Hello friends, Romans, countrymen
It's a snowy day and I'm feeling sort of lazy, so for today I'm just going to post something that I already wrote for a class.
But perhaps I'm being unfair to myself.
I wrote it, in fact, as part of my final exam on the Nicaragua trip, and over the last few days I've been struck by the truth and utter brilliance of my own words. So naturally, I expect that you will be, too.
Technically, I'm plagiarizing myself right now. Thus, legal issues compel me to include the following disclaimer:
I, Hillary Goldstein, do hereby grant myself, Hillary Goldstein, temporary rights to the following work that I, Hillary Goldstein, wrote.
Granted, the odds of my suing myself would seem pretty slim, but you never know with some people.
The prompt for this essay was, to paraphrase: The documents we've read and opinions we've heard in Nicaragua have not always placed the US government in a positive light. As citizens of a democracy, aren't we directly responsible for any of our government's misdeeds and faults?
So I said:
While I am often appalled by the ignorance and indifference that many American citizens express towards current affairs, I do not think that Americans can necessarily be held responsible for every government action. First, to do so implies a completely different type of democracy than actually exists today. With the exception only of the president, the government itself is elected on a state-by-state basis, giving any individual a very limited say on the ultimate body. It would be unreasonable to expect the citizens of Maine to understand and try to influence an election in Hawaii, and it would be unreasonable to expect the citizens of Hawaii to endure people of completely different states trying to impact their elections. While state elections in Hawaii do ultimately affect Maine, it would be impossible to keep track of all the elections in all fifty states.
Second, campaigning for office has long involved politicians essentially manufacturing images of themselves. Promises are made and never kept, deals made in secret change how politicians actually vote once elected, and even Americans who do make an effort to be informed have little real knowledge on which to base their voting decisions. For example, when former President Bush was re-elected in 2004, a great deal of information regarding the original intentions, and subsequent mismanagement, of the Iraq war had not yet been released (or were dismissed as extremist rumors). Whether this knowledge would have changed the outcome of the election is another question, but in any case it was simply impossible at the time to make a truly informed decision. In the case of Nicaragua, I doubt that the voters who elected the officials the siphoned money to the Contras were focused on that issue in particular, or even that they knew the US government was involved in Nicaragua at all (though I am not sure of when exactly the scandal became apparent). However, I do not mean to downplay the responsibility that Americans hold for our general ignorance of current affairs. In this age, when any information can be accessed in minutes and online news is updated every ten seconds, there is simply no excuse for not being aware of the world’s events.
More frustrating to me than outright ignorance, though certainly just as serious, is when people fail to act on information that they do know. While I don’t expect everyone who reads Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma to immediately become a vegetarian, I am mystified when people who claim to be disgusted by the practices the that book describes continue to support the exact same brands that they always have, even knowing that in doing so they perpetuate the very system they resent. The dollar vote may be even more powerful in America’s consumer culture than the civil one, yet we don’t seem to take our dollar votes any more seriously that those at the ballot box. Consumer sovereignty is not all-powerful, but it comes shockingly close: public preference removed Styrofoam from McDonalds’ meals, and put organic yogurt on the shelves at Wal-Mart. These changes happened more quickly and effectively than any government-mandated regulation, showing true power of the conscious consumer.
My sense of the average American citizen’s relationship to the electoral process is best summarized with a quote by Marianne Williamson: “Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate, but that we are powerful beyond measure.” Many people who express indifference to current events claim that their lack of participation doesn’t matter, because their contributing would make no difference. If more people invested their time and wallets to reflect their morals and opinions, the results would be dramatic.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Thirsty: A watery tale
As promised, today's lecture will be an environemental, social, and economical rant on water.
Luckily for you, you brave readers of my blog, I happen to be an environmental science nerd. Enjoy the ride.
Why water, you ask? Why not earthquakes, or nuclear proliferation?
Simple:
Lack of clean water is killing a lot more people than nuclear proliferation these days.
First off, let's review why water is essential to human life (a minor detail that we like to conveniently forget). The human body is 70% water, and can survive without water for about a day and a half. My own relationship to water became aggressive when, on a trip to Thailand, I was ordered to drink 128 ounces of water every day. (I never made it past 80) But more importantly:
Environemental science fun fact!
Without water, earth would be uninhabitable for humans. (Not counting all the reasons I just mentioned.) Water has unique chemical properties that allow it to release heat when the air is getting colder, and absorb heat when the air gets warmer. This keeps the global temperature relatively constant, as is the reason why deserts experience greater temperature extremes between night and day than coastal regions. Even better, the oceans of the world absorb massive amounts of carbon every day, such that the ocean floors contain enough carbon to raise the global temperature to disastrous levels immedately.
As the wise artist Sting sings in a song that I may or may not have played endlessly while studying for my ecology 101 exam, "On and on the rain will fall, like tears from a star/On and on the rain will say, how fragile we are."
Fragile, indeed. But where does poverty come into all this? Aren't certain regions, like deserts, always going to have less water than others, like tropical forests?
Well, yes. But there's a lot more to the story.
I usually dislike statistical representations of reality. But as far as water goes, the statistics are revealing:
-30,000 children under the age of five die DAILY around the world. (This is the average, and may be higher on days when, say, earthquakes strike overpopulated, underprivelaged capitals of certain Caribbean nations).
-The leading causes of death for children under five are malnutrition, malaria, and diarrhea (or other gastrointestinal illnesses). All these are either caused directly, or could be greatly reduced, by lack of access to clean water.
To explain, malnutrition in young children occurs often as an indirect result of there not being enough water to grow food, or else dehydration magnifies the effects of malnutrition so that it becomes fatal more quickly than it otherwise might. Malaria is spread my mosquitos, which breed more readily in stagnant or shallow water than in pure, deep water. Diarrhea and related illnesses are caused directly by drinking contaminated water.
It's often quoted that 1.5 billion people live on less than one dollar per day. At the same time, 1.1 billion people lack access to clean water. Would you be suprised to find that those are the same people?
(Spoiler: They are.)
Sometimes, environmental issues are really humanitarian issues. In fact, environmental issues are usually intrinscially tied to political and humanitarian unnease, such as the death toll in a certain overpopulated, underrepresented Caribbean nation's earthquake. This is more clear on the subject of water than anywhere else. The poor are more likely to live in more infertile areas, to have less technology that would allow them to take advantage of what water they do have, and yet tend to spend a higher percentage of their income on water than any other demographic in the world. It is not a coincidence that sub-Saharan Africa is one of the most agriculturally unproductive regions of the globe, and also one of the poorest.
We in the US are lucky, both from an environemental standpoint and from one of relative affluence. North America lies on a fairly temperate latitude, so that we are less affected by climate extremes and climate change than areas (such as the Sahara) that were fragile to begin with. Yet, we are not as removed from the issue as we may like to think.
When one thinks of California, one probably envisions palm trees, bling, and orchards growing fruit to be shipped to New York in January (cuz you can't go without peaches for a whole three months, can you?). So what's up with these wildfires we keep hearing about?
The truth is, California is a desert. Its ecosystem cannot support the amount of agriculture currently in place, and only has for this long because of intensive irrigation that has made California the state that consumes the most water.
Similar ecological nightmares, in which the colonizing people instituted economies that just weren't appropriate for the climate, include sheep farming in Australia, beef production in the Middle East (although this has been mostly stopped due to its sheer lunacy) and...intensive agriculture in a certain Caribbean nation. Granted, I'm not sure if slavery is well-suited to any ecosystem, so maybe Haiti (suprise!) deserves some slack.
If you're still reading, I salute you. You deserve a latte and a pat on the back for swimming through all this madness.
Luckily for you, you brave readers of my blog, I happen to be an environmental science nerd. Enjoy the ride.
Why water, you ask? Why not earthquakes, or nuclear proliferation?
Simple:
Lack of clean water is killing a lot more people than nuclear proliferation these days.
First off, let's review why water is essential to human life (a minor detail that we like to conveniently forget). The human body is 70% water, and can survive without water for about a day and a half. My own relationship to water became aggressive when, on a trip to Thailand, I was ordered to drink 128 ounces of water every day. (I never made it past 80) But more importantly:
Environemental science fun fact!
Without water, earth would be uninhabitable for humans. (Not counting all the reasons I just mentioned.) Water has unique chemical properties that allow it to release heat when the air is getting colder, and absorb heat when the air gets warmer. This keeps the global temperature relatively constant, as is the reason why deserts experience greater temperature extremes between night and day than coastal regions. Even better, the oceans of the world absorb massive amounts of carbon every day, such that the ocean floors contain enough carbon to raise the global temperature to disastrous levels immedately.
As the wise artist Sting sings in a song that I may or may not have played endlessly while studying for my ecology 101 exam, "On and on the rain will fall, like tears from a star/On and on the rain will say, how fragile we are."
Fragile, indeed. But where does poverty come into all this? Aren't certain regions, like deserts, always going to have less water than others, like tropical forests?
Well, yes. But there's a lot more to the story.
I usually dislike statistical representations of reality. But as far as water goes, the statistics are revealing:
-30,000 children under the age of five die DAILY around the world. (This is the average, and may be higher on days when, say, earthquakes strike overpopulated, underprivelaged capitals of certain Caribbean nations).
-The leading causes of death for children under five are malnutrition, malaria, and diarrhea (or other gastrointestinal illnesses). All these are either caused directly, or could be greatly reduced, by lack of access to clean water.
To explain, malnutrition in young children occurs often as an indirect result of there not being enough water to grow food, or else dehydration magnifies the effects of malnutrition so that it becomes fatal more quickly than it otherwise might. Malaria is spread my mosquitos, which breed more readily in stagnant or shallow water than in pure, deep water. Diarrhea and related illnesses are caused directly by drinking contaminated water.
It's often quoted that 1.5 billion people live on less than one dollar per day. At the same time, 1.1 billion people lack access to clean water. Would you be suprised to find that those are the same people?
(Spoiler: They are.)
Sometimes, environmental issues are really humanitarian issues. In fact, environmental issues are usually intrinscially tied to political and humanitarian unnease, such as the death toll in a certain overpopulated, underrepresented Caribbean nation's earthquake. This is more clear on the subject of water than anywhere else. The poor are more likely to live in more infertile areas, to have less technology that would allow them to take advantage of what water they do have, and yet tend to spend a higher percentage of their income on water than any other demographic in the world. It is not a coincidence that sub-Saharan Africa is one of the most agriculturally unproductive regions of the globe, and also one of the poorest.
We in the US are lucky, both from an environemental standpoint and from one of relative affluence. North America lies on a fairly temperate latitude, so that we are less affected by climate extremes and climate change than areas (such as the Sahara) that were fragile to begin with. Yet, we are not as removed from the issue as we may like to think.
When one thinks of California, one probably envisions palm trees, bling, and orchards growing fruit to be shipped to New York in January (cuz you can't go without peaches for a whole three months, can you?). So what's up with these wildfires we keep hearing about?
The truth is, California is a desert. Its ecosystem cannot support the amount of agriculture currently in place, and only has for this long because of intensive irrigation that has made California the state that consumes the most water.
Similar ecological nightmares, in which the colonizing people instituted economies that just weren't appropriate for the climate, include sheep farming in Australia, beef production in the Middle East (although this has been mostly stopped due to its sheer lunacy) and...intensive agriculture in a certain Caribbean nation. Granted, I'm not sure if slavery is well-suited to any ecosystem, so maybe Haiti (suprise!) deserves some slack.
If you're still reading, I salute you. You deserve a latte and a pat on the back for swimming through all this madness.
An Open Letter to Superman (a.k.a. Barack Obama)
Dear Mr. President,
Let's first clarify one thing: I like you, man. Quite a bit, actually. In spite of all you haven't accomplished since you took office one year ago, I still think you're an all-around brilliant and decent human being. And you kind of look like my dad. (Remarkable, since my dad is white and Jewish, but true nonethless. My mother agrees.)
Just wanted to let you know that you really shouldn't take this too personally.
In the earlier days, between that first victory in Iowa and the day before my 18th birthday (that would be November 4th, 2008) I really stood up for you. When my conservative friends said you'd never make it, I shouted "Yes we can!" and pumped my fist in the air until they were awed into silence. When my father tried to tell me why Hillary's experience would make her a better choice, I cited Kennedy and Lincoln in such persuasive detail that my history teacher would have been impressed. (Though I admit I stole a few "Hillary for President" stickers just to boost my self-esteem.) When my uncle told me that no one could change Washington, I told him that I didn't expect any miracles.
But I was lying.
I tried to stay realistic, I really did. I thought that living in New Jersey and growing up under the Bush doctrine wold surely have developed my cynicism to an unbreakable shell that I could retreat into at any time for a reality check. But you got to me, Barack. Like everyone else, I caved. You said, "America, now is our time," and I thought- I knew- that you were The One that would save the world.
Did you know that dreams make a pretty sound when they shatter? Really, I swear I can hear them.
I guess it's unfair for me to blame you, per se. It's not really your fault that Congress watered down, and now probably won't pass, the beloved healthcare bill that was supposed to save thousands of people every year. Or the climate bill that was supposed to finally give America back some credibility with developing countries. Or that you won a Nobel Prize for breathing. Or that the Supreme Court just handed the future of democracy to the wealthiest coorporations.
But really, can't you show some remorse about it?
At first, I thought that your lack of apparent anger at the GOP's blatant efforts to bring you down were a sign of your superior strategizing and cool-headedness. Now, you just seem indifferent. Indifference is not a very presidential quality.
It's one thing to be stoic when your own dreams get destroyed. But they were mine too, Barack. Mine and aproximately 51% of the rest of the country's.
You promised to bring bi-partisan efforts back to Congress. Epic fail. You also promised to fight for the middle class, the youth, and all the huddled masses. Nada. And frankly, I'm sick of the emails I keep getting from your various managers about your "victories" and new initiaties for "change."
If I didn't know better, Barack, I'd think the GOP was cowing you. You didn't really think they were just going to let you tax bonuses, did you? Why aren't you ready to fight for it, then? Get down and dirty with the GOP, since they're way ahead of you on that game and I'm starting to fear that they will win. If you want to be socialist, go for it. You promised some pretty radical things during your campaign, so you can't get scared now that they're putting Hitler mustaches on your picture.
You love to talk about your hero, Abe Lincoln. The bi-partisan efforts didn't go so well for him, either. He dealt. Man up. You promised us a revolution, and you will have one on your hands if you don't start fighting it yourself.
Yet, even though you've made me pretty angry these last few months, I still believe in you. I still think you're the best chance America has for living up to its promise of liberty and justice for all. I still catch my breath when I hear you speak. I still suspect that you're The One.
No pressure.
Sincerely,
Hilldog
P.S. If you ever need a babysitter for your freakishly adorable daughters, please let me know.
Let's first clarify one thing: I like you, man. Quite a bit, actually. In spite of all you haven't accomplished since you took office one year ago, I still think you're an all-around brilliant and decent human being. And you kind of look like my dad. (Remarkable, since my dad is white and Jewish, but true nonethless. My mother agrees.)
Just wanted to let you know that you really shouldn't take this too personally.
In the earlier days, between that first victory in Iowa and the day before my 18th birthday (that would be November 4th, 2008) I really stood up for you. When my conservative friends said you'd never make it, I shouted "Yes we can!" and pumped my fist in the air until they were awed into silence. When my father tried to tell me why Hillary's experience would make her a better choice, I cited Kennedy and Lincoln in such persuasive detail that my history teacher would have been impressed. (Though I admit I stole a few "Hillary for President" stickers just to boost my self-esteem.) When my uncle told me that no one could change Washington, I told him that I didn't expect any miracles.
But I was lying.
I tried to stay realistic, I really did. I thought that living in New Jersey and growing up under the Bush doctrine wold surely have developed my cynicism to an unbreakable shell that I could retreat into at any time for a reality check. But you got to me, Barack. Like everyone else, I caved. You said, "America, now is our time," and I thought- I knew- that you were The One that would save the world.
Did you know that dreams make a pretty sound when they shatter? Really, I swear I can hear them.
I guess it's unfair for me to blame you, per se. It's not really your fault that Congress watered down, and now probably won't pass, the beloved healthcare bill that was supposed to save thousands of people every year. Or the climate bill that was supposed to finally give America back some credibility with developing countries. Or that you won a Nobel Prize for breathing. Or that the Supreme Court just handed the future of democracy to the wealthiest coorporations.
But really, can't you show some remorse about it?
At first, I thought that your lack of apparent anger at the GOP's blatant efforts to bring you down were a sign of your superior strategizing and cool-headedness. Now, you just seem indifferent. Indifference is not a very presidential quality.
It's one thing to be stoic when your own dreams get destroyed. But they were mine too, Barack. Mine and aproximately 51% of the rest of the country's.
You promised to bring bi-partisan efforts back to Congress. Epic fail. You also promised to fight for the middle class, the youth, and all the huddled masses. Nada. And frankly, I'm sick of the emails I keep getting from your various managers about your "victories" and new initiaties for "change."
If I didn't know better, Barack, I'd think the GOP was cowing you. You didn't really think they were just going to let you tax bonuses, did you? Why aren't you ready to fight for it, then? Get down and dirty with the GOP, since they're way ahead of you on that game and I'm starting to fear that they will win. If you want to be socialist, go for it. You promised some pretty radical things during your campaign, so you can't get scared now that they're putting Hitler mustaches on your picture.
You love to talk about your hero, Abe Lincoln. The bi-partisan efforts didn't go so well for him, either. He dealt. Man up. You promised us a revolution, and you will have one on your hands if you don't start fighting it yourself.
Yet, even though you've made me pretty angry these last few months, I still believe in you. I still think you're the best chance America has for living up to its promise of liberty and justice for all. I still catch my breath when I hear you speak. I still suspect that you're The One.
No pressure.
Sincerely,
Hilldog
P.S. If you ever need a babysitter for your freakishly adorable daughters, please let me know.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Como mi Toña, niguna!
Spoiler alert: In this post I will make you jealous of my Latin America experience and then make you feel guilty about Haiti. Partaaaaaay!
Hola amigos,
Sadly, even after two weeks of coconut bread and Tonas (the Nicaraguan favorite beer), that still represents most of my Spanish language capacity. I did discover that I can understand Spanish better than Creole, which is odd since Creole is based partly in English, but either way I managed to make myself understood.
“Quanto?”
“Trenta corduba.”
“Ah. Si. Gracias.”
“You’re welcome.”
But enough with the banter.
Some backround on Bluefields:
Before coming to Nicaragua, I was so ignorant of its geography that I didn’t know I was ignorant. Nicaragua is divided into the central region (referring to the government, not its position on the map), the Southern Autonomous Atlantic Region (RAAS) and the Northern Autonomous Atlantic Region (RAAN). Managua is the capital of the country at large, Bluefields is the capital of the RAAS, and I have no idea what the capital of the RAAN is. Bluefields has approximately 85% unemployment, and most people get more of their income from money sent home by people who have left to find work elsewhere.
For our part, we didn’t actually do much in Bluefields. After all, this was a sustainability class, and those projects where Americans jet in and build houses are unsustainable, because you haven’t actually improved the country’s ability to build their own houses. So, instead we worked with students at the university in Bluefields to make a tourism website (this may sound fluffy and it is on some level, but there was no information on Bluefields at all on the internet before we began). Since making a website is not really a 30-person job, this implied a lot of strolling around the city, stopping occasionally for a Toña or a water (usually water for me, usually Toña for the frat boy in my group), and copying down a few phone numbers.
For those of you who know me well (which is probably all of you, realistically), you can probably suspect that this drove me a little nuts. I don’t do strolling very well.
My feelings were shared by several people on the trip, including my new friend Ania. Ania is a freshman, like me at UVA. She lives in a dorm close to mine, but we had never met before the trip. Ania is from Haiti, specifically, from Port-au-Prince.
Oui.
Out of respect to Ania and her family, I don’t want to talk too much about the details of what she specifically experienced when we found out about the earthquake. I will say that it was eerie that I spoke and thought more about Haiti in the week leading up to the earthquake than I ever had in my life. For me, the most telling moment of what life in Haiti must be like came not after the earthquake, but a few days before it. One night, one of our roommates woke up screaming because of a dream (she couldn’t remember the dream; we blamed the malaria pills). The rest of us asked if she’d seen a bug or something. Ania thought she was being kidnapped and hid under the bed, as she’d been taught. Ania is the bravest person I’ve ever met.
There’s only so much we as individuals can do to help the victims of the earthquake, or the impoverished of Bluefields, or the billion and a half people who live on less than one dollar per day. It is times like these, though, when the warm water in your shower and the clean water you don’t have to boil to drink and the fact that you woke up again this morning start to mean a little more. Or so I hope.
But water is another post for another day.
Hola amigos,
Sadly, even after two weeks of coconut bread and Tonas (the Nicaraguan favorite beer), that still represents most of my Spanish language capacity. I did discover that I can understand Spanish better than Creole, which is odd since Creole is based partly in English, but either way I managed to make myself understood.
“Quanto?”
“Trenta corduba.”
“Ah. Si. Gracias.”
“You’re welcome.”
But enough with the banter.
Some backround on Bluefields:
Before coming to Nicaragua, I was so ignorant of its geography that I didn’t know I was ignorant. Nicaragua is divided into the central region (referring to the government, not its position on the map), the Southern Autonomous Atlantic Region (RAAS) and the Northern Autonomous Atlantic Region (RAAN). Managua is the capital of the country at large, Bluefields is the capital of the RAAS, and I have no idea what the capital of the RAAN is. Bluefields has approximately 85% unemployment, and most people get more of their income from money sent home by people who have left to find work elsewhere.
For our part, we didn’t actually do much in Bluefields. After all, this was a sustainability class, and those projects where Americans jet in and build houses are unsustainable, because you haven’t actually improved the country’s ability to build their own houses. So, instead we worked with students at the university in Bluefields to make a tourism website (this may sound fluffy and it is on some level, but there was no information on Bluefields at all on the internet before we began). Since making a website is not really a 30-person job, this implied a lot of strolling around the city, stopping occasionally for a Toña or a water (usually water for me, usually Toña for the frat boy in my group), and copying down a few phone numbers.
For those of you who know me well (which is probably all of you, realistically), you can probably suspect that this drove me a little nuts. I don’t do strolling very well.
My feelings were shared by several people on the trip, including my new friend Ania. Ania is a freshman, like me at UVA. She lives in a dorm close to mine, but we had never met before the trip. Ania is from Haiti, specifically, from Port-au-Prince.
Oui.
Out of respect to Ania and her family, I don’t want to talk too much about the details of what she specifically experienced when we found out about the earthquake. I will say that it was eerie that I spoke and thought more about Haiti in the week leading up to the earthquake than I ever had in my life. For me, the most telling moment of what life in Haiti must be like came not after the earthquake, but a few days before it. One night, one of our roommates woke up screaming because of a dream (she couldn’t remember the dream; we blamed the malaria pills). The rest of us asked if she’d seen a bug or something. Ania thought she was being kidnapped and hid under the bed, as she’d been taught. Ania is the bravest person I’ve ever met.
There’s only so much we as individuals can do to help the victims of the earthquake, or the impoverished of Bluefields, or the billion and a half people who live on less than one dollar per day. It is times like these, though, when the warm water in your shower and the clean water you don’t have to boil to drink and the fact that you woke up again this morning start to mean a little more. Or so I hope.
But water is another post for another day.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Shalom, Salaam, So Much For That
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)
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)
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
