Most of you probably watched Sesame Street growing up. It is one of the longest running shows in television history, as well as one of the longest running experiments in child psychology and education. It was started in 1969 and was one of the first shows to use television to educate children. Last month the first five seasons were released on DVD, and many nostalgic adults eager to share their childhood with their children were shocked to learn that these "early 'Sesame Street' episodes are intended for grown-ups, and may not suit the needs of today's preschool child."
How could that be? Have we really gotten so paranoid that we think ancient Sesame Street episodes could actually hurt preschoolers? Sesame Street has been through many controversies, from Ernie and Bert outed as gays, to the more recent revelation that Cookie Monster could be teaching children obesity. It seems like a sad reflection on society that even Sesame Street needs to be labeled as potentially dangerous to children.
I don't know the reasons the company had to issue this warning, but in their defense, Sesame Street has gone through many changes since its creation. It is constantly going through focus groups to improve its teaching capacity as time changes. The Sesame Street from the first season is much different from the Sesame Street of today, and the older episodes are not designed for children today, but for children of the sixties and the seventies.
However, the PR person that made the decision to put a warning on the Sesame Street DVD probably wasn't thinking about the evolution of the show, only about how overprotected parents might react to the old-school Sesame Street. Apparently, the first episode has a segment with a young girl going home with a strange old man to have some cookies. There is no way the producers could do that today, without lawsuit threats from a number of concerned parents.
This warning label reflects how hyper-concerned our society has become. Sesame Street was created to entertain kids as well as adults, so parents could be engaged in their children's education. Parent reinforcement of education is an important aspect of learning, either real-life or televised. These DVDs give parents the opportunity to tell their kids why they shouldn't go home with strangers, or just eat cookies all the time, even though those things once happened on Sesame Street. The warning label isn't necessary, and parents should be involved enough to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Leading by Example
Yes I know my enemies...
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite.
All of which are American dreams.
- Zack de la Rocha
It is another sad day in US history. Once again this administration has compromised our morals to a point that makes me wonder if we ever had any.
You may wonder what I'm talking about, and that shows just how far gone this country is. Today, I'm talking about the declaration of emergency rule in Pakistan by General Pervez Musharraf, and the US' decision to continue aid to the country as an ally in the "war on terror." The Bush administration is obviously upset about the numerous suspensions of civil rights in the country, but not enough to do anything about it. Musharraf, who declared the emergency to suppress "terrorism" in the state, did not expect any reaction from senior US officials to his tightening of power over the country, and he didn't get any. This suspension of the Constitution and the firing of the Supreme Court was conveniently made days before the court was to rule on the legitimacy of his recent reelection.
Musharraf knew that the US cares too much about the war on terror to do anything about a attack on democracy in the name of fighting terrorism. “They [the US] would rather have a stable Pakistan — albeit with some restrictive norms — than have more democracy prone to fall in the hands of extremists,” said Tariq Azim Khan, the minister of state for information.
And even though Bush's presidency has been based on the platform of spreading freedom and democracy, the administration has done nothing but encourage Musharraf to loosen his control. Bush will condemn and sanction anti-democratic actions in Myanmar, a country we have nothing invested in, but then less than a month later, allow one of our "allies" to suspend the rights and liberties of its people. How can we expect other countries, like Iraq, to encourage democracy, when we won't even to it ourselves?
Bush's hypocrisy runs deep. I remember the moment I realized what kind of person we had for a president when he nominated Harriet Miers to the supreme court. He used her track record as an "Evangelical Christian" to try to win her support from the Republican party. This is the same president who said: "It's going to be the spread of democracy, itself, that shows folks the importance of separation of church and state." Obviously, democracy hasn't spread too far in this country.
I can continue to blather on about how much I disapprove of what the administration is doing, and how Bush really only cares about stabilizing his own power, and about how Musharraf's actions will only create more terrorism, as well as Bush's actions in Iraq, but this is something we all know. We knew there were no WMD's in Iraq. We knew that Bush was lying to us. We know that they could have gotten Osama bin Landen instead. We know Karl Rove exposed Valarie Plame. We know this because these senior level administrators have no respect for the values that they claim to promote, or for the citizens they claim to represent.
My question is, why isn't anyone doing anything about it?
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite.
All of which are American dreams.
- Zack de la Rocha
It is another sad day in US history. Once again this administration has compromised our morals to a point that makes me wonder if we ever had any.
You may wonder what I'm talking about, and that shows just how far gone this country is. Today, I'm talking about the declaration of emergency rule in Pakistan by General Pervez Musharraf, and the US' decision to continue aid to the country as an ally in the "war on terror." The Bush administration is obviously upset about the numerous suspensions of civil rights in the country, but not enough to do anything about it. Musharraf, who declared the emergency to suppress "terrorism" in the state, did not expect any reaction from senior US officials to his tightening of power over the country, and he didn't get any. This suspension of the Constitution and the firing of the Supreme Court was conveniently made days before the court was to rule on the legitimacy of his recent reelection.
Musharraf knew that the US cares too much about the war on terror to do anything about a attack on democracy in the name of fighting terrorism. “They [the US] would rather have a stable Pakistan — albeit with some restrictive norms — than have more democracy prone to fall in the hands of extremists,” said Tariq Azim Khan, the minister of state for information.
And even though Bush's presidency has been based on the platform of spreading freedom and democracy, the administration has done nothing but encourage Musharraf to loosen his control. Bush will condemn and sanction anti-democratic actions in Myanmar, a country we have nothing invested in, but then less than a month later, allow one of our "allies" to suspend the rights and liberties of its people. How can we expect other countries, like Iraq, to encourage democracy, when we won't even to it ourselves?
Bush's hypocrisy runs deep. I remember the moment I realized what kind of person we had for a president when he nominated Harriet Miers to the supreme court. He used her track record as an "Evangelical Christian" to try to win her support from the Republican party. This is the same president who said: "It's going to be the spread of democracy, itself, that shows folks the importance of separation of church and state." Obviously, democracy hasn't spread too far in this country.
I can continue to blather on about how much I disapprove of what the administration is doing, and how Bush really only cares about stabilizing his own power, and about how Musharraf's actions will only create more terrorism, as well as Bush's actions in Iraq, but this is something we all know. We knew there were no WMD's in Iraq. We knew that Bush was lying to us. We know that they could have gotten Osama bin Landen instead. We know Karl Rove exposed Valarie Plame. We know this because these senior level administrators have no respect for the values that they claim to promote, or for the citizens they claim to represent.
My question is, why isn't anyone doing anything about it?
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Discontentment in the New Gilded Age
All around are the signs of a new Gilded Age, as people are starting to call our present. VH1 has a show called "The Fabulous Life of...", which dives weekly into the extravagance of one celebrity after another. Internet start-ups continue to make more and more money for their founders, some serving the purpose of only rating strangers' attractiveness. Of the 30 riches Americans, most made their fortunes either during the last Gilded Age or before, with the three exceptions being the contemporary billionaires Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Sam Walton.
But what has this newly re-found extravagance brought the United States? All of our money is not making us happier, we rank 150 out of 178 in the Happy Planet Index. Its income inequality is comparable to Ghana and Turkmenistan. Our popular culture may depict the United States as a glamorous, wonderful place to be, yet it seems that our large, ever increasing incomes leave us wanting more.
And many people are asking themselves why they aren't happy with their large quantities of cash. (To learn more about the lack of contentment among the wealthy, see the NYTimes series "Age of Riches".) And why is this? The easiest answer is something everyone knows: money can't buy you love. But that is too simple. Money cannot buy love, or happiness, but it can buy just about everything else. One of the first things I learned about Economics is that currency is just a proxy for happiness, something to use as a model of utility and not actually utility itself. And although money cannot actual buy the feeling of being happy, I think they should be at least positively correlated.
So why are we not content in this new Gilded Age of glamor and extravagance? Does the income inequality force most of the population out of the celebrations gained by the wealthy? Yet, not even the wealthy are content, and are driven to work to fill up their lives.
And I don't know the answers to those questions. I have not seen enough of America, or talked with diverse enough amounts of people to determine what is plaguing our nation, if anything is at all. Are we morally bankrupt? Has our culture been hijacked by a small group of corporate executives? Is it really the end of history, and have we forgotten we once had one?
I do think that many people in this country have forgotten the common sense maxim of money cannot buy love. Accumulation of currency does not equate to instant satisfaction, though that is what I expect most people assume, even if they won't admit it. What does actually create happiness is something much more complicated and something people cannot leave up to their bank accounts to determine.
But what has this newly re-found extravagance brought the United States? All of our money is not making us happier, we rank 150 out of 178 in the Happy Planet Index. Its income inequality is comparable to Ghana and Turkmenistan. Our popular culture may depict the United States as a glamorous, wonderful place to be, yet it seems that our large, ever increasing incomes leave us wanting more.
And many people are asking themselves why they aren't happy with their large quantities of cash. (To learn more about the lack of contentment among the wealthy, see the NYTimes series "Age of Riches".) And why is this? The easiest answer is something everyone knows: money can't buy you love. But that is too simple. Money cannot buy love, or happiness, but it can buy just about everything else. One of the first things I learned about Economics is that currency is just a proxy for happiness, something to use as a model of utility and not actually utility itself. And although money cannot actual buy the feeling of being happy, I think they should be at least positively correlated.
So why are we not content in this new Gilded Age of glamor and extravagance? Does the income inequality force most of the population out of the celebrations gained by the wealthy? Yet, not even the wealthy are content, and are driven to work to fill up their lives.
And I don't know the answers to those questions. I have not seen enough of America, or talked with diverse enough amounts of people to determine what is plaguing our nation, if anything is at all. Are we morally bankrupt? Has our culture been hijacked by a small group of corporate executives? Is it really the end of history, and have we forgotten we once had one?
I do think that many people in this country have forgotten the common sense maxim of money cannot buy love. Accumulation of currency does not equate to instant satisfaction, though that is what I expect most people assume, even if they won't admit it. What does actually create happiness is something much more complicated and something people cannot leave up to their bank accounts to determine.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Making History
I often like to think of what events in my life will be remembered in years to come. When 9/11 happened, I think I began to grasp what kind of time I was growing into, what things the world would face as I started to face the world.
I have always been optimistic, trying to find good even though this country continues to disappoint me. Lately it has been hard. Instead of coming together to try to fix a broken health care system, Republicans and Democrats are fighting amongst themselves, each one not trying to be seen as Socialist. The problems in Iraq are surmounting, beyond repair, yet we continue to stay in it. The Democrats are allowing the wiretapping of Americans, trying not to be seen as "soft on terror."
Last year, when the Democrats took control of Congress, America, to the best of its abilities, was trying to send a message. We do not like the way things are going. And we still don't. Recent Gallup polls show a 32% approval rating for Bush, and a even lower 23% approval rating for Congress. For some reason, Democrats and Republicans are still fighting amongst themselves, trying to gain our approval, and obviously failing.
The case of the recent veto of an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and the Democratic response is a perfect example of how politicians only care about their personal perception. One Democratic ad attacks incumbent Representative H. James Saxton of New Jersey: “Did you know Congressman Saxton gets health care at taxpayers’ expense, but Saxton and Bush are blocking health care for 10 million children? Tell Jim Saxton to put families first.” The Democrats used Graeme Frost, a 12-year old suffering from brain injury, to issue their rebuttal to Bush's veto of the program. Republicans responded by undercutting Frost and his family, and accusing them of exploiting a young boy for political gains. (To see a pretty awful, but informative, run-down of the tearing apart of the Frost family, read conservative Michelle Malkin's blog.)
Instead of working together, our two-party system is fighting against themselves, not realizing they're destroying each other and bringing their country down with them. I no longer have faith in this political system, because those in charge of it only care about their own credibility and not about making this country a better place. If our leaders do not worry about those they govern, what makes them leaders? They may say that they are concerned about what the average American citizen thinks, but, as shown by their approval rating, they do not have the courage to try and make a difference. Attempts at change will always bring failure with it, but our leaders refuse to subject themselves to the potential for failure, and therefore, the potential for change.
I cannot have faith in a system that not only refuses to learn from failure, but actively denies it. We are no longer the greatest country in the world, if we ever truly were. I am still optimistic about what history will say about my generation, but I no longer care what it will have to say about the American political system. If our political leaders do not care about my generation, then I do not care about them.
I have always been optimistic, trying to find good even though this country continues to disappoint me. Lately it has been hard. Instead of coming together to try to fix a broken health care system, Republicans and Democrats are fighting amongst themselves, each one not trying to be seen as Socialist. The problems in Iraq are surmounting, beyond repair, yet we continue to stay in it. The Democrats are allowing the wiretapping of Americans, trying not to be seen as "soft on terror."
Last year, when the Democrats took control of Congress, America, to the best of its abilities, was trying to send a message. We do not like the way things are going. And we still don't. Recent Gallup polls show a 32% approval rating for Bush, and a even lower 23% approval rating for Congress. For some reason, Democrats and Republicans are still fighting amongst themselves, trying to gain our approval, and obviously failing.
The case of the recent veto of an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), and the Democratic response is a perfect example of how politicians only care about their personal perception. One Democratic ad attacks incumbent Representative H. James Saxton of New Jersey: “Did you know Congressman Saxton gets health care at taxpayers’ expense, but Saxton and Bush are blocking health care for 10 million children? Tell Jim Saxton to put families first.” The Democrats used Graeme Frost, a 12-year old suffering from brain injury, to issue their rebuttal to Bush's veto of the program. Republicans responded by undercutting Frost and his family, and accusing them of exploiting a young boy for political gains. (To see a pretty awful, but informative, run-down of the tearing apart of the Frost family, read conservative Michelle Malkin's blog.)
Instead of working together, our two-party system is fighting against themselves, not realizing they're destroying each other and bringing their country down with them. I no longer have faith in this political system, because those in charge of it only care about their own credibility and not about making this country a better place. If our leaders do not worry about those they govern, what makes them leaders? They may say that they are concerned about what the average American citizen thinks, but, as shown by their approval rating, they do not have the courage to try and make a difference. Attempts at change will always bring failure with it, but our leaders refuse to subject themselves to the potential for failure, and therefore, the potential for change.
I cannot have faith in a system that not only refuses to learn from failure, but actively denies it. We are no longer the greatest country in the world, if we ever truly were. I am still optimistic about what history will say about my generation, but I no longer care what it will have to say about the American political system. If our political leaders do not care about my generation, then I do not care about them.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Trade-off for Eritrea
Isolationism is a big buzz word when it comes to international relations, as is dependency. When talking about developing countries, it seems as if these two concepts work as mutually exclusive events. If a country does not want to be completely dependent on richer countries for aid and support, then they must close down their borders.
Eritrea is one such country. This year alone, it has rejected over $200 million in food aid and loans. This East African nation has had the same leader since independence in 1993, Isaias Afwerki, who spearheads their isolationist stance.
Afwerki's words are very inspiring, and he talks of making his country "stand on its own two feet." Afwerki, in a LA Times interview, explained his policies by saying:
The results of these policies are mixed. Eritrea provides free education and health care, and it has higher scores on health indicators than most countries. But Afwerki has jailed people opposing him and restricted religion. He has canceled elections twice and has called those he jailed "crooks" and Eritrea's liberal constitution only a "paper."
Eritrea is a perfect example of the trade-offs between isolationism and opened borders. Although Afwerki may be trying to decrease their dependency on foreign aid and hegemonic powers, he is cutting them off from the rest of the world. By leaving no room for opposition or outside influence, he is stifling the country, economically and socially. Eritrea's growth rate is 2% annually, ranked 179 out of 205.
The international community does not help to make a distinction from "self-reliance" and "isolationist" that Afwerki talks about. If a country refuses aid, or neglects to remove tariffs, it is branded "isolationist" or "totalitarian", and their rulers are seen as insane. There are obvious civil rights abuses in Eritrea and countries similar to it (like North Korea), but that does not mean isolationist policies are inherently bad. There also doesn't have to be such a wide discrepancy between the extremes of dependency and isolationist. There can be a middle ground, with some protection and some free trade.
With some amount of protection, countries can develop their own domestic markets and eventually "stand on their own two feet." After this, they can actively participate in the global economy. Third World countries will never break away from the cycle of aid unless they start to develop themselves. As Afwerki says: "You can't keep these people living on handouts because that doesn't change their lives."
Eritrea is one such country. This year alone, it has rejected over $200 million in food aid and loans. This East African nation has had the same leader since independence in 1993, Isaias Afwerki, who spearheads their isolationist stance.
Afwerki's words are very inspiring, and he talks of making his country "stand on its own two feet." Afwerki, in a LA Times interview, explained his policies by saying:
Self-reliance is perceived as isolationist. But self-reliance is a means, not an end. It's a means of taking you to the bigger market and the biggest markets. How can I do that with handouts?
The results of these policies are mixed. Eritrea provides free education and health care, and it has higher scores on health indicators than most countries. But Afwerki has jailed people opposing him and restricted religion. He has canceled elections twice and has called those he jailed "crooks" and Eritrea's liberal constitution only a "paper."
Eritrea is a perfect example of the trade-offs between isolationism and opened borders. Although Afwerki may be trying to decrease their dependency on foreign aid and hegemonic powers, he is cutting them off from the rest of the world. By leaving no room for opposition or outside influence, he is stifling the country, economically and socially. Eritrea's growth rate is 2% annually, ranked 179 out of 205.
The international community does not help to make a distinction from "self-reliance" and "isolationist" that Afwerki talks about. If a country refuses aid, or neglects to remove tariffs, it is branded "isolationist" or "totalitarian", and their rulers are seen as insane. There are obvious civil rights abuses in Eritrea and countries similar to it (like North Korea), but that does not mean isolationist policies are inherently bad. There also doesn't have to be such a wide discrepancy between the extremes of dependency and isolationist. There can be a middle ground, with some protection and some free trade.
With some amount of protection, countries can develop their own domestic markets and eventually "stand on their own two feet." After this, they can actively participate in the global economy. Third World countries will never break away from the cycle of aid unless they start to develop themselves. As Afwerki says: "You can't keep these people living on handouts because that doesn't change their lives."
Thursday, September 27, 2007
ONE has lost its way
I'm taking a few minutes out of my day today to help stop global poverty. I just was forwarded an email from Susan McCue at the One Campaign inviting me to join the "ONE Campus Challenge". I signed Grinnell College up, and now anyone on campus can win points for Grinnell by participating in poverty fighting activities, such as dressing up a pet up in ONE gear, getting its marching band to form the "ONE" logo, or getting other people to join in on the Campus Challenge. I decided to start right away, and for this blog post linking to the Campus Challenge, I'm earning 75 points for Grinnell. I hope it will help us get out of 491st place.
A lot of ONE's activities deal with engagement, and because they seem to be reaching people who wouldn't normally know about global poverty, I have been able to ignore Jeffrey Sachs parading around Africa with Angelina Jolie. Even though they offer great prizes to the school that earns the most points, including a prize that's so great it's still a secret, the Campus Challenge doesn't seem to accomplish anything but get more involved with the Campus Challenge.
And that is my major criticism with the ONE Campaign. It is all about increasing awareness, which is fine, but it doesn't offer any information about how to work on the issues after people become engaged. On the main site for the ONE Campus Challenge, the only information it offers besides the rules of the Challenge is that "our generation has the tools, technology, and resources to end extreme poverty and yet, a billion people still live on less than a dollar a day." The ONE main website has an "issues" page, as well as a "take action" page, but the action either involves wearing ONE gear, getting more people to sign up onto ONE, or contacting Congress. (To be fair, the Campus Challenge also asks students to lobby Congress.) When you decide to "learn how to become an active member of the movement," all that is suggested is more ways to engage more people.
It seems like ONE gives people an easy way out for global poverty. It offers people shirts and wristbands, and people can proudly wear these, saying: "I care about global poverty." Which is great. But that care and concern, even if it is well meaning, cannot make change by itself. The ONE campaign offers no real course of action for individuals, it just puts the power back into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.
And it is daunting for individuals to try to confront poverty by themselves. That is why ONE has gain popularity through uniting many different concerned individuals. But they have lost their way. They have become self-serving and do not look for effective ways to stop poverty, and instead focus on what they think is right rather than what is working.
So what is working? I will shamelessly plug my own student group, the Social Entrepreneurs of Grinnell. We have raised over $3,000 on campus and loaned almost all of it all over the world to Third World entrepreneurs. There is no reason why other colleges can't do this instead of participating in the Campus Challenge.
I think that the work of SEG is more effective than anything the Campus Challenge can accomplish, but are they really ending poverty? Maybe. I don't know. But SEG is actually doing something. And we certainly are doing more to end poverty than just wearing a ONE wristband.
A lot of ONE's activities deal with engagement, and because they seem to be reaching people who wouldn't normally know about global poverty, I have been able to ignore Jeffrey Sachs parading around Africa with Angelina Jolie. Even though they offer great prizes to the school that earns the most points, including a prize that's so great it's still a secret, the Campus Challenge doesn't seem to accomplish anything but get more involved with the Campus Challenge.
And that is my major criticism with the ONE Campaign. It is all about increasing awareness, which is fine, but it doesn't offer any information about how to work on the issues after people become engaged. On the main site for the ONE Campus Challenge, the only information it offers besides the rules of the Challenge is that "our generation has the tools, technology, and resources to end extreme poverty and yet, a billion people still live on less than a dollar a day." The ONE main website has an "issues" page, as well as a "take action" page, but the action either involves wearing ONE gear, getting more people to sign up onto ONE, or contacting Congress. (To be fair, the Campus Challenge also asks students to lobby Congress.) When you decide to "learn how to become an active member of the movement," all that is suggested is more ways to engage more people.
It seems like ONE gives people an easy way out for global poverty. It offers people shirts and wristbands, and people can proudly wear these, saying: "I care about global poverty." Which is great. But that care and concern, even if it is well meaning, cannot make change by itself. The ONE campaign offers no real course of action for individuals, it just puts the power back into the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.
And it is daunting for individuals to try to confront poverty by themselves. That is why ONE has gain popularity through uniting many different concerned individuals. But they have lost their way. They have become self-serving and do not look for effective ways to stop poverty, and instead focus on what they think is right rather than what is working.
So what is working? I will shamelessly plug my own student group, the Social Entrepreneurs of Grinnell. We have raised over $3,000 on campus and loaned almost all of it all over the world to Third World entrepreneurs. There is no reason why other colleges can't do this instead of participating in the Campus Challenge.
I think that the work of SEG is more effective than anything the Campus Challenge can accomplish, but are they really ending poverty? Maybe. I don't know. But SEG is actually doing something. And we certainly are doing more to end poverty than just wearing a ONE wristband.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Update: The Shifting of Terrorism
The Defense Department has developed a new tactic for killing enemy combatants, where snipers place fake weapons or bomb materials and wait for someone to pick it up. Then, they shoot, sometimes to wound and sometimes to kill. Currently, three snipers are on trial for murder charges, and this program, called "baiting", was disclosed in their defense. The Army denies that this is an institutional program, yet many soldiers have testified to its existence.
This just another example of how the U.S. is no longer fighting terrorism, but causing it.
This just another example of how the U.S. is no longer fighting terrorism, but causing it.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The Shifting of Terrorism
The war on terror has come full circle. The US was once liberators and now we are the terrorists.
Last Sunday, a convoy of hired Blackwater USA security forces escorting State Department vehicles open fired on a crowd of innocent Iraqis in an open square. The first person they shot was a man in a car, the second was the woman next to him, holding a baby. When the incident was over, somewhere from eight to eleven Iraqis were killed.
The Iraqi government recently released a preliminary report about these events, stating that “the murder of citizens in cold blood in the Nisour area by Blackwater is considered a terrorist action against civilians just like any other terrorist operation."
This statement sums up the US's involvement in Iraqi, military or private. Before, even if it was under false pretenses, the US claimed it was trying to spread freedom and democracy. Now, it seems, we are just adding to the terror we came to stop.
According to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, there have been seven incidents of Blackwater needlessly killing Iraqis. Blackwater claims that the convoy they were guarding was ambused, and no press releases or acknowledgment of the issues appears on their web page. The only thing that appears is their denial that employees have been illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq that end up on the black market.
Even before the shootings last Sunday, Iraqi officials repeatedly complained to the US about the problems with Blackwater. After the incident, the Iraqi government banned Blackwater operations. Prime Minister al-Maliki even insisted that the state department drop them as a contractor. But they continued their work anyways. Apparently, private security firms are protected in a loophole law that was set up before the Iraqis took power.
The arrogance of Blackwater's continuation is incredibly frustrating. The US is over in Iraq to stop terrorism, yet we are perpetuating it ourselves. Blackwater has denied all wrongdoings, and the US government has made no moves to evaluate the situation. This situation shows how much we don't care about the Iraqi citizens and just how concerned we are with our own agenda. This isn't the war on terror, and it never has been. Soon, both the American people and the Iraqi people are going to completely realize the falsity of this war and everyone will be in a huge amount of trouble. It seems like it is already to late to do anything about it.
Last Sunday, a convoy of hired Blackwater USA security forces escorting State Department vehicles open fired on a crowd of innocent Iraqis in an open square. The first person they shot was a man in a car, the second was the woman next to him, holding a baby. When the incident was over, somewhere from eight to eleven Iraqis were killed.
The Iraqi government recently released a preliminary report about these events, stating that “the murder of citizens in cold blood in the Nisour area by Blackwater is considered a terrorist action against civilians just like any other terrorist operation."
This statement sums up the US's involvement in Iraqi, military or private. Before, even if it was under false pretenses, the US claimed it was trying to spread freedom and democracy. Now, it seems, we are just adding to the terror we came to stop.
According to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, there have been seven incidents of Blackwater needlessly killing Iraqis. Blackwater claims that the convoy they were guarding was ambused, and no press releases or acknowledgment of the issues appears on their web page. The only thing that appears is their denial that employees have been illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq that end up on the black market.
Even before the shootings last Sunday, Iraqi officials repeatedly complained to the US about the problems with Blackwater. After the incident, the Iraqi government banned Blackwater operations. Prime Minister al-Maliki even insisted that the state department drop them as a contractor. But they continued their work anyways. Apparently, private security firms are protected in a loophole law that was set up before the Iraqis took power.
The arrogance of Blackwater's continuation is incredibly frustrating. The US is over in Iraq to stop terrorism, yet we are perpetuating it ourselves. Blackwater has denied all wrongdoings, and the US government has made no moves to evaluate the situation. This situation shows how much we don't care about the Iraqi citizens and just how concerned we are with our own agenda. This isn't the war on terror, and it never has been. Soon, both the American people and the Iraqi people are going to completely realize the falsity of this war and everyone will be in a huge amount of trouble. It seems like it is already to late to do anything about it.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
At Least Two Sides to Every Issue
All of my course work is starting to blend together. I can't remember which conservations I had in which class, which professor said what.
I suppose it's my own fault for choosing classes that try to explain the same thing, just through different academic lenses. But the higher up I get in academia, the more I realize that it doesn't matter whether or not your trying to find answers through political science, ecology or anthropology, people will conclude different things, even while looking at the same facts.
We just read two pieces in my African cultures class, both put out around the same time, but with completely messages. The first was Robert Kaplan's, "The Coming Anarchy" and the other was Nelson Mandela's 1994 speech to the OAU. Both came out around the same time, Kaplan's in February and Mandela's in June, but each describes Africa in a completely different way. Kaplan's article, from the Atlantic Monthly, is famous for being the first wake-up call to the Western world about the trouble Africa is in. After I read it, I felt that Africa is beyond repair and there's nothing we really can do about it.
Mandela comes to a completely different conclusion. He tells the OAU that Africa has been through hard times, but they can persevere through them. He cites South Africa's expulsion of Apartheid as an example of all they can accomplish. Strangely, Mandela's hopeful speech comes after the Rwandan genocide and Kaplan's warning comes only a few months before it. Of course, Mandela is a politician and Kaplan is a journalist.
Another great example of people looking at the same thing but seeing it differently is the Jeffrey Sachs/ William Easterly debate. We're reading both their books ("End of Poverty" and "White Man's Burden", respectively) in Political Economies of Developing Countries, and it is hard to tell which has their facts right. It seems that both of them do, yet their conclusions are such polar opposites.
If you don't know the story behind Sachs and Easterly, Sachs runs the One Campaign with Bono and champions the idea that extreme poverty can be ended by 2025. Easterly makes no such claim and thinks poverty only can be ended by grassroots movements, instead of large aid donations recommended by One. Both make convincing arguments.
But when all the arguing is over, it seems like not much is really getting done. We get reports of terrorism around the world and people dying needlessly. The One Campaign reports 10 million children die every year, mostly from preventable diseases.
That is, until this year. UNICEF today released a report saying that in 2005 the number of child deaths before the age of five dropped to 9.7 million, a fall of 29% from 2000. This is the lowest its been since UNICEF began to record these statistics. "We feel we’re at a tipping point now,” said Dr. Peter Salama, Unicef’s chief medical officer. They expect this drop to continue, and think the UN Development Goal of cutting child mortality by two-thirds by 2025 could be accomplished.
So was Sachs right? Does this drop come from the increased efforts of NGOs like One and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria? Or was Easterly right, and this reduction in needless deaths is due to people at the bottom finally taking control of their lives?
Was Mandela right in calling Africa to unite and be strong? Or was Kaplan right in scaring the First World into doing something?
If more than 300,000 children are no longer dying needlessly, I don't think it matters.
I suppose it's my own fault for choosing classes that try to explain the same thing, just through different academic lenses. But the higher up I get in academia, the more I realize that it doesn't matter whether or not your trying to find answers through political science, ecology or anthropology, people will conclude different things, even while looking at the same facts.
We just read two pieces in my African cultures class, both put out around the same time, but with completely messages. The first was Robert Kaplan's, "The Coming Anarchy" and the other was Nelson Mandela's 1994 speech to the OAU. Both came out around the same time, Kaplan's in February and Mandela's in June, but each describes Africa in a completely different way. Kaplan's article, from the Atlantic Monthly, is famous for being the first wake-up call to the Western world about the trouble Africa is in. After I read it, I felt that Africa is beyond repair and there's nothing we really can do about it.
Mandela comes to a completely different conclusion. He tells the OAU that Africa has been through hard times, but they can persevere through them. He cites South Africa's expulsion of Apartheid as an example of all they can accomplish. Strangely, Mandela's hopeful speech comes after the Rwandan genocide and Kaplan's warning comes only a few months before it. Of course, Mandela is a politician and Kaplan is a journalist.
Another great example of people looking at the same thing but seeing it differently is the Jeffrey Sachs/ William Easterly debate. We're reading both their books ("End of Poverty" and "White Man's Burden", respectively) in Political Economies of Developing Countries, and it is hard to tell which has their facts right. It seems that both of them do, yet their conclusions are such polar opposites.
If you don't know the story behind Sachs and Easterly, Sachs runs the One Campaign with Bono and champions the idea that extreme poverty can be ended by 2025. Easterly makes no such claim and thinks poverty only can be ended by grassroots movements, instead of large aid donations recommended by One. Both make convincing arguments.
But when all the arguing is over, it seems like not much is really getting done. We get reports of terrorism around the world and people dying needlessly. The One Campaign reports 10 million children die every year, mostly from preventable diseases.
That is, until this year. UNICEF today released a report saying that in 2005 the number of child deaths before the age of five dropped to 9.7 million, a fall of 29% from 2000. This is the lowest its been since UNICEF began to record these statistics. "We feel we’re at a tipping point now,” said Dr. Peter Salama, Unicef’s chief medical officer. They expect this drop to continue, and think the UN Development Goal of cutting child mortality by two-thirds by 2025 could be accomplished.
So was Sachs right? Does this drop come from the increased efforts of NGOs like One and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria? Or was Easterly right, and this reduction in needless deaths is due to people at the bottom finally taking control of their lives?
Was Mandela right in calling Africa to unite and be strong? Or was Kaplan right in scaring the First World into doing something?
If more than 300,000 children are no longer dying needlessly, I don't think it matters.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Read This Post
I am not going to start off with a personal anecdote and suspend for once my delusions that this blog could be a jumping point my my New-York-Times-columnist career.
I am just going to say; read this article: "A Way Out of Debt By Way of Iraq."
It is about the men and women of this country that have chosen to go to Iraq to escape and eliminate their financial burdens.
At first, I thought, how interesting. Then, as I continued to read, I thought, how incredibly horrible and frightening. The article describes how people with massive amounts of debt find volunteering for Iraq an easy way to gain some quick cash and live in a low-cost lifestyle.
My country has left people with no choice but to sell their lives to escape their problems at home. I cannot believe this. I thought this was the land of opportunity, yet my fellow citizens are resorting to participating in warfare and violence to solve their individual problems, and financial ones at that.
I am reminded of a David Cross joke of him describing his reaction to watching a reality show: "Bush always says; 'the terrorists hate our freedom.' Well, I hate our freedom too, if this is what we do with it."
This is the land of the free, but these free people have been forced to resorting to risking their lives abroad to fix their lives at home. If this is what our freedom gets us, then it really isn't freedom.
I am just going to say; read this article: "A Way Out of Debt By Way of Iraq."
It is about the men and women of this country that have chosen to go to Iraq to escape and eliminate their financial burdens.
At first, I thought, how interesting. Then, as I continued to read, I thought, how incredibly horrible and frightening. The article describes how people with massive amounts of debt find volunteering for Iraq an easy way to gain some quick cash and live in a low-cost lifestyle.
My country has left people with no choice but to sell their lives to escape their problems at home. I cannot believe this. I thought this was the land of opportunity, yet my fellow citizens are resorting to participating in warfare and violence to solve their individual problems, and financial ones at that.
I am reminded of a David Cross joke of him describing his reaction to watching a reality show: "Bush always says; 'the terrorists hate our freedom.' Well, I hate our freedom too, if this is what we do with it."
This is the land of the free, but these free people have been forced to resorting to risking their lives abroad to fix their lives at home. If this is what our freedom gets us, then it really isn't freedom.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
In (sort of) Defense of Sweatshops
Today was the first day of classes, and my Econometrics professor started the term off with a NYT's letter to the editor, responding to a report on an econometric study that can determine the quality of a wine without any more data than the weather reports from the year.
Basically, the letter to the editor said that wine quality is too difficult to be determined by an economist, who are all cold and out of touch with reality. My class lamented together for a moment, thinking of all the persecution we, as students of the dismal science, have faced.
One persecution I have faced for an argument I could never win, nor any economist ever could, is one on the benefits of sweatshops.
I have only dared to make this argument a few times, and have quickly been silenced by my own sense of guilt and social norms. Yet, anyone who has taken an Intro to Development Economics course knows how the pro-sweatshops argument goes:
Third World countries have a comparative advantage in cheap labor. People in Third World countries need money, and any job is better than no job. Work will be hard, but money start to flow in to the economy and eventually the working conditions will get better. Then same thing happened in the US.
And the counter-argument:
Sweatshops are forced on to people, and the capital injection that they provide are only temporary, as many transnational corporations will pick up and leave when the wages get too high.
And on, and on...
An op-ed piece in the NYT today tallied up one point for the sweatshops. It was written by Dana Thomas, taken from her new book "Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster," which I am very excited to read, as soon as it comes out in paperback. The op-ed was about the dirty deeds behind counterfeit purses, and it narrated her going and freeing young children in China from sweatshops manufacturing fake purses.
She said that as she left, these children "threw bottles and cans at us. They were now jobless and, because the factory owner housed them, homeless." Sweatshops are in no way sustainable, but this glimpse into one shows that a solution to sweatshop labor is not as easy as shutting them all down.
Another NYT's piece reported yesterday that wages in China (seemingly the poster-child for sweatshop labor, if you want to call it that) have increased by a significant amount in the past few months, in some cases almost doubling. Employers are having a difficult time finding employable people willing to work the hours and at the pace their "factories" require, causing wages to rise. Another point for sweatshops. (To be fair, Thomas mentioned that counterfeit-purse-factory workers make less than half of what normal sweatshop workers make.)
As I said before, sweatshops are in no way sustainable. I do not even think, at the level they are operating currently, they are a stepping stone to bigger and better things for Third World countries. But when reading about those children that threw bottles at their supposed "liberators", I remembered that stopping sweatshops and all the evils they impose is not as easy as knowing where your shirt came from. You need to know why it came from there, why you paid what you did, and what happens if you don't buy a shirt from there again.
Note: Check out this op-ed from Grinnell's own S&B, by the professor I mentioned in the beginning of this post, to hear some more arguments for sweatshops. (You have to get the bottom half first.)
Basically, the letter to the editor said that wine quality is too difficult to be determined by an economist, who are all cold and out of touch with reality. My class lamented together for a moment, thinking of all the persecution we, as students of the dismal science, have faced.
One persecution I have faced for an argument I could never win, nor any economist ever could, is one on the benefits of sweatshops.
I have only dared to make this argument a few times, and have quickly been silenced by my own sense of guilt and social norms. Yet, anyone who has taken an Intro to Development Economics course knows how the pro-sweatshops argument goes:
Third World countries have a comparative advantage in cheap labor. People in Third World countries need money, and any job is better than no job. Work will be hard, but money start to flow in to the economy and eventually the working conditions will get better. Then same thing happened in the US.
And the counter-argument:
Sweatshops are forced on to people, and the capital injection that they provide are only temporary, as many transnational corporations will pick up and leave when the wages get too high.
And on, and on...
An op-ed piece in the NYT today tallied up one point for the sweatshops. It was written by Dana Thomas, taken from her new book "Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster," which I am very excited to read, as soon as it comes out in paperback. The op-ed was about the dirty deeds behind counterfeit purses, and it narrated her going and freeing young children in China from sweatshops manufacturing fake purses.
She said that as she left, these children "threw bottles and cans at us. They were now jobless and, because the factory owner housed them, homeless." Sweatshops are in no way sustainable, but this glimpse into one shows that a solution to sweatshop labor is not as easy as shutting them all down.
Another NYT's piece reported yesterday that wages in China (seemingly the poster-child for sweatshop labor, if you want to call it that) have increased by a significant amount in the past few months, in some cases almost doubling. Employers are having a difficult time finding employable people willing to work the hours and at the pace their "factories" require, causing wages to rise. Another point for sweatshops. (To be fair, Thomas mentioned that counterfeit-purse-factory workers make less than half of what normal sweatshop workers make.)
As I said before, sweatshops are in no way sustainable. I do not even think, at the level they are operating currently, they are a stepping stone to bigger and better things for Third World countries. But when reading about those children that threw bottles at their supposed "liberators", I remembered that stopping sweatshops and all the evils they impose is not as easy as knowing where your shirt came from. You need to know why it came from there, why you paid what you did, and what happens if you don't buy a shirt from there again.
Note: Check out this op-ed from Grinnell's own S&B, by the professor I mentioned in the beginning of this post, to hear some more arguments for sweatshops. (You have to get the bottom half first.)
Monday, August 27, 2007
What do foreheads and cars have in common?
I have always been fascinated by advertisements. I remember watching TV once with a friend, and I found myself yelling at the commercials for being stupid and pointless. My friend turned to me and said; "If you're going to get frustrated at every ad you see, you'll be in big trouble."
This morning's NYT proved his point. There was an article in the Media & Advertising section called "Your Ad Here, on MY S.U.V.? And You'll Pay?" It was about how businesses are beginning to pay ordinary people to drive around with ads on their cars. It reminded me of the person who auctioned off his forehead for tattoo-ad space.
Apparently, these forehead-billboards are not uncommon (type in "ad tattoos" to Google, and you'll see what I mean.) And, apparently, these car-billboards are not uncommon either. The article reports ten of thousands of people have participated in this form of advertisement, called "car wrapping". Companies offer an $800 stipend for this service, so getting a new paint job in the name of marketing is hard to refuse.
I can understand why a company would place their ad on an everyday car, the NYT reports that a single "car wrap" will be seen 70,000 times a day. And I know companies are looking for unique advertising space, especially since the invention of Tivo and satellite radio.
But I am reminded of the concluding comments of Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point. He talked of "ad saturation", the concept that at some point, people can become saturated with ads and begin to ignore them completely. He argues that this "tipping point" for advertisements has already occur, and creating more ads, for any product, will only decrease the incentive to buy.
Obviously, the people paying to wrap a car with their product's message do not think this is the case. Back before the average American saw more than 600 ads in a day, more advertisements meant more exposure. If someone saw a Coke commercial on the six o'clock news in the Sixties, that might influence their next decision to buy a beverage. Now, seeing a Coke ad is a part of everyday life. It doesn't sway my decision one way or the other, and I would doubt if it did for anyone else.
When learning about classical conditioning in Intro to Psych, our professor explained that most marketers do not take into account human psychology when designing ads. As I begin to see more and more ads every day, and get more and more frustrated, I have to believe he is right.
This morning's NYT proved his point. There was an article in the Media & Advertising section called "Your Ad Here, on MY S.U.V.? And You'll Pay?" It was about how businesses are beginning to pay ordinary people to drive around with ads on their cars. It reminded me of the person who auctioned off his forehead for tattoo-ad space.
Apparently, these forehead-billboards are not uncommon (type in "ad tattoos" to Google, and you'll see what I mean.) And, apparently, these car-billboards are not uncommon either. The article reports ten of thousands of people have participated in this form of advertisement, called "car wrapping". Companies offer an $800 stipend for this service, so getting a new paint job in the name of marketing is hard to refuse.
I can understand why a company would place their ad on an everyday car, the NYT reports that a single "car wrap" will be seen 70,000 times a day. And I know companies are looking for unique advertising space, especially since the invention of Tivo and satellite radio.
But I am reminded of the concluding comments of Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point. He talked of "ad saturation", the concept that at some point, people can become saturated with ads and begin to ignore them completely. He argues that this "tipping point" for advertisements has already occur, and creating more ads, for any product, will only decrease the incentive to buy.
Obviously, the people paying to wrap a car with their product's message do not think this is the case. Back before the average American saw more than 600 ads in a day, more advertisements meant more exposure. If someone saw a Coke commercial on the six o'clock news in the Sixties, that might influence their next decision to buy a beverage. Now, seeing a Coke ad is a part of everyday life. It doesn't sway my decision one way or the other, and I would doubt if it did for anyone else.
When learning about classical conditioning in Intro to Psych, our professor explained that most marketers do not take into account human psychology when designing ads. As I begin to see more and more ads every day, and get more and more frustrated, I have to believe he is right.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Being un-American
Yesterday I remarked to my friend that this past summer I've slowly turned into a Socialist. I may or may not have been kidding, I still haven't decided, but one thing I am sure of is that I fully support universal health care for this country, and all countries.
That's why I was infuriated to read the today's NYT article, "Many Eligible for Child Health Plan Have No Idea." It reported on the fact that 1.7 million children that have qualified for the State Children's Health Insurance Program are not enrolled and are unaware of their eligibility. This is a disturbing figure, but what I found more disturbing were the small tidbits of information dropped into the article about the Bush administration's attitude towards expanded health care coverage.
Last week, the article says, the administration set new standards to discourage the expansion of state-run health care to children of middle-class families. Bush has threatened to veto bills in the House and the Senate that add billions of dollars into health care coverage of children because both are a "major step toward nationalized health coverage." The administration's main reason against this funding increase is that
It seems like Bush is forgetting that the president should keep his or her citizens' best interests in mind. If people prefer universal health care, then the president should deliver universal health care. Bush, and many others in Washington, have politicized health care, making it "un-Republican" and "un-American" to want universal coverage. Most people realize there is a health crises in this country. It is just too bad those enlightened people don't run it.
That's why I was infuriated to read the today's NYT article, "Many Eligible for Child Health Plan Have No Idea." It reported on the fact that 1.7 million children that have qualified for the State Children's Health Insurance Program are not enrolled and are unaware of their eligibility. This is a disturbing figure, but what I found more disturbing were the small tidbits of information dropped into the article about the Bush administration's attitude towards expanded health care coverage.
Last week, the article says, the administration set new standards to discourage the expansion of state-run health care to children of middle-class families. Bush has threatened to veto bills in the House and the Senate that add billions of dollars into health care coverage of children because both are a "major step toward nationalized health coverage." The administration's main reason against this funding increase is that
the expansion...would transform the program into a broad entitlement. Many families, they predict, would cancel private insurance in favor of government coverage (one study found that 14 percent of enrollees did).
It seems like Bush is forgetting that the president should keep his or her citizens' best interests in mind. If people prefer universal health care, then the president should deliver universal health care. Bush, and many others in Washington, have politicized health care, making it "un-Republican" and "un-American" to want universal coverage. Most people realize there is a health crises in this country. It is just too bad those enlightened people don't run it.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
We're Missing Out
I remember a conversation in my intro Sociology class about a year and a half ago. We had just read an article about the AIDS epidemic in Africa (Time, Feb 2001). We were discussing AIDS as a social epidemic, rather than just a medical one. Someone mentioned that African people would never be able to emerge as a competitive group in the global economy, because they are are plagued by so many social, economic and medical problems.
I responded to this comment with a blindly optimistic rebuttal, saying that Africa will not only become a major trading partner in our lifetime, but that the US should begin to invest in Africa before missing out on this opportunity. Africa as a continent has great potential for economic growth. The US can benefit from African consumers, just as Africans can benefit from our investments. I've always thought Africans would soon emerge as a powerful consumer base and that the US should figure out a way to capitalize on this inevitable trend while there still is time.
Today, I learned that we might already be too late. Or, at least, behind the times. Not surprisingly, the country to beat us to this was China. Today's New York Time exposé, "Entrepreneurs From China Flourish in Africa", profiles several Chinese entrepreneurs seeking out their fortunes abroad. What makes these business people different from other ex-patriots is that they travel to Africa, instead of Western nations.
China is not the only country taking the African consumer seriously. Since 1955, there has been a strong relationship between African and Sino countries. (See the Bandung Conference.) South-south linkages, as they are commonly called, might be the only hope to lift Africa out of the quagmire it is in. What is so great about these south-south trade relations is that not only to Africans benefit from capital injection, but its done on economic turns, not as a handout.
I am not suggesting that we all leave to start businesses in African nations. I am not even suggesting that all Africa needs is foreign capital and investment. All I am saying is that this migration of Chinese is just illustrative of a larger trend. China, as well as other industrializing countries, sees Africa as an investment, not as a charity case. The more I learn about US-Africa relations (or even Western-African relations), the more disappointed I become. It is a shame the US is missing out on another great opportunity.
I responded to this comment with a blindly optimistic rebuttal, saying that Africa will not only become a major trading partner in our lifetime, but that the US should begin to invest in Africa before missing out on this opportunity. Africa as a continent has great potential for economic growth. The US can benefit from African consumers, just as Africans can benefit from our investments. I've always thought Africans would soon emerge as a powerful consumer base and that the US should figure out a way to capitalize on this inevitable trend while there still is time.
Today, I learned that we might already be too late. Or, at least, behind the times. Not surprisingly, the country to beat us to this was China. Today's New York Time exposé, "Entrepreneurs From China Flourish in Africa", profiles several Chinese entrepreneurs seeking out their fortunes abroad. What makes these business people different from other ex-patriots is that they travel to Africa, instead of Western nations.
China is not the only country taking the African consumer seriously. Since 1955, there has been a strong relationship between African and Sino countries. (See the Bandung Conference.) South-south linkages, as they are commonly called, might be the only hope to lift Africa out of the quagmire it is in. What is so great about these south-south trade relations is that not only to Africans benefit from capital injection, but its done on economic turns, not as a handout.
I am not suggesting that we all leave to start businesses in African nations. I am not even suggesting that all Africa needs is foreign capital and investment. All I am saying is that this migration of Chinese is just illustrative of a larger trend. China, as well as other industrializing countries, sees Africa as an investment, not as a charity case. The more I learn about US-Africa relations (or even Western-African relations), the more disappointed I become. It is a shame the US is missing out on another great opportunity.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Exporting Markers
Yesterday, I had a brief conversation with my mother about my upcoming fall semester in Botswana. She said she wanted to buy a lot of markers and pencils at Target before I left, so I could distribute them to the needy children and needy schools I would encounter on my travels. She was well-meaning, of course, but I quickly refused her offer and tried to explain why her suggestion was a bad one.
I give the One Campaign a lot of crap, and I will continue to do so with this post. I think things like One have made people like my mother think getting needy children supplies is as easy as buying them cheap at Target and getting someone to distribute them. One's "twelve cent medicines" make it seem like all it takes is a check and connections to solve all the world's problems.
My mother's suggestion for me to bring markers to Botswana would be like bringing Pop-Tarts to a starving community. These potential Batswana children may need school supplies, but we can't just assume help is as easy as giving away what we personally think someone might need. If I show up with a suitcase full of markers, and what they really need is paper, then I'm stuck with markers that could more efficiently be used elsewhere.
Another, more complex reason that I would not like to import markers into Botswana is because it takes away from local economies. In my opinion, Botswana needs my and my mother's money more than a U.S. Target does. By waiting to see what the Batswana people need until after I arrive, I am not only able to effectively deliver what they need, but also purchase those things in the community and stimulate the local economy.
Today the New York Times reported on CARE refusing to accept 45 million dollars of food aid from the U.S., "CARE Turns Down Federal Funds for Food Aid". CARE is one of the world's largest charities and usually sells donated food from the U.S. to finance anti-poverty programs. It is also the first NGO, that I know of, to have refused a donation that large.
CARE claims that these cheaply-produced and -sold crop donations stagnate growth by deflating local primary product prices. I agree with them, but many would disagree. Some see this price deflation as a necessary evil; without these crop donations, groups like CARE would not be able to function and help the thousands of poor farmers in the same way as they do now.
My mother was distressed when I explained to her the problems with importing markers to Botswana, and by extension, importing primary products as aid. She asked me what she could give me instead of markers. I asked her what she had.
"Well, how about Beanie Babies?" she said.
"Yeah," I responded, "Those would be great."
"Why? Why are Beanie Babies any different? How do you know they need Beanie Babies in Botswana and not markers?"
"Mom," I said, "no one ever needs Beanie Babies. Beanie Babies are always superfluous."
I give the One Campaign a lot of crap, and I will continue to do so with this post. I think things like One have made people like my mother think getting needy children supplies is as easy as buying them cheap at Target and getting someone to distribute them. One's "twelve cent medicines" make it seem like all it takes is a check and connections to solve all the world's problems.
My mother's suggestion for me to bring markers to Botswana would be like bringing Pop-Tarts to a starving community. These potential Batswana children may need school supplies, but we can't just assume help is as easy as giving away what we personally think someone might need. If I show up with a suitcase full of markers, and what they really need is paper, then I'm stuck with markers that could more efficiently be used elsewhere.
Another, more complex reason that I would not like to import markers into Botswana is because it takes away from local economies. In my opinion, Botswana needs my and my mother's money more than a U.S. Target does. By waiting to see what the Batswana people need until after I arrive, I am not only able to effectively deliver what they need, but also purchase those things in the community and stimulate the local economy.
Today the New York Times reported on CARE refusing to accept 45 million dollars of food aid from the U.S., "CARE Turns Down Federal Funds for Food Aid". CARE is one of the world's largest charities and usually sells donated food from the U.S. to finance anti-poverty programs. It is also the first NGO, that I know of, to have refused a donation that large.
CARE claims that these cheaply-produced and -sold crop donations stagnate growth by deflating local primary product prices. I agree with them, but many would disagree. Some see this price deflation as a necessary evil; without these crop donations, groups like CARE would not be able to function and help the thousands of poor farmers in the same way as they do now.
My mother was distressed when I explained to her the problems with importing markers to Botswana, and by extension, importing primary products as aid. She asked me what she could give me instead of markers. I asked her what she had.
"Well, how about Beanie Babies?" she said.
"Yeah," I responded, "Those would be great."
"Why? Why are Beanie Babies any different? How do you know they need Beanie Babies in Botswana and not markers?"
"Mom," I said, "no one ever needs Beanie Babies. Beanie Babies are always superfluous."
Thursday, August 9, 2007
What Aid Really Is
Today I read Nicholas Kristof's column, "Bono, Foreign Aid and Skeptics". He presented the complexities of aid relief well, and was careful not to gloss over any of the issues. I would consider myself one of those skeptics of direct foreign aid, due to the rock-n-roll economics that some of its policies are based on, but I found myself agreeing with much of what Kristof said.
That is, until I read the following passage:
As a liberal-minded economics major, I found this appalling. Not the part about aid creating happiness and therefore being effective, but the seemingly innocent statement that a surgery like this "may not stimulate economic growth."
This surgery will most definitely stimulate economic growth. Most would look at this act of aid as a handout, but I see it as an investment in human capital. By creating a better life for this teenager, and substantially lengthening it, this person is free to live as she pleases, while participating in the local and global economy.
People do not like to think of human life in potential dollar amounts, but I think it is necessary when dealing with the type of people that run our world. If people continue to look at aid as charity for helpless, destitute people half-way around the world, it will never effectively solve problems. Aid cannot be useful until it is seen for what it really should be, an investment in humanity and therefore the global economy.
Note: I submitted these comments to Nicholas Kristof on his blog, On the Ground. If he responds, I will post it here.
That is, until I read the following passage:
...when we pay a few hundred dollars for fistula surgery so that a teenage girl no longer will leak urine or feces for the rest of her life, that operation may not stimulate economic growth. But no one who sees such a girl’s happiness after surgery can doubt that such aid is effective, for it truly saves a human being.
As a liberal-minded economics major, I found this appalling. Not the part about aid creating happiness and therefore being effective, but the seemingly innocent statement that a surgery like this "may not stimulate economic growth."
This surgery will most definitely stimulate economic growth. Most would look at this act of aid as a handout, but I see it as an investment in human capital. By creating a better life for this teenager, and substantially lengthening it, this person is free to live as she pleases, while participating in the local and global economy.
People do not like to think of human life in potential dollar amounts, but I think it is necessary when dealing with the type of people that run our world. If people continue to look at aid as charity for helpless, destitute people half-way around the world, it will never effectively solve problems. Aid cannot be useful until it is seen for what it really should be, an investment in humanity and therefore the global economy.
Note: I submitted these comments to Nicholas Kristof on his blog, On the Ground. If he responds, I will post it here.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
8/1/2007
Yesterday I spent a few minutes on the balcony of the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, looking out over the Mississippi River. To my right, I could see the remains of the 35W bridge. Even if you don't live in Minneapolis, you've probably seen the images of the wreckage in the paper or on TV. To me, everything looked smaller. It was drizzling and everything seemed quiet. There was nothing moving on or around the area, the rescue operations had stopped for the rain. The only people I could see were the theater goers next to me. This was a bridge I've traveled on hundreds of times before, but never once noticed it. As my dad told me, it was a bridge most didn't know was there.
My friends are beginning to call it "the ground zero of Minneapolis." It is fitting, as the collapse has changed this town forever, although for different reasons than the ground zero in New York. The fall of the towers symbolized an outside attack on our way of life by the extreme hatred of a small group of people, and the collapse of the bridge here symbolizes the slow crumbling of our society, caused only by negligence and apathy towards ourselves and others.
President Bush was nice enough to pay this city a three hour visit yesterday. As I remember, this was his first visit to Minneapolis in a long time. Congress continues to dish out money to the Minnesotan government, and the last I heard the figure was around 250 million. However, during Bush's brief visit, he told Mayor R.T. Rybak and other representatives that he would "make no promises on the timetable" for the rebuilding of the bridge. Sounds familiar. (See the Minneapolis Star Tribune article about his visit here.)
Bush's attitude during his visit is similar to his attitude during his other visits to disaster sites. When one survivor told the story of how he saved himself and then helped to bring a bus load of children out of the wreckage, Bush replied with; "Great job." Obviously, nothing has change within the nation's infrastructure since the "Heckuva job" done in New Orleans and Bush's attitude towards his constituents' problems hasn't changed either.
Also in the Star Tribune today was a column by Ann McFeatters, "Save now, pay later- and how". It was not until I read this that I realized how many infrastructure problems the US has had recently. She lists them off: Katrina, blackouts in the North East and around the country, a Hawaii dam collapse, sink holes in Brooklyn, and the 13,000 deaths a year that are related to improper highway maintenance. I'm sure there are hundreds of other minor, but significant cases around the nation that don't get national attention.
When McFeatters lists these catastrophes off, it seems as if the US is going through an epidemic. One of my family friends was hit hard by the bridge collapse, not because she was involved in it, but because of what it meant to her. She is concerned that these infrastructure failures signify the beginning of the end for our society, in the same way the Roman Empire fell due to their lack of concern with their crumbling infrastructure. This might be a little bit of paranoia, but ever since last Wednesday, I've started to wonder if it is just history repeating itself.
The 35W bridge collapse is another betrayal from the US government to its citizens. Even in a post-Katrina society, disasters can still occur which leave government officials pointing their fingers at anyone but themselves. To continue to be a leader in the global village, the US must once again become concerned with its citizens' wellbeing. If people cannot trust the country they live in, then falling bridges and sinkholes will soon become the least of the government's problems.
My friends are beginning to call it "the ground zero of Minneapolis." It is fitting, as the collapse has changed this town forever, although for different reasons than the ground zero in New York. The fall of the towers symbolized an outside attack on our way of life by the extreme hatred of a small group of people, and the collapse of the bridge here symbolizes the slow crumbling of our society, caused only by negligence and apathy towards ourselves and others.
President Bush was nice enough to pay this city a three hour visit yesterday. As I remember, this was his first visit to Minneapolis in a long time. Congress continues to dish out money to the Minnesotan government, and the last I heard the figure was around 250 million. However, during Bush's brief visit, he told Mayor R.T. Rybak and other representatives that he would "make no promises on the timetable" for the rebuilding of the bridge. Sounds familiar. (See the Minneapolis Star Tribune article about his visit here.)
Bush's attitude during his visit is similar to his attitude during his other visits to disaster sites. When one survivor told the story of how he saved himself and then helped to bring a bus load of children out of the wreckage, Bush replied with; "Great job." Obviously, nothing has change within the nation's infrastructure since the "Heckuva job" done in New Orleans and Bush's attitude towards his constituents' problems hasn't changed either.
Also in the Star Tribune today was a column by Ann McFeatters, "Save now, pay later- and how". It was not until I read this that I realized how many infrastructure problems the US has had recently. She lists them off: Katrina, blackouts in the North East and around the country, a Hawaii dam collapse, sink holes in Brooklyn, and the 13,000 deaths a year that are related to improper highway maintenance. I'm sure there are hundreds of other minor, but significant cases around the nation that don't get national attention.
When McFeatters lists these catastrophes off, it seems as if the US is going through an epidemic. One of my family friends was hit hard by the bridge collapse, not because she was involved in it, but because of what it meant to her. She is concerned that these infrastructure failures signify the beginning of the end for our society, in the same way the Roman Empire fell due to their lack of concern with their crumbling infrastructure. This might be a little bit of paranoia, but ever since last Wednesday, I've started to wonder if it is just history repeating itself.
The 35W bridge collapse is another betrayal from the US government to its citizens. Even in a post-Katrina society, disasters can still occur which leave government officials pointing their fingers at anyone but themselves. To continue to be a leader in the global village, the US must once again become concerned with its citizens' wellbeing. If people cannot trust the country they live in, then falling bridges and sinkholes will soon become the least of the government's problems.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Bipartisanism Rising
Before I start, I would like to acknowledge that the 35W bridge collapsed yesterday over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, my hometown. It is a tragedy, and this city will never be the same.
If you have happened to glance at the New York Times business section in the last few weeks, you will probably have seen an article about Rupert Murdoch buying the Dow Jones Company and the Wall Street Journal. Murdoch is the owner of News Corporation, which includes Fox News. The purchase of the Wall Street Journal has made people anxious about it turning even more conservative, similar to Fox.
Fox is known for its conservative leanings, just as CNN is known for being liberal. Yesterday, my Aunt Joey forwarded me this image from the New York Times, documenting how many minutes of interview time has been dedicated to each presidential candidate on each major news station from the beginning of the year to July 15th.
Most of the results displayed by the image, which is from the Hotline, are not surprising, but some are interesting. Senator Barack Obama had no interview time on Fox News, and neither did Senator Joesph Biden, even though they are in the top three for most interview time among Democrats. Senator John McCain had the most time total, and the most of his time was spent on NBC, not the conservative Fox. Out of ten Republican candidates, five had most of their interviews on Fox. All of the Democratic candidates had the most time on either CNN or MSNBC, with the exception of Senator Hillary Clinton, who spent most of her time on ABC.
What I think is most interesting about the image, and which my Aunt Joey altered me to, is the fact that Senator Clinton is twelfth on the list, below Tom Tancredo and above Dennis Kucinich. Clinton is the democratic forerunner with Obama, yet she doesn't receive nearly as much time as Obama, or even Tancredo, who isn't even close to the presence Clinton has. Joey speculated that this might be because she is a women, or by choice, and it is interesting to think about.
Anyways, back to my original point. Joey also forwarded me an email for the Edwards campaign, discussing how Edwards has refused money from Murdoch and his affiliates, and is calling for other democrats to follow him. This public statement is in response to what the e-mail calls the "right-wing talking points and temper tantrums" of Fox.
I agree with Edward's statement, and I think he, as well as other Democrats, need to respond to Fox's (and by extension, Murdoch's) attacks against them. As can be seen by the New York Times image, Fox does have a slant. But the image also shows the slant of CNN and MSNBC.
Partisanship goes both ways. Edwards is responding to the bias of Fox, but by doing so, he is strengthening that bias. He needs to go on Fox and refute their "temper tantrums" against him. Other Democrats and Republicans need to do the same on their respective nemeses.
Of course, that's easier said than done. In my opinion, Fox does close out certain people from their broadcasts, and makes it hard for people to respond to their negative claims. I think CNN is better at eliminating biases, yet it was the network that brought us Crossfire, probably the most partisan and polarizing show in television history. Jon Stewart was brave enough to say what he though about Crossfire, and defend his opinions on the show. (If you haven't seen the clip of this, I would recommend it. I think it is one of the best moments in recent media history.)
In a perfect world, these presidential candidates would be able to go on Fox (or CNN or MSNBC or ABC) and challenge what has been said about them. However, networks can make that difficult, and most candidates don't have the time to fight for their opinions, especially because they can just go on another new network and spit out opposite talking points.
But those who watch these talking points that increase bipartisanship can realize that this battle between two seemingly polar opposites is nothing more than an shallow reflection of the real world. Even though these people make our laws, every belief they hold does not represent our own. Even though I may be a Democratic, I do not agree with every thing that Edwards or Obama or Clinton says, or everything a CNN anchor reports. And even though you might be a Republican, you don't have to only watch Fox as a source of news. This isn't a perfect world, but at least we can understand that.
If you have happened to glance at the New York Times business section in the last few weeks, you will probably have seen an article about Rupert Murdoch buying the Dow Jones Company and the Wall Street Journal. Murdoch is the owner of News Corporation, which includes Fox News. The purchase of the Wall Street Journal has made people anxious about it turning even more conservative, similar to Fox.
Fox is known for its conservative leanings, just as CNN is known for being liberal. Yesterday, my Aunt Joey forwarded me this image from the New York Times, documenting how many minutes of interview time has been dedicated to each presidential candidate on each major news station from the beginning of the year to July 15th.
Most of the results displayed by the image, which is from the Hotline, are not surprising, but some are interesting. Senator Barack Obama had no interview time on Fox News, and neither did Senator Joesph Biden, even though they are in the top three for most interview time among Democrats. Senator John McCain had the most time total, and the most of his time was spent on NBC, not the conservative Fox. Out of ten Republican candidates, five had most of their interviews on Fox. All of the Democratic candidates had the most time on either CNN or MSNBC, with the exception of Senator Hillary Clinton, who spent most of her time on ABC.
What I think is most interesting about the image, and which my Aunt Joey altered me to, is the fact that Senator Clinton is twelfth on the list, below Tom Tancredo and above Dennis Kucinich. Clinton is the democratic forerunner with Obama, yet she doesn't receive nearly as much time as Obama, or even Tancredo, who isn't even close to the presence Clinton has. Joey speculated that this might be because she is a women, or by choice, and it is interesting to think about.
Anyways, back to my original point. Joey also forwarded me an email for the Edwards campaign, discussing how Edwards has refused money from Murdoch and his affiliates, and is calling for other democrats to follow him. This public statement is in response to what the e-mail calls the "right-wing talking points and temper tantrums" of Fox.
I agree with Edward's statement, and I think he, as well as other Democrats, need to respond to Fox's (and by extension, Murdoch's) attacks against them. As can be seen by the New York Times image, Fox does have a slant. But the image also shows the slant of CNN and MSNBC.
Partisanship goes both ways. Edwards is responding to the bias of Fox, but by doing so, he is strengthening that bias. He needs to go on Fox and refute their "temper tantrums" against him. Other Democrats and Republicans need to do the same on their respective nemeses.
Of course, that's easier said than done. In my opinion, Fox does close out certain people from their broadcasts, and makes it hard for people to respond to their negative claims. I think CNN is better at eliminating biases, yet it was the network that brought us Crossfire, probably the most partisan and polarizing show in television history. Jon Stewart was brave enough to say what he though about Crossfire, and defend his opinions on the show. (If you haven't seen the clip of this, I would recommend it. I think it is one of the best moments in recent media history.)
In a perfect world, these presidential candidates would be able to go on Fox (or CNN or MSNBC or ABC) and challenge what has been said about them. However, networks can make that difficult, and most candidates don't have the time to fight for their opinions, especially because they can just go on another new network and spit out opposite talking points.
But those who watch these talking points that increase bipartisanship can realize that this battle between two seemingly polar opposites is nothing more than an shallow reflection of the real world. Even though these people make our laws, every belief they hold does not represent our own. Even though I may be a Democratic, I do not agree with every thing that Edwards or Obama or Clinton says, or everything a CNN anchor reports. And even though you might be a Republican, you don't have to only watch Fox as a source of news. This isn't a perfect world, but at least we can understand that.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Changing the farm bill to think globally and act locally
I read an article today in the New York Times regarding food aid to Third World countries and the revision of the current farm bill, Kenyan Farmers' Fate Caught Up in U.S. Aid Rules.
The Bush administration is trying to change the current aid program, which only allows for the U.S. to buy domestic crops to distribute to needy countries. By removing this provision, the government would be able to buy foreign crops (like in Kenya) to distribute to those who need it locally. The Bush administration is trying to change the law so that $300 million in crop aid could be bought locally in cases of emergencies. Even though the "case of emergencies" stipulation makes this proposed law a small concession, it is surprising to see the President advocate for more spending on what seems to be a very effective plan.
Tom Harkin (D-IA), the chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee, is proposing a $25 million test program to see if the administration idea will work. This proposal, even though it is a small earmark, is being met with resistance from both the House and the Senate. Because US tax dollars would go towards other countries' products, and then those products would go to people with the same nationality of the purchase, Congressmen are not willing to make these changes proposed.
On a basic level, the US shipping food over to needy countries is ridiculous. By buying food abroad to distribute locally, the US will increase growth for those countries and help poor farmers increase their income. Shipping aid crops to foreign countries is costly and ineffective. Policymakers' stubbornness on this issue just shows how reluctant the US is to effectively help those who need it.
The Bush administration is trying to change the current aid program, which only allows for the U.S. to buy domestic crops to distribute to needy countries. By removing this provision, the government would be able to buy foreign crops (like in Kenya) to distribute to those who need it locally. The Bush administration is trying to change the law so that $300 million in crop aid could be bought locally in cases of emergencies. Even though the "case of emergencies" stipulation makes this proposed law a small concession, it is surprising to see the President advocate for more spending on what seems to be a very effective plan.
Tom Harkin (D-IA), the chairman of the Senate Agricultural Committee, is proposing a $25 million test program to see if the administration idea will work. This proposal, even though it is a small earmark, is being met with resistance from both the House and the Senate. Because US tax dollars would go towards other countries' products, and then those products would go to people with the same nationality of the purchase, Congressmen are not willing to make these changes proposed.
On a basic level, the US shipping food over to needy countries is ridiculous. By buying food abroad to distribute locally, the US will increase growth for those countries and help poor farmers increase their income. Shipping aid crops to foreign countries is costly and ineffective. Policymakers' stubbornness on this issue just shows how reluctant the US is to effectively help those who need it.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Expensive Trade
As a student of economics, I've learned that free trade is beneficial to all participants. As a member in the activist community, I've learned that the free trade movement is sucking the ever-dwindling life out of Third World nations. Through my own experience, I've learned that free trade does not exsist.
Today the New York Times reported on the WTO's Doha Rounds. These international talks started in 2001 to promote global trade and the elimination of tarriffs. The NYT's article reports that a overhaul of the current trade system could add hundreds of billions of dollars to the world's income. I think it would also ignite cultural synergy like never before.
The Doha Rounds have not produced much of anything. Many people blame First World nations for rigity with their policies, especially the US's argicultural subsides, which inflate domestic prices and leave many Third World nations unable to compete in the global market. The activist community has called for the elimination of these subsidies, claiming that they only support large agribusinesses while stagnating Third World economies. I agree with the elimination of these subsides, as do most involved with global politics, activist or otherwise.
What many activists organizations, especially the famous "One" campaign, ignore is the complexities behind these trade talks. Many would like to frame this trade battle as a First versus Third World, a poor versus rich, corrupt versus innocent. However, it is not as simple as that. Peter Mandelson, the top European trade negotiator, said in the NYT's article:
"This is not a classic North-South conflict. It is also South-South. The developed countries and the emerging economies have a responsibility to help the poorer countries."
The "emerging" economies that Mandelson refers to are countries like China, India and Brazil (commonly called "BRIC", with the R being Russia). China and Brazil are wary to lower their tariffs, as they are afraid of cheap Chinese imports flooding their markets. China has also refused to unfix the Yen, which artifically lowers their exports even more.
Many Thrid World countries feel that they should not be all grouped together, as is common. China, India and Brazil have the post power in the Third World, and many other, slower growing nations don't think they are accuratley respresented by the concerns of BRIC and similar countries.
The NYT's article gives a comprehensive layout of trade complexities. It reports that 70% of traiffs paid by poor countires goes to poor countries, giving a new perspective on assumed exploitation of the Third World by the First. (This statistic was reported by a US trade representative, so it could be exploitative on its own.) Also, the US has said it will losen some of its trade restrictions if India and Brazil do the same.
I am not saying, contrary to popular belief, that these trade talks are successfull. I think they are crippingly breaucratic and a waste of time. Poor countries are being ignored by most of these trade talks (especially when it comes to agricultural subsidies), but not in a good-versus-evil way that most groups working on the Doha Rounds would like us to think. Trade is a complex topic, and free trade is even more complex. There is no one right way to create a universially benificial trade deal, but it can be done and must be done.
Today the New York Times reported on the WTO's Doha Rounds. These international talks started in 2001 to promote global trade and the elimination of tarriffs. The NYT's article reports that a overhaul of the current trade system could add hundreds of billions of dollars to the world's income. I think it would also ignite cultural synergy like never before.
The Doha Rounds have not produced much of anything. Many people blame First World nations for rigity with their policies, especially the US's argicultural subsides, which inflate domestic prices and leave many Third World nations unable to compete in the global market. The activist community has called for the elimination of these subsidies, claiming that they only support large agribusinesses while stagnating Third World economies. I agree with the elimination of these subsides, as do most involved with global politics, activist or otherwise.
What many activists organizations, especially the famous "One" campaign, ignore is the complexities behind these trade talks. Many would like to frame this trade battle as a First versus Third World, a poor versus rich, corrupt versus innocent. However, it is not as simple as that. Peter Mandelson, the top European trade negotiator, said in the NYT's article:
"This is not a classic North-South conflict. It is also South-South. The developed countries and the emerging economies have a responsibility to help the poorer countries."
The "emerging" economies that Mandelson refers to are countries like China, India and Brazil (commonly called "BRIC", with the R being Russia). China and Brazil are wary to lower their tariffs, as they are afraid of cheap Chinese imports flooding their markets. China has also refused to unfix the Yen, which artifically lowers their exports even more.
Many Thrid World countries feel that they should not be all grouped together, as is common. China, India and Brazil have the post power in the Third World, and many other, slower growing nations don't think they are accuratley respresented by the concerns of BRIC and similar countries.
The NYT's article gives a comprehensive layout of trade complexities. It reports that 70% of traiffs paid by poor countires goes to poor countries, giving a new perspective on assumed exploitation of the Third World by the First. (This statistic was reported by a US trade representative, so it could be exploitative on its own.) Also, the US has said it will losen some of its trade restrictions if India and Brazil do the same.
I am not saying, contrary to popular belief, that these trade talks are successfull. I think they are crippingly breaucratic and a waste of time. Poor countries are being ignored by most of these trade talks (especially when it comes to agricultural subsidies), but not in a good-versus-evil way that most groups working on the Doha Rounds would like us to think. Trade is a complex topic, and free trade is even more complex. There is no one right way to create a universially benificial trade deal, but it can be done and must be done.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Things Getting Done
Today was a big day for the Pentagon. So much seemed to happen, but again, nothing seemed to get done. The Senate had an all night session, but still failed to pass any regulation to bring the troops home. White House aides told press that the anti-terrorism strategy in Pakistan had failed, and it was president Gen. Pervez Musharraf's fault. Scott Shane of the New York Times wrote a news analysis about how we aren't safer now than we were six year's ago, in response to a report published by the National Intelligence Estimate saying the same thing. The military released today that they had captured Khalid al-Mashadani, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
I could talk a lot about this, but other people do it better. I would recommend the always-amusing-and-sometimes-annoying Maureen Dowd's "Hey, W! Bin Laden (Still) Determined to Strike the US."
There was something in the news today that made me think that maybe things are getting done in this country. The article "Limiting Ads of Junk Food to Children" described how 11 big food companies, like General Mills, Pepsi and McDonalds, will no longer advertise non-nutritional food to children under 12.
The Senate also passed a bill a few weeks ago increasing the required mileage of cars, light trucks, and S.U.V.s to 35 m.p.h., instead of 25.
Although it seems like corporate America might be shifting, forced or voluntarily, into better practices, I think that many of these policy changes fall short of what actually could be done. The Senate bill, if it becomes law, will only require stricter automobile mileage and not fiscally promote alternative energy sources. I think that this bill is actually a victory for the automobile industry, as they could have lost a lot more if alternative fuel advocates got their way.
The new junk-food industry has set their own standards for what is "nutritional", which sets the cutoff at 12 grams of sugar, with some other stipulations. For example, Coco Puffs are considered nutritional, but Trix aren't.
Even though these two announcements, the Senate bill and the change of corporate food advertising policy, are important because of public acknowledgment of issues, they still aren't big enough changes. It seems like corporations are just responding to public protest and trying to take the heat off themselves, for a little while at least. They will concede small victories to different interest groups to improve their public image. And it's worked, so far.
I could talk a lot about this, but other people do it better. I would recommend the always-amusing-and-sometimes-annoying Maureen Dowd's "Hey, W! Bin Laden (Still) Determined to Strike the US."
There was something in the news today that made me think that maybe things are getting done in this country. The article "Limiting Ads of Junk Food to Children" described how 11 big food companies, like General Mills, Pepsi and McDonalds, will no longer advertise non-nutritional food to children under 12.
The Senate also passed a bill a few weeks ago increasing the required mileage of cars, light trucks, and S.U.V.s to 35 m.p.h., instead of 25.
Although it seems like corporate America might be shifting, forced or voluntarily, into better practices, I think that many of these policy changes fall short of what actually could be done. The Senate bill, if it becomes law, will only require stricter automobile mileage and not fiscally promote alternative energy sources. I think that this bill is actually a victory for the automobile industry, as they could have lost a lot more if alternative fuel advocates got their way.
The new junk-food industry has set their own standards for what is "nutritional", which sets the cutoff at 12 grams of sugar, with some other stipulations. For example, Coco Puffs are considered nutritional, but Trix aren't.
Even though these two announcements, the Senate bill and the change of corporate food advertising policy, are important because of public acknowledgment of issues, they still aren't big enough changes. It seems like corporations are just responding to public protest and trying to take the heat off themselves, for a little while at least. They will concede small victories to different interest groups to improve their public image. And it's worked, so far.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
The Next War
Yesterday, I didn't feel engaged by the Sunday New York Times. This happens occasionally, due to a combination of a laziness and the fact that most stories in the Sunday paper are published a day or so early, making most of it not that timely.
So, after browsing through the New York Times headlines, I decided to move onto England's the Guardian Unlimited, the online version of the Guardian, which could be described as England's New York Times.
Anyways, I didn't expect to find anything there all that interesting. What I did fine, for lack of a better metaphor, sent shivers down my spine.
There was a boldfaced headline, complete with a color picture, reading: Cheney pushes Bush to Act on Iran.
I quickly read the story.
Then I quickly searched the New York Times for any verification of this story. Nothing. I waited a day, knowing England is about eight hours ahead of us, assuming the Guardian published this story before the US papers went to print.
Today, still nothing. The Guardian article had moved to the "More News" section, second from the top.
The story discussed how President Bush has been influenced by Vice President Cheney to resort to military action in Iran. At previous discussions on Iran, Bush has sided with Secretary Rice and Gates, both which discourage military intervention. Now, apparently, Bush is listening to Cheney's advice and looking for a military solution.
The Guardian's anonymous source said that "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo," and that "Mr Bush and Mr Cheney [do] not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively." The White house claims Iran is building a nuclear weapon and is supplying terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The claims of the White House may be true. Iran may be supplying terrorists, or developing a nuclear weapon. One of the most recent articles from the Associated Press on Iran, Iran Reversing Ban, Will Open Reactor to U.N. Inspectors , published on the 14th, is about how it will open their country up to UN nuclear inspectors. If Iran follows through, this will greatly weaken the White House's argument that it is building nuclear weapons.
Whatever the truth may be for the Iran situation, it is dangerous to think of it as an "Iran situation." This type of thinking got the US into Iraq. The President had an "Iraq situation" that he thought he needed to deal with. He saw military action as the most suitable solution, and evidence to justify this military action seemed to conveniently exist.
While reading this Guardian article, it seems the same thing is beginning to happen with Iran. Cheney is pressuring Bush into a military solution, regardless of Iran's practices. Military action might be the best solution for Iran, I don't know, I'm not an administrative official. But if a war is started because of an "Iran situation", instead of what Iran does, the Iran war will be as unfounded as the Iraq war.
What disturbed me the most about this Iran situation, is that people in England know more about it than people in the US. There is now evidence that the administration was pushing for a Iraq war long before the public knew about it, and it seems like the same thing might be happening again. I respect the New York Times as a publication, but I am disappointed that they did not cover this story, or even reprint the Guardian article. The American people need to know what their government is planning, and the press is the only thing that can provide them with this information.
So, after browsing through the New York Times headlines, I decided to move onto England's the Guardian Unlimited, the online version of the Guardian, which could be described as England's New York Times.
Anyways, I didn't expect to find anything there all that interesting. What I did fine, for lack of a better metaphor, sent shivers down my spine.
There was a boldfaced headline, complete with a color picture, reading: Cheney pushes Bush to Act on Iran.
I quickly read the story.
Then I quickly searched the New York Times for any verification of this story. Nothing. I waited a day, knowing England is about eight hours ahead of us, assuming the Guardian published this story before the US papers went to print.
Today, still nothing. The Guardian article had moved to the "More News" section, second from the top.
The story discussed how President Bush has been influenced by Vice President Cheney to resort to military action in Iran. At previous discussions on Iran, Bush has sided with Secretary Rice and Gates, both which discourage military intervention. Now, apparently, Bush is listening to Cheney's advice and looking for a military solution.
The Guardian's anonymous source said that "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo," and that "Mr Bush and Mr Cheney [do] not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively." The White house claims Iran is building a nuclear weapon and is supplying terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The claims of the White House may be true. Iran may be supplying terrorists, or developing a nuclear weapon. One of the most recent articles from the Associated Press on Iran, Iran Reversing Ban, Will Open Reactor to U.N. Inspectors , published on the 14th, is about how it will open their country up to UN nuclear inspectors. If Iran follows through, this will greatly weaken the White House's argument that it is building nuclear weapons.
Whatever the truth may be for the Iran situation, it is dangerous to think of it as an "Iran situation." This type of thinking got the US into Iraq. The President had an "Iraq situation" that he thought he needed to deal with. He saw military action as the most suitable solution, and evidence to justify this military action seemed to conveniently exist.
While reading this Guardian article, it seems the same thing is beginning to happen with Iran. Cheney is pressuring Bush into a military solution, regardless of Iran's practices. Military action might be the best solution for Iran, I don't know, I'm not an administrative official. But if a war is started because of an "Iran situation", instead of what Iran does, the Iran war will be as unfounded as the Iraq war.
What disturbed me the most about this Iran situation, is that people in England know more about it than people in the US. There is now evidence that the administration was pushing for a Iraq war long before the public knew about it, and it seems like the same thing might be happening again. I respect the New York Times as a publication, but I am disappointed that they did not cover this story, or even reprint the Guardian article. The American people need to know what their government is planning, and the press is the only thing that can provide them with this information.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
The Not-So-Other Half
I just recently received a column from the Austin Chronicle from a friend here in Boulder, titled "Heartland" from the columnist Michael Ventura. I don't know much about Ventura's work, but he's been writing "Letters @ 3AM", where this column is taken from, for the LA Weekly and the Austin Chronicle for quite some time.
Anyways, I thought that this "Heartland" column was particularly insightful and I would suggest reading it if you have the time. It discusses Ventura's travels and his interactions with lower class people of the Southwest, people who haven't gotten out much or seen much. He profiles his interactions well, and is able to illustrate how even these lower class, non-educated workers are still people too. The one part I wanted to point out is the following, describing someone he met on a bus:
"A crusty old farmer – work boots, creased and bony hands, sunburned neck and face – was reading a pamphlet titled 'Government and God.' Somebody was speaking to him, and it wasn't me, and it wasn't anyone I knew or valued. How do you expect people to go your way if you don't even deign to notice them? That farmer was interested. He was reading a pamphlet. If I'd written a pamphlet directed to him, in terms he could understand, chances are he might be interested and read it. If we ignore him, why shouldn't he ignore us?"
I've always been disillusioned about something in America (or maybe the world) more than just politics, and I think this last quote describes my disillusionment well. Not only does our political system leave out a significant majority of people, but our culture as well. Most of the work I've come across, either academic or entertainment, has been created for the upper class, or at least the middle class on up.
I don't know who this "we" is that Ventura referred to, but I took it to mean America, at least main-stream America, the America we think of when we think of "America". The "we" of popular America has left those behind who have not kept up.
While reading this column, I was reminded of a quote from comedian and personal hero, Jon Stewart. In an interview (I think it was with Senator John McCain, but I can't remember), Stewart said that 80% of this country could get along if we just sat down and talked things out. And the other 20% run it.
And that is true, as illustrated by the people Ventura met in "Heartland". He was able to carry on conversations and form connections with the people he met, even though they were working class or lower class, and he is an author. Everyone really can relate to each other, but it takes effort. People continue to be generalized and pigeon-holded with the increasing polarization of this country (and this world), and it is a shame. Everyone has something to offer another, even if it is just a pamphlet. Or a blog.
Anyways, I thought that this "Heartland" column was particularly insightful and I would suggest reading it if you have the time. It discusses Ventura's travels and his interactions with lower class people of the Southwest, people who haven't gotten out much or seen much. He profiles his interactions well, and is able to illustrate how even these lower class, non-educated workers are still people too. The one part I wanted to point out is the following, describing someone he met on a bus:
"A crusty old farmer – work boots, creased and bony hands, sunburned neck and face – was reading a pamphlet titled 'Government and God.' Somebody was speaking to him, and it wasn't me, and it wasn't anyone I knew or valued. How do you expect people to go your way if you don't even deign to notice them? That farmer was interested. He was reading a pamphlet. If I'd written a pamphlet directed to him, in terms he could understand, chances are he might be interested and read it. If we ignore him, why shouldn't he ignore us?"
I've always been disillusioned about something in America (or maybe the world) more than just politics, and I think this last quote describes my disillusionment well. Not only does our political system leave out a significant majority of people, but our culture as well. Most of the work I've come across, either academic or entertainment, has been created for the upper class, or at least the middle class on up.
I don't know who this "we" is that Ventura referred to, but I took it to mean America, at least main-stream America, the America we think of when we think of "America". The "we" of popular America has left those behind who have not kept up.
While reading this column, I was reminded of a quote from comedian and personal hero, Jon Stewart. In an interview (I think it was with Senator John McCain, but I can't remember), Stewart said that 80% of this country could get along if we just sat down and talked things out. And the other 20% run it.
And that is true, as illustrated by the people Ventura met in "Heartland". He was able to carry on conversations and form connections with the people he met, even though they were working class or lower class, and he is an author. Everyone really can relate to each other, but it takes effort. People continue to be generalized and pigeon-holded with the increasing polarization of this country (and this world), and it is a shame. Everyone has something to offer another, even if it is just a pamphlet. Or a blog.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
The New Surgeon General
Today in the New York Times there was an editorial about President Bush's appointee for the surgeon general, Dr. James Holsinger (A Nominee’s Abnormal Views).
I first learned about this man from The Colbert Report, which I don't usually watch for informational purposes. Stephen Colbert made a joke about his paper "The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality", saying how it was written for the United Methodist Church, the "most respected medical institution". Then Colbert told everyone that Bush had just appointed this man to be surgeon general. The audience groaned.
I don't think I need to qualify the groans for you, especially if you read his paper. (My favorite part, which basically sums up his whole argument is: "When the
complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and
diseases may occur.")
What bothers me beyond Bush's initial appointment, is what the New York Times editorial staff suggested to Congress:
"The Bush administration says the white paper reflected the scientific understanding of the time, but it reads like a veneer of science cloaking an aversion to homosexuality. The [Senate Health Committee] should examine whether Dr. Holsinger cherry-picked the literature or represented it objectively."
The editorial goes on to say that if Holsinger has bigoted views towards gays, he shouldn't get the appointment (Really?).
What I find disturbing is that the editorial actually sets up a defense for Holsinger by saying that he could have just been writing in line with the general consensus of the time (1991). That is ridiculous.
It is ridiculous because first, it wasn't the general consensus of the time; and second, even if it was, the consensus was wrong. Would someone who wrote "The Pathophysiology of Blacks" be able to become surgeon general, even if it were written in 1891?
By acknowledging Holsinger as a medical expert who could have been just writing in the popular zeitgiest, the New York Times gives legitimacy to Bush's appointment, which is inherently wrong and should be thrown out. Bush needs to make an appointment with respect for all American citizens.
I first learned about this man from The Colbert Report, which I don't usually watch for informational purposes. Stephen Colbert made a joke about his paper "The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality", saying how it was written for the United Methodist Church, the "most respected medical institution". Then Colbert told everyone that Bush had just appointed this man to be surgeon general. The audience groaned.
I don't think I need to qualify the groans for you, especially if you read his paper. (My favorite part, which basically sums up his whole argument is: "When the
complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and
diseases may occur.")
What bothers me beyond Bush's initial appointment, is what the New York Times editorial staff suggested to Congress:
"The Bush administration says the white paper reflected the scientific understanding of the time, but it reads like a veneer of science cloaking an aversion to homosexuality. The [Senate Health Committee] should examine whether Dr. Holsinger cherry-picked the literature or represented it objectively."
The editorial goes on to say that if Holsinger has bigoted views towards gays, he shouldn't get the appointment (Really?).
What I find disturbing is that the editorial actually sets up a defense for Holsinger by saying that he could have just been writing in line with the general consensus of the time (1991). That is ridiculous.
It is ridiculous because first, it wasn't the general consensus of the time; and second, even if it was, the consensus was wrong. Would someone who wrote "The Pathophysiology of Blacks" be able to become surgeon general, even if it were written in 1891?
By acknowledging Holsinger as a medical expert who could have been just writing in the popular zeitgiest, the New York Times gives legitimacy to Bush's appointment, which is inherently wrong and should be thrown out. Bush needs to make an appointment with respect for all American citizens.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
My first blogging experience
Well, I've decided to get a blog. It seems like everyone is doing it. I've never really gotten it, but I figured; why not? I guess this will just be an experiment. I don't know how often I will post, or how much, or if anyone will read it. But I enjoy writing.
I've decided that since I pretty much read the newspaper everyday, and I usually have something to say about what I've read, I'm going to pick out a story (or a few) that particularly interests me and write about it. I do this on my plan already, so I figured I'd make it more official and more accessible. The problem is that I only have time to read the New York Times and the Onion, so my news sources are a little slanted. Maybe this blog will force me to open up to other media. Anyways here goes:
The story that caught my eye today wasn't actually a story, but a quote:
“The Democratic Congress has lower ratings than President Bush,” said Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas. “You have to try hard to do that.” (From Nytimes article: Sensing a Shift, Reid Will Press for an Iraq Exit )
Now, the first thing I did was laugh. It seemed like Senator Brownback didn't know he was insulting Bush along with Congress. This guy is one of the most conservative people in the nation. He was referring to the public's lack of confidence with Congress after the failure to do anything about the war, along with other issues like immigration.
As I read the article further, I became frustrated at all the political jargon and mishaps that was being discussed. The democrats can't do anything about this war because Senator Lieberman sides with the Republicans when voting on the war and they don't want to draft bills cutting funding to the troops because they don't want to be seen as not supportive of our troops and people are now frustrated with Congress because they can't compromise on an immigration bill and... it seems to go on like that.
The article below this on the NYTimes daily headline mailing was; Bomb Levels Section of Iraqi Village, Killing 105 . Before even reading this article, which I couldn't finish because it was too horrible, I stopped and went back over in my mind what I had just read in the Reid article.
This people in Washington have so much power, yet they can't do anything to make real change. I don't agree with the war the US is fighting, but the US is still fighting it. Congress can't get bogged down in all these political battle while an average of 40.9 Iraqi civilians are dying each day, and that's an average from June, after the "number of civilians killed fell sharply" from May, where an average of 53.8 Iraqis died each day.
I don't know what I'm trying to say with all this. The US is in a huge mess, and I know we could be doing more than we are. That's all I'm trying to say.
I think I like blogs.
I've decided that since I pretty much read the newspaper everyday, and I usually have something to say about what I've read, I'm going to pick out a story (or a few) that particularly interests me and write about it. I do this on my plan already, so I figured I'd make it more official and more accessible. The problem is that I only have time to read the New York Times and the Onion, so my news sources are a little slanted. Maybe this blog will force me to open up to other media. Anyways here goes:
The story that caught my eye today wasn't actually a story, but a quote:
“The Democratic Congress has lower ratings than President Bush,” said Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas. “You have to try hard to do that.” (From Nytimes article: Sensing a Shift, Reid Will Press for an Iraq Exit )
Now, the first thing I did was laugh. It seemed like Senator Brownback didn't know he was insulting Bush along with Congress. This guy is one of the most conservative people in the nation. He was referring to the public's lack of confidence with Congress after the failure to do anything about the war, along with other issues like immigration.
As I read the article further, I became frustrated at all the political jargon and mishaps that was being discussed. The democrats can't do anything about this war because Senator Lieberman sides with the Republicans when voting on the war and they don't want to draft bills cutting funding to the troops because they don't want to be seen as not supportive of our troops and people are now frustrated with Congress because they can't compromise on an immigration bill and... it seems to go on like that.
The article below this on the NYTimes daily headline mailing was; Bomb Levels Section of Iraqi Village, Killing 105 . Before even reading this article, which I couldn't finish because it was too horrible, I stopped and went back over in my mind what I had just read in the Reid article.
This people in Washington have so much power, yet they can't do anything to make real change. I don't agree with the war the US is fighting, but the US is still fighting it. Congress can't get bogged down in all these political battle while an average of 40.9 Iraqi civilians are dying each day, and that's an average from June, after the "number of civilians killed fell sharply" from May, where an average of 53.8 Iraqis died each day.
I don't know what I'm trying to say with all this. The US is in a huge mess, and I know we could be doing more than we are. That's all I'm trying to say.
I think I like blogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)