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.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)