. Was the labourer treated fairly? Were resources used sustainably for future generations? Can you buy a gift for your brother while assisting a rural family in Africa? I challenge you to shop in a way that is socially responsible and promotes human rights. Give to a friend and consider another.
FAIRTRADE Fairtrade Australia and New Zealand promotes products grown or made under just working conditions, that encourage sustainability and support fair wages and cost prices. In Australia, when purchasing Coffee, cocoa (chocolate), tea, cotton, nuts and sportsballs, look for products with fairtrade certification. Or attend the Fair Trade Christmas Market (by the Queensland Fair Trade Collective) on the 2nd and 3rd of December.
Words | Alan White (owner of a ONS shirt - loves it) Pictures | One Night Stand
The ‘power of the purchase’ has been an increasingly intrinsic component of the ‘Y’ generation thought process, with the notion being that individuals can dictate environmental and social change through how they allocate their funds towards every purchase they make? Seems complicated, and more so – something only leftist ‘out there’ people do? Wrong! Especially when you take a close look at young, vibrant and inspiring social entrepreneurs like Jamie Green, founder of clothing brand ‘One Night Stand’ (ONS.) An advocate for social change, Jamie founded ONS on the basis that it would aid and support organisations that tackle youth homelessness through the sale of ONS sleepwear after he himself realised the difficulties faced by youth who are unsure of where they will be sleeping at night. A student of the Australian School for Social Entrepreneurship In Melbourne, Jamie has been working with his mentors and design team to ensure ONS is not a fleeting success, but a long-term aid to the issue of youth homelessness. “We want to capture peoples attention, make them aware of the issue and fund the organisations that are tackling the problems of homelessness”, he said. “For us here at ONS, it’s about connecting the head and the heart.” “By building a strong brand capable of challenging the public’s ‘blind-eye’ approach to homelessness we can assist in reducing the amounts of youth homelessness in Australia.” Currently, this new and intelligent not for profit has just launched its brand new website as well as its first range of merchandise, a simple but incredibly effective ‘supporters bed t-shirt’, with sales so far exceeding all expectations for Jamie and his team. “Sales are going incredibly well, we are almost out of stock – which leading into 2013 is exactly where we want to be”, he said.
Jamie Green | Founder of ONS
The short term goal for ONS is to continue to build a presence in both the sleepwear sector, as well as building a strong supporter base within the not for profit sector, simply be, as Jamie says “doing things a little bit differently.” All ONS clothing is 100% sustainable and environmentally friendly product. Purchase today form www.onenightstandau.com and remember to check out ONS as they continue to inspire new generation of social change advocates via Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
a densensitised society
Words | Natalie Lane
“THE WORLD IS A DANGEROUS PLACE, NOT BECAUSE OF THOSE WHO DO EVIL, BUT BECAUSE OF THOSE WHO LOOK ON AND DO NOTHING.”
Words | Natalie Lane
As the young woman screamed for help, a nearby homeless man came to her rescue. Stabbed three times in the torso by her attacker before he escaped, the homeless man then collapsed to the ground. Amongst the 20 people that walked past the man as he slowly bled to death, on a New York street in April 2010, some took pictures, one person rolled him over to see the blood, and the remainder just looked and walked on by. His name was Hugo Alfredo, but to the rest of New York City, and to the rest of the world, his life has passed by now and he remains unknown. As Australians, we would like to believe that no one in our Australian society could ever witness a human tragedy unfold and allow it to continue, when a simple action could avert it. Sadly, we would be wrong. In Rockhampton, a few years ago, a young girl was raped and murdered. Nearby, from the verandah of their house, a couple could see what was about to happen; but simply watched until it was too late. More recently, in Sydney, a little girl starved to death in her own home, because her parents would not give her enough food; nor would they allow her to go outside. Each day, she would look out of her bedroom window, and neighbours who passed by would see her, a forlorn, pathetic figure. Apparently, many of these people were concerned at her obvious plight; but they did nothing to ensure that action was taken to save her. They simply allowed her to die. These tragic stories beg the question as to how could such uncaring behaviour occur in 21st century, civilized c ommunities? For some of those that failed to go to Hugo Alfredo’s aid, and for the couple in Rockhampton, we could claim that their inaction resulted from fear; the fear of retaliation in being involved in someone else’s issue. Standing up for others and for what is right can sometimes come at a price that we are not willing to pay. Fear of others, stranger danger as my mother taught me, is instilled within us from a young age; so it obviously makes it difficult for us to respond to a situation that may pose an unknown threat.
But fear cannot explain the callous behavior of those who took pictures of a man bleeding to death, or of the person who rolled him over to see the blood. Fear cannot explain why people neglected a dying child. There are more disturbing issues involved here. Could it be that people have become desensitized by the escalation of violence in modern society? Or could it be that, caught up in our own self-centred life styles, we are simply becoming indifferent to the affairs of others? As Helen Keller stated; “Science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all -- the apathy of human beings.” Of course, there are many in our modern society who are not indifferent to the plight of their fellow human beings, as the heartwarming response of those who joined the aptly named “Mud Army” during the Brisbane flood disaster so clearly demonstrated. Unfortunately, however, because the environment, third world poverty, and economic instability so often engulf our primetime news, we are too frequently left with a feeling of helplessness to the outside world; the feeling that we cannot change anything. In the words of a John Mayer song; “Now we see everything that’s going wrong with the world and those who lead it. We just feel like we don’t have the means to rise above and beat it. So we keep waiting, waiting on the world to change.” We cannot condone a society in which there is a growing trend for people to become apathetic and desensitized to the point where they can pass by and ignore the sufferings of fellow human beings; and especially the sufferings of innocent children who cannot help themselves. We should also not forget the fate of Hugo Alfredo. If we ignore the supreme sacrifice that he made, then we are no better than those who passed him by on that street in New York. As Albert Einstein stated: “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”
Words | Jonathan Holtby