Hello all (I know you're out there somewhere, you shy devotees of my blog),
In light of some recent news coming from Israel, I must reluctantly return to my favorite topic of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I really am reluctant, because this news is not good.
To give some background, a UN humanitarian mission accused Israel yesterday of serious human rights violations in the Gaza attacks of last winter. According to the report, a significant number (more than half) of the casualties were civilians, and that the violence was generally disproportional to the need for defense. Israel has ignored the UN's suggestion of having an independant investigation into the events, claiming that they have already looked into the matter and found themselves to be in the clear.
Sigh.
Before I give myself over to sheer depression at the political extension of my religion, I can affirm that Israel takes great pride in the humanitarian nature of its wars. Believe it or not, I know. Politicians and soldiers alike describe calling homes that will be searched and distributing fliers to allow civilians time to get out of war areas, and using techniques that minimize casualties.
They still swear by those old methods, and perhaps they are actually used. What disturbs me is that testimonies from both Israeli soldiers and Palestinians seem to indicate that this recent war in Gaza did not involve such humane measures. Soldiers describe igniting phospherous to attack larger areas, and having been told to kill first and then look at who's being shot.
All's fair in love and war, but this doesn't quite look like a war. I'm not comfortable calling it a genocide, as many do, because I'm still hopeful that the actual purpose of all this violence is theoretically peace, and not to destroy the Palestinian people.
That being said, I'm not sure what I'd call it.
As a Jew, I would love to be able to fully support Israel and all it stands for. As it stands, I may have to start boycotting Ahava products like everyone else. As much as I agree that a country as a right to defend itself, I cannot find a way to justify what seems like utterly useless bullying.
Israel's strategy would make sense, IF it were possible to kill all the terrorists and somehow end the conflict. This simply will not happen. Violence breeds more violence. Today's orphans in Gaza will rise out of poverty and anger to attack Israel tomorrow.
This Friday begins Rosh Hashana, the Jewish new year. We Jews take our new year pretty seriously as a chance to reconsider our lives and reform what can be made better. I can only hope, albeit skeptically as always, that at this time next year I will be proud to stand with Israel again.
Until then, Ma'assalamma (Arabic for peace be with you)
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Hello world,
Now that I have shamelessly begged a few more people to read my blog (hi Manya!), I will hopefully feel motivated by your undying loyalty and devotion to post a bit more often. I may even get off my high horse over the politics that irk me and spend some time talking about college life (hi Manya!) and everyday things that irk me.
But not quite yet.
Having given up free food at another event to watch Obama's speech Wednesday night, I feel it is my duty as an informed citizen to spread the knowledge I gained to the public. After all, quite a bit of people opted for the free food (not that I can blame them).
First off, let's talk red carpet- and by red carpet, I mean the fire-engine red business suits that both Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi were wearing, the reason for which I am still trying to fathom. Was it a feminist statement, that women should be seen while the president's being heard? Was it a cry for attention? Was is an underpaid stylist's revenge? In any case, it was certainly loud.
I'd like to take a moment out to honor Eric Cantor, the poor soul who was caught on his blackberry by national TV networks, during the president's speech. Granted, that's one tweet that would be hard to pass up- "Listening to president now, dinner later, text or page me!" Or, perhaps it was just a very important message that just couldn't wait until the leader of the free world had finished speaking. Time management is so hard these days.
But let's get to the man of the hour: Barack Obama.
For those of you who are not familiar with my political history (hi Manya!), I am an Obama supporter. Before I heard Obama speak, I was pretty convinced that true eloquence was a dead art that would not resurface in the digital age. After hearing his victory speech after the Iowa caucus, I was at once awed by his dignity and saddened that such a brilliant man could never be elected president. I simply did not trust America to make the right choice- not because I believe Americans are ignorant or bigoted as a whole, but because I have watched Fox news and know how hard it is to get anything resembling real information today.
So, it is with great pleasure that I say that Wednesday's speech put aside my recent fears that Mr. Hope may be backing away from real change. Don't get me wrong, I am still quite skeptical as to whether this bill will actually get passed, and I don't underestimate the economic implications that may be far more expensive than his speech made it appear. But I'm hopeful again.
In his speech, Obama outlined the main points of the bill he hopes to pass:
-Preventing insurance companies from placing caps on the amount of coverage a person can receive per year
-Preventing insurance companies from denying coverage based on previous conditions
-Providing a public option of health care, sponsored by the government, ONLY for people who could not purchase or receive health benefits from some other means
-Requiring that all citizens have health insurance, with waivers for those who truly could not afford it at all.
-No coverage for abortions
-No coverage for illegal aliens
-NO DEATH PANELS
-Ensuring that insurance companies pay for preventative care
-Program will cost less than Iraq war
-Program will not be paid for by raising middle-class taxes
-Public option will not be funded through taxes at all, so no one will be paying directly for others' healthcare
Supposedly, this will not increase our deficit "one dime," though I've read analyses that explain that Washington's definition of no deficit may be a bit different than the conventional one. But, as Mr. Obama noted himself, the deficit is already in tens of trillions, so what's another billion or so? (Granted, I'll be paying for it all my life. Thanks.)
Frankly, I learned quite a bit from the speech. I'd known the general outline of his plans, but I did not know that he did not intend to use any tax money at all to fund the public option. I had also not known that abortions were not going to be covered under the plan. Regardless of how I feel about either of them specifically, I do hope that these two provisions will help the bill actually pass. A bill that allowed abortions to be covered, i.e. forced Americans to subsidize abortions, would never be acceptable to many religious parties in the country. Although I am pro-choice, I can't blame them for that. Furthermore, a bill that required the country at large to fund the health care of a few through taxes would be essentially creating a welfare state of healthcare, which would also not go far in Congress. For me, those two points did make a difference from my initial skepticism of whether the plan could even theoretically work.
By now, of course, you've probably gathered that I support universal healthcare. Good job. I don't necessarily think we should model after Canada or France, but I do believe that whenever we do achieve universal coverage we will look back and wonder, how on Earth did we ever let millions of people die every year in one of the wealthiest and medically advanced nations of the world? How did we allow economic issues to get in the way of protecting American children? And we'll have to shrug, and say "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
Now that I have shamelessly begged a few more people to read my blog (hi Manya!), I will hopefully feel motivated by your undying loyalty and devotion to post a bit more often. I may even get off my high horse over the politics that irk me and spend some time talking about college life (hi Manya!) and everyday things that irk me.
But not quite yet.
Having given up free food at another event to watch Obama's speech Wednesday night, I feel it is my duty as an informed citizen to spread the knowledge I gained to the public. After all, quite a bit of people opted for the free food (not that I can blame them).
First off, let's talk red carpet- and by red carpet, I mean the fire-engine red business suits that both Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi were wearing, the reason for which I am still trying to fathom. Was it a feminist statement, that women should be seen while the president's being heard? Was it a cry for attention? Was is an underpaid stylist's revenge? In any case, it was certainly loud.
I'd like to take a moment out to honor Eric Cantor, the poor soul who was caught on his blackberry by national TV networks, during the president's speech. Granted, that's one tweet that would be hard to pass up- "Listening to president now, dinner later, text or page me!" Or, perhaps it was just a very important message that just couldn't wait until the leader of the free world had finished speaking. Time management is so hard these days.
But let's get to the man of the hour: Barack Obama.
For those of you who are not familiar with my political history (hi Manya!), I am an Obama supporter. Before I heard Obama speak, I was pretty convinced that true eloquence was a dead art that would not resurface in the digital age. After hearing his victory speech after the Iowa caucus, I was at once awed by his dignity and saddened that such a brilliant man could never be elected president. I simply did not trust America to make the right choice- not because I believe Americans are ignorant or bigoted as a whole, but because I have watched Fox news and know how hard it is to get anything resembling real information today.
So, it is with great pleasure that I say that Wednesday's speech put aside my recent fears that Mr. Hope may be backing away from real change. Don't get me wrong, I am still quite skeptical as to whether this bill will actually get passed, and I don't underestimate the economic implications that may be far more expensive than his speech made it appear. But I'm hopeful again.
In his speech, Obama outlined the main points of the bill he hopes to pass:
-Preventing insurance companies from placing caps on the amount of coverage a person can receive per year
-Preventing insurance companies from denying coverage based on previous conditions
-Providing a public option of health care, sponsored by the government, ONLY for people who could not purchase or receive health benefits from some other means
-Requiring that all citizens have health insurance, with waivers for those who truly could not afford it at all.
-No coverage for abortions
-No coverage for illegal aliens
-NO DEATH PANELS
-Ensuring that insurance companies pay for preventative care
-Program will cost less than Iraq war
-Program will not be paid for by raising middle-class taxes
-Public option will not be funded through taxes at all, so no one will be paying directly for others' healthcare
Supposedly, this will not increase our deficit "one dime," though I've read analyses that explain that Washington's definition of no deficit may be a bit different than the conventional one. But, as Mr. Obama noted himself, the deficit is already in tens of trillions, so what's another billion or so? (Granted, I'll be paying for it all my life. Thanks.)
Frankly, I learned quite a bit from the speech. I'd known the general outline of his plans, but I did not know that he did not intend to use any tax money at all to fund the public option. I had also not known that abortions were not going to be covered under the plan. Regardless of how I feel about either of them specifically, I do hope that these two provisions will help the bill actually pass. A bill that allowed abortions to be covered, i.e. forced Americans to subsidize abortions, would never be acceptable to many religious parties in the country. Although I am pro-choice, I can't blame them for that. Furthermore, a bill that required the country at large to fund the health care of a few through taxes would be essentially creating a welfare state of healthcare, which would also not go far in Congress. For me, those two points did make a difference from my initial skepticism of whether the plan could even theoretically work.
By now, of course, you've probably gathered that I support universal healthcare. Good job. I don't necessarily think we should model after Canada or France, but I do believe that whenever we do achieve universal coverage we will look back and wonder, how on Earth did we ever let millions of people die every year in one of the wealthiest and medically advanced nations of the world? How did we allow economic issues to get in the way of protecting American children? And we'll have to shrug, and say "It seemed like a good idea at the time."
Monday, September 7, 2009
The Green Stuff
Let's jump right in, shall we.
Adam Smith was a pompous ass.
To be fair, he was right on a few counts. First, it is true that people tend to do what they feel will give them the greatest benefit. And it is true that, using this theory, the market has grown over the last several hundred years to a level of consumption unheard of in Smith's day. Yet this is precisely where Smith's reasoning fails, because his third key assertion is that what's good for the market is good for everyone.
And this is just not always true, as we're starting to see.
Let's fast forward just a bit to my environmental science class last week, where we were given an assignment to calculate the number of worlds it would take if everyone in the world lived according to our lifestyle. We each went to a site that asked various questions about our diets, the amount of driving we normally do, heat and garbage use, etc. (I'll post the link to the site at some point, it's worth checking out.) My personal numbers?
4.9 worlds. As in, it would take the resources of approximately 5 worlds if everyone on the planet lived like me.
And I drive a Prius, for crying out loud.
News flash: There is only one world.
So, you're probably wondering now, how on Earth does Adam Smith play into all this?
A fundamental aspect of economic theory, as it is taught in (ahem) universities and business schools, is that growth is the most important gauge of success in a company. It's not enough to be breaking even, one must make a profit. It's not enough to make a profit, one must make bigger profits next year. If this location does well, more locations must be opened.
This is great until we stop to consider another key point of both economics and, today, environmental reality: The world does not have the resources, the space, or the energy available to support endless growth. In fact, as my (admittedly inexact) online test shows, the world does not have the resources to support current levels of production. In essence, the guiding business philosophy of the Western world for the last three hundred years has justified and exacerbated the devastation of the natural world, and the exploitation of the peoples who failed to comply with said devastation.
Granted, as environmentalists today are now trying to remind us, reforming our ways doesn't at all mean doing away with economic theory. Rather, we must simply change our tax systems and products so that is it economically beneficial to be ecologically friendly, instead of an economic burden on the few who make green practices a priority. Still, I have to admit, it irks me to no end when people act as if going green is optional, or simply a "nice thing to do." Going green, as we so artistically call it, is one small step into taking responsibility for our actions as members of the world, which by and large the Western world has failed miserably to do since Columbus killed the "Indians." Contrary to Adam Smith's rosy ideas, doing what's best for the market has long meant exploiting poorer nations, overusing our share of the world's resources, and literally choosing a million-dollar bonus over cleaner air for all. So, Adam, you win. People really do what's best for themselves economically. Happy now?
Adam Smith was a pompous ass.
To be fair, he was right on a few counts. First, it is true that people tend to do what they feel will give them the greatest benefit. And it is true that, using this theory, the market has grown over the last several hundred years to a level of consumption unheard of in Smith's day. Yet this is precisely where Smith's reasoning fails, because his third key assertion is that what's good for the market is good for everyone.
And this is just not always true, as we're starting to see.
Let's fast forward just a bit to my environmental science class last week, where we were given an assignment to calculate the number of worlds it would take if everyone in the world lived according to our lifestyle. We each went to a site that asked various questions about our diets, the amount of driving we normally do, heat and garbage use, etc. (I'll post the link to the site at some point, it's worth checking out.) My personal numbers?
4.9 worlds. As in, it would take the resources of approximately 5 worlds if everyone on the planet lived like me.
And I drive a Prius, for crying out loud.
News flash: There is only one world.
So, you're probably wondering now, how on Earth does Adam Smith play into all this?
A fundamental aspect of economic theory, as it is taught in (ahem) universities and business schools, is that growth is the most important gauge of success in a company. It's not enough to be breaking even, one must make a profit. It's not enough to make a profit, one must make bigger profits next year. If this location does well, more locations must be opened.
This is great until we stop to consider another key point of both economics and, today, environmental reality: The world does not have the resources, the space, or the energy available to support endless growth. In fact, as my (admittedly inexact) online test shows, the world does not have the resources to support current levels of production. In essence, the guiding business philosophy of the Western world for the last three hundred years has justified and exacerbated the devastation of the natural world, and the exploitation of the peoples who failed to comply with said devastation.
Granted, as environmentalists today are now trying to remind us, reforming our ways doesn't at all mean doing away with economic theory. Rather, we must simply change our tax systems and products so that is it economically beneficial to be ecologically friendly, instead of an economic burden on the few who make green practices a priority. Still, I have to admit, it irks me to no end when people act as if going green is optional, or simply a "nice thing to do." Going green, as we so artistically call it, is one small step into taking responsibility for our actions as members of the world, which by and large the Western world has failed miserably to do since Columbus killed the "Indians." Contrary to Adam Smith's rosy ideas, doing what's best for the market has long meant exploiting poorer nations, overusing our share of the world's resources, and literally choosing a million-dollar bonus over cleaner air for all. So, Adam, you win. People really do what's best for themselves economically. Happy now?
Sunday, September 6, 2009
A Moment Please (For Still It Takes A Moment)
Hello cyberfriends.
This post isn't about economics, or climate change, or even the Palestinia-Israeli conflict (yes, you can all breathe a sign of relief).
Rather than my usual rant, let's call this more of an excercise in imagination.
First, pick a developing nation, say, Thailand. A nice place, Thailand. Or maybe Somalia. Or Guatemala. Your favorite developing nation.
You can probably envision a typical scene in this nation from some picture you saw in National Geographic, or on the news, or even in person if you've been lucky enough to visit your favorite developing nation. Envision it.
Imagine a person. He or she was born on your birthday, at the exact hour of your birth. (You know there's someone out there who was.) By a quirk of fate, you were born here, and they were born in your favorite developing nation. Maybe he or she has electricity, and maybe not. He or she may go to school ("he" having a much greater chance of getting education than "she," according to statistics, but I digress), perhaps in a one-room schoolhouse, perhaps in a madrassah, perhaps with a teacher who only shows up once a week. He or she will grow up to farm the same crops as the ancestors who came before, perhaps even growing the coffee that you drank this morning.
Stop imagining.
Look around you. Chances are, you are in an air-conditioned and well-lit room, unless you're the type to ponder in the dark. What forces of history and politics somehow made your life so different than this person, your counterpart so to speak?
Without being overly melodramatic, it is simply a fact that the Western (European and North American, specifically) economic market system rides on the backs of the exploited masses of the rest of the world.
Surely not, you protest. The market does not exploit, it simply rewards those who take advantage of it. Didn't Adam Smith swear by the Invisible Hand, that doing what was best for oneself in the market would automatically lead one to do the best for society as a whole?
Well, sure. But Adam Smith wrote in the 1700's, when human beings of a different color were not buyers and sellers of goods, but the goods themselves. So clearly, Adam Smith's definition of "society" did not include the greater global community.
I suppose that was fine in the 1700's, where business mostly took place in a market near one's home. In today's global economy, where outsourcing and technology have shrunk the world and these aforesaid developing nations are, indeed, developing rapidly each day, Americans today cannot afford to have this same limited view.
The American way of life is unsustainable. We have forgotten ourselves to be members of the planet Earth, and have taken more of its resources than we deserve. And we take them directly from the hands and mouths of these people, who share our feelings and needs, who may share our birthdays.
More on this in tomorrow's post, which I warn in advance will surely include a political rant or two. For now, as a preview I will leave you with a statement that will hopefully whet your appetite and bring you back for the full justification.
Adam Smith was a pompous ass.
This post isn't about economics, or climate change, or even the Palestinia-Israeli conflict (yes, you can all breathe a sign of relief).
Rather than my usual rant, let's call this more of an excercise in imagination.
First, pick a developing nation, say, Thailand. A nice place, Thailand. Or maybe Somalia. Or Guatemala. Your favorite developing nation.
You can probably envision a typical scene in this nation from some picture you saw in National Geographic, or on the news, or even in person if you've been lucky enough to visit your favorite developing nation. Envision it.
Imagine a person. He or she was born on your birthday, at the exact hour of your birth. (You know there's someone out there who was.) By a quirk of fate, you were born here, and they were born in your favorite developing nation. Maybe he or she has electricity, and maybe not. He or she may go to school ("he" having a much greater chance of getting education than "she," according to statistics, but I digress), perhaps in a one-room schoolhouse, perhaps in a madrassah, perhaps with a teacher who only shows up once a week. He or she will grow up to farm the same crops as the ancestors who came before, perhaps even growing the coffee that you drank this morning.
Stop imagining.
Look around you. Chances are, you are in an air-conditioned and well-lit room, unless you're the type to ponder in the dark. What forces of history and politics somehow made your life so different than this person, your counterpart so to speak?
Without being overly melodramatic, it is simply a fact that the Western (European and North American, specifically) economic market system rides on the backs of the exploited masses of the rest of the world.
Surely not, you protest. The market does not exploit, it simply rewards those who take advantage of it. Didn't Adam Smith swear by the Invisible Hand, that doing what was best for oneself in the market would automatically lead one to do the best for society as a whole?
Well, sure. But Adam Smith wrote in the 1700's, when human beings of a different color were not buyers and sellers of goods, but the goods themselves. So clearly, Adam Smith's definition of "society" did not include the greater global community.
I suppose that was fine in the 1700's, where business mostly took place in a market near one's home. In today's global economy, where outsourcing and technology have shrunk the world and these aforesaid developing nations are, indeed, developing rapidly each day, Americans today cannot afford to have this same limited view.
The American way of life is unsustainable. We have forgotten ourselves to be members of the planet Earth, and have taken more of its resources than we deserve. And we take them directly from the hands and mouths of these people, who share our feelings and needs, who may share our birthdays.
More on this in tomorrow's post, which I warn in advance will surely include a political rant or two. For now, as a preview I will leave you with a statement that will hopefully whet your appetite and bring you back for the full justification.
Adam Smith was a pompous ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
