Take Home Nuggets

Why you should read the Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck

2010-08-27T23:27:00.000-07:00

Even though Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath was first published in 1939 and followed the fictional, yet contextually accurate, Joad family through the great depression it contains a great deal of social commentary still relevant to today. I am sure Steinbeck would not be impressed to find his book still so relevant today as it depicts many of the things that were and still are horribly wrong with the society we live in.

One of the central themes of the book is the continual upward flow of money and power in our society. Small land owners and middle income people are always being pushed down if they are not growing, while large land owners and banks gain more and more power. We exist in an economy which rewards only entities that grow, it is not good enough to be consistent, and it is especially bad to be small and stagnant. In the book and likewise during the run up to the depression in America small scale farmers were beginning to have trouble paying back loans and were having their farms repossessed to be turned into giant ‘efficient’ cash crop farms run by as few paid people as possible. Where one plot of land once supported an entire family, ten plots might now provide work for one tractor driver. This is reminiscent of the way our economy runs now, large businesses try to employ as few people as possible and to pay those people as little as the can while maximizing their brand. While there were many other causes to the depression than farmers defaulting on loans it brings to light something that seems to be in the fabric of our society: that we accept practices and policies which are good only for a minority of people. It is obvious when you look at figures such as less than 20 percent of the population controls well over 80 percent of the worlds wealth, this is but one example of that process happening because we allow the bank to be controlled by a few people who do not have our best interests in mind. We give them our money everyday and as such give them power and authority.

Another subject this book talks about very strongly is how during this era and throughout most of human history the upper echelons of society find ways to convince everyone to criminalize people instead of acts. In the 1930s and still when vagrancy was criminalized it did nothing to stop vagrancy but simply made life for the majority of citizens more shitty. The government in this case deliberately invested money into criminalizing the people afflicted by the depression in the way of paying more police officers, and paying them commission for prisoners. While all this money is being invested into ‘fighting‘ the problem none is invested into solving it. These policies turned scared and hungry people into criminals and not just because they were sometimes forced to steal out of poverty, that is almost inconsequential, but because being hungry, scared and poor where now criminal acts. This paradox comes to mind when I hear the term “war on terror” being used, it is like we think we can terrorize the terrorists into submission. If there is one thing this book illustrates well is that you cannot beat hunger out of a group of people, you cannot criminalize homelessness and expect it to disappear. Similar to the ‘war on terror’ is what the Irish went through for decades under the British, the book Trinity embodies the struggle for equal rights and control of ones own life while a wealthier class or group of people tries to subdue another. No matter what, I believe that people deep down know they are intended to be free and I see this when countries like Bolivia elect a native like Evo Moralas, or when African nations threw off oppressive colonizers or Guatemala fighting against the might of the United States government to elect its own president and write its own constitution. One group can never fully suppress the spirit of another, only subdue it and its time we learned from this.

This book does a great job at illustrating the insane notion that all to often people who have enough to survive often think the less privileged some how don’t also want it, or perhaps more dangerously that they don’t deserve it. In the book the police are written as saying they would never live like the Okies, as if the migrants somehow have a choice as to their life style, or that they for some reason didn’t want a better life. Even in North America this happens today as Native Americans are often looked down upon for their life styles or the homeless are still demonized as having screwed up and put them selves there, and while some of the time people have certainly made bad choices we are far to quick to pass judgment and far to slow to listen to their stories.

One more reason I enjoyed reading this book and I think we all should is that it made me so thankful to have a job and so appreciative every time I eat a meal. In the book biscuits are common and it inspired me to make a batch (which is very cheap and easy) with dinner last night. They tasted so delicious and made me realize I could never do enough to deserve what I have and that I need to be thankful always.

Connecting the dots between a sustainable future and global inequalities

2010-08-22T14:36:00.000-07:00

From global civil society there are two dominant calls for change being heard right now, one is to end global warming and keep the earth sustainable for future generations; the other call is to end structural inequalities seen around the world, in other words to end global poverty. Both of these calls are significant not only in the scale of what must be done in each case but in the repercussions should they not be addressed. These two pursuits may appear on the surface to not be strongly linked; however, this essay will out line how neither one can be looked at without seriously investigating the reasons for the other. Global warming cannot be addressed without first addressing the structural poverty found ripe in the world, in addition poverty cannot be eliminated without seriously considering how we came to this environmental dilemma; after addressing these topics this essay will look at the economic paradigm which governs most markets around the world, and discuss how it is the connecting factor between these issues and must be changed if global society is to deal with these problems.

Among the scientific community there is a consensus that we are at a crucial point where global warming, caused largely by us, needs to be dealt with very soon. There are of course those who disagree with this opinion but generally it is accepted and acknowledged, though sometimes not pursued, by most major states. As the climate changes most countries will face things such as rising seas, increased temperatures and as some climatologists predict an increase in extreme weather such as droughts and hurricanes. There is little doubt that if we do not drastically change our habits as a species we will face very serious consequences. Prices have been attached to different aspects of climate change, some saying maintaining the status quo will cost trillions of dollars by the end of the century without even factoring in “biodiversity loss or unpredicted events.” Papers such as the Stern Report have put a price tag on the cost of actually changing our habits and restructuring our society to prevent global warming at roughly 1% of our GDP, as opposed to the 5-20% GDP he forecasts climate change could cost us in the same period.

There are also great costs related to the global inequalities, allowing poverty to exist as it currently does will have massive costs on our society only one of which is increasing environmental degradation. While there are many social reasons why global poverty should be a main priority of policy makers and citizens around the globe this essay will only be focusing on environmental and economic reasons. Global poverty is tied to the environmental problems we currently face in a number of ways. One contemporary way which is most widely acknowledged is the inability of developing nations to fiscally and technologically create green infrastructure and produce energy in an environmentally neutral or friendly manner. Countries such as China rely heavily, and will continue to do so in the future, on products such as coal as it becomes cheaper other countries begin to rely on different technologies. As recently as April 2009 China had planned to invest large amounts of money into the production of coal. On top of environmental concerns the poverty stricken countries of the South also are fiscally harmful, every year the global North pours in hundreds of billions of dollars in development aid. It is given in various ways but often is lent with economic restructuring requirements which can tie up vast sums of money and create dangerous scenarios such as when Argentina defaulted on US$ 100 billion debt from the IMF, potentially causing financial problems globally as many private investors were involved.

Through practices far more broad than inter state lending the world is in a very large way connected through ties of trade governed by a neoliberal economic model. Though the policies put forth by this ideology seem to common place to be questioned by most people, it must be seriously investigated if the two problems previously mentioned are to be addressed in a constructive manner. Neoliberalism is not a word used often by people not involved in the political or economic world of academia. However, for those involved it is defined as a political philosophy “that emphasizes the importance of economic growth and asserts that social justice is best maintained by minimal government interference and free market forces” or a “liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods.” Whether the term progress or economic growth is used it is a philosophy which centers on growth, and profit maximization. In the world we see it as the driving force behind globalization, as countries spread out over the globe to seek profits. Through it, markets are seen as a blanket saviour lifting up all who are involved whether rural African peasant or North American executive. We also know that when profit maximization is central things such as the environment or the livelihoods of others become peripheral. Capitalism is a system that depends on the market for the creation of jobs and stipulates that capital accumulation is necessary for growth as it allows individuals to reinvest in new projects to create jobs and growth, resulting in a precipitation downwards of wealth. One simply need look at the statistics and it is plain this model does not work, capital is accumulated and instead of reinvestment occurring and new jobs being created the divide is only widening. Within the frame work of liberal economics growth is the only end game, necessary for the survival of the economy.

Under the current thought process of growth maximization it is impossible to ‘develop’ the undeveloped world to the living standards of the global north. Perhaps the simplest way to understand this is to acknowledge that the earth is a finite object, while there are debates around how much the earth can produce and whether or not we have reached those limits it is clear there is a finite end and that we are very close to it, if not past it already in terms of resource extraction. A good illustration of the impossibility of lifting all impoverished peoples out of poverty through markets and growth is looking at ratios of wealth distribution throughout the world, according two the World Bank 20% of the population of the world consume 76.6 percent of the worlds resources. We now know the methods used for this resource consumption is largely responsible for the environmental degradation, moreover what this relates is that the remaining 80% of the account for 23.4% of global private consumption. If we were to ‘develop’ the developing world to the standards and means of the global north the earth would have to produce roughly 380% of what it currently does, this is a problem.

Another reason why growth and markets, especially alone, cannot be used to alleviate poverty is that the poor do not create a significant demand. With in markets and their world of supply and demand curves the greater the demand the greater supply will meet that demand. With no financial incentive to create demand the impoverished are simply out of luck in this system, using housing as an example there is far more profit to be found in high income real estate than there is in building safe affordable housing. Therefore, affordable housing naturally generates less money less money goes into it, as less money is spent less money is made and so on. Thus there is growing profit in the upper class where houses are being produced, bought and sold often, but little money, or housing for that matter, trickling down to lower income levels unless governments specifically mandate social programs. Liberal economic policies simply do not have a place for the poor, the only time the needs of the poor are addressed economically are when the market is interfered with; this happens when governments or NGOs directly intervene, or when an entrepreneur explicitly decides to create a business model to involve impoverished persons.

As long as we live in a society dominated by neoliberal capitalism, it will not be possible to make a substantial change in global poverty. Each attempt by NGO’s and governments to seek justice and a fair lifestyle for citizens of the world, while well intentioned, is simply fighting against the grain of the overarching economic frame work we live in. Capitalists seek out profit by minimizing the cost of production, by using simple tactics such as finding ways to pay workers as little as possible. When workers in a Wal-Mart in Quebec unionized the company simply decided to pull out of the city rather than pay the workers what they felt was fair. As corporations seek out countries to invest in they look only at how much money can they save, one of the central questions is how cheap is the labour, not to mention how little taxes can be paid and how lax are environmental regulations. When one country in South East Asia has too high of a minimum wage a corporation will simply move onto another generating a demand for lower wages. This can be overcome and wages in an area can be increased, but it is a hard fought battle against the economic framework, not one supported by it.

Environmental degradation is linked in part to poverty in that as the more the 80% of the have nots in the world begin to live like the 20% of the haves our earth will lose its capacity to sustain any of our lifestyles. However; it is also linked in another far more substantial way, through the frame work of neoliberal capitalism. Incumbent in the drive to produce at the lowest cost possible is a neglect for the environment. In seeking profits companies extract resources from the earth as efficiently and rapidly as possible. Investors pour money into projects expecting to recoup their money within a relatively short period of time, and reaping profits there after. In a capitalist economy this is accepted as common practice; however, the time investors expect to get their money back in is much shorter than the outlook “needed to protect the biosphere.”

As the capitalist economy, especially as defined by neoliberalism, requires constant growth it is placing a greater and greater strain on the environment from which it extracts resources. Neoliberal capitalism views the market as a closed system between production and consumption with resources existing in a separate domain creating a dangerous justification for consumption. These resources used and where they come from are not considered to be an integral part of production and therefore defined by the capitalist as an externality, even though economists since the time of Malthus have recognized the limits of the earth, current economics talk only of balancing capital and labour to maximize profits. Some contemporary branches of economics are recognizing the effect of human consumption on the environment, however they are not mainstream and exist specifically under titles such as Natural Resource and Environmental Economics. “Externalities are costs or benefits arising from an economic activity that affect somebody other than the people engaged in the economic activity and are not reflected fully in prices.” The economists solution is to place restrictions such as taxes on negative externalities and subsidies on positive ones to incorporate them into the market, however many have argued that it is not sufficient or appropriate to reduce the environment to a commodity, especially in the case of practices which lead to environmental damages. Even if externalities were to be made internal many argue that corporations operating in a capitalist economy would not have sufficient motivation or information necessary to know how to properly compensate.

John Foster relates what he considers some basic contradictions surrounding the commodification of nature. Firstly he states that if capitalism were to commodify everything in nature it would not bolster our place in it but would rather alienate human society from surrounding nature, developing a more one sided egoistic relationship. It would also be a categorical mistake as nature cannot be parted out into pieces of relative value as it “constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an end in its self.” If we were to part out and view nature as individual commodities of relative worth to individuals it is certain that much would be lost in the translation as many have ascribed to the belief that in the case of nature the whole is much larger than the sum of its parts.

If the global problems were not of the magnitude and urgency they are it would be easy to ignore the flaws within neoliberal economics, however the world is in a state that can no longer allow this frame work to govern our lives. We as a world desperately need a means for interacting economically which considers human dignity and the environment as more than externalities to be compensated for, they must become central to any practice. Many alternatives have been proposed, from the contemporary such as ‘ecological economics’

to alternatives which have been around such as socialism or various adaptations and hybrids. One thing is clear, any resulting economic framework which may emerge must not be based, even partially, on a growth centered, profit seeking form of neoliberalism.

Must read book this week

2010-05-28T08:59:00.000-07:00

This weeks must read book is by Wade Davis a well renowned anthropologist among several other titles from British Columbia. Wayfinders is an investigation into, and at the same time call to preserve, the languages and cultures which are so quickly dying out in our generation. He cites how biologists are concerned, rightly so, about 18 percent of mammals and 11 percent of birds facing extinction, yet no one is crying wolf about the predicted loss of 50 percent of all languages with in our life time.

Wayfinders is an excellent read not only for Davis' fascinating perspectives on cultures around the world, all first hand recounts, but for the critical view it takes of our own culture. For so long western ideologies have seen native societies and nomads as lagging behind on the social development ladder. Even today much of the development efforts seek to modernize natives and assimilate them, yet there are so many cultural practices within these societies that once examined seem so intuitive that our modern societies don't understand. An example Davis gives is examing the water bed in the Spatsizi wilderness of BC which feeds all major waterways in British Columbia and its counter part in Tibet the base of Mount Kailash. Kailash is considered so sacred people are forbidden from walking its slopes let alone climbing it, to desecrate it with industrial development would be a complete outrage. However the Sacred Headwaters of Spatsizi even though they are sacred to the people and a vital environmental resource providing most of our water, are being considered for massive open pit mining. Mining techniques that are known to be deadly are being considered and likely will be approved by the government of BC, at least in the opinion of Davis. So he asks us "to think for a moment what these proposals imply about our culture. We accept it as normal that people who have never been on the land, who have no history or connection to the country, may legally secure the right to come in and by the very nature of their enterprises leave in their wake a cultural and physical land scape utterly transformed and desecrated." (119)

Beer Bread Experiment

2009-09-05T17:36:00.000-07:00

The other day I decided to try a little short cut/experiment in making a loaf of bread. I wanted a sour dough flavour but I didn't want to make a standard starter, which is a fair bit of work. So instead I mixed one bottle of home made extra pale ale with as much whole wheat flour as it took to make it some what doughey; I left it more watery than I would have if making an actual loaf ready to knead. From there I put it in a covered glass bowl and left it in the oven with the light on (a trick I learned from Mattias, thanks!) for one day. The next day I took it out and kneaded it with some more flour so that it didn't stick to the table and also to give it a more doughey texture, from there I let it sit in the same bowl for another day.

Now the yeast had really had a hay day with it and there were lots of bubbles, so in the afternoon I took it out kneaded it some more with flour then placed in on a floured paper towel with another heavily floured paper town on top this time I put it on the pan I would be baking it in so it could form a nice shape out of the bowl. That evening I took it out formed it a little and heated up the oven to 350 Celsius and cooked it until it was firm and good, probably around 45 mins - 1 hr, should have kept track of the time but was doing a lot of other things as well.

The result was probably the best tasting sour dough I have had in memory, a very nice sour flavour with a distinct after taste of malty sweetness (possibly from the beer) and some notable hope taste and aroma as well. I highly recommend it if you like making bread, and especially if you make beer as it still has the yeast in the bottle, presuming you bottle and don't keg.

Enjoy!

Beer Explosions!

2009-08-30T22:38:00.000-07:00

The other day I made an extra special pale ale from a recipe I found at Dans Home Brew. After fermenting it for a few days it was fermenting very actively; we were just about to leave the house when we heard a huge pop in the back room. We rushed into the room to see the air lock and the bung lying a few feet away and foam everywhere around the carboy. While looking down at the foam a huge clump of something fell in between Landon and I so we looked up; hops and yesty foam covered the ceiling, what a mess! It was pretty funny though and the beer still seems to be coming along quite nicely.

Right now I am making a version I found of a Dark Chocolate Stout, the other day I tried Brooklyn Breweries DCS and oohhh was it good. This is a very expensive beer to make though as it has about twice as much of everything.

Sprouting

2009-04-17T17:26:00.000-07:00

Recently I have become very engrossed I guess you could say in the world of sprouting. Sprouting being putting a seed or legume in the right conditions for it to germinate and become a living organism and begin its growth towards being a plant, at which point it is edible. Anything you sprout be it celery seed, rye or anything in between has several times the nutrients as would be found in its unsprouted brother or sister, this is because the enzymes are activated within the dormant seed in preparation for growth. One study compared radish sprouts to mature radish and found that in all vitamin categories except that of potassium and sodium the sprout far surpassed the mature plant, noticeably in areas such as Vitamin A where it was nearly 300x the amount.

The raw vitamin data is not even the full picture, on top of being in essence a vitamin supplement and whole food at the same time they are bio available. This is very important as our bodies do not absorb many of the nutrients we consume in the way of vitamin supplements as they are not bio available. One will quickly discover this if they take a first year biology course. During our lab we did a urine analysis where we all peed in a cup and the performed several experiments on it. It was apparent from simply looking through the microscope who took vitamin supplements as there was heavy debris in the urine, our biology instructor quickly informed us of how the vitamin market is some what of a scam as our bodies cannot absorb synthetically produced vitamins. As sprouts are biogenic (alive) our bodies use the vitamins and other substances like proteins and fibers and carbs with little work and more importantly actually reaps the benefits.

This is just a little introduction into the world of sprouting, I will be posting more information soon as to why you should sprout and how you can.

Bi-Partisan Canada?

2008-10-10T11:23:00.000-07:00

Living in Canada I have routinely heard the United States Government Criticized for a wide spectrum of things. One thing I hear often from my fellow Canadians, and even some Americans is the fact that they are only bi-partisan with neither party being that different than the other. What comes to mind is a Simpson’s episode where two aliens have captured the bodies of both running mates for president; upon discovering this Homer yells out “We can vote for a third party!!” One of the aliens steps up to the podium and says “Yes but you would be throwing your vote away.” In utter defeat everyone becomes quiet and Homer says in despair “awww he’s right.” Thus they willing elect a President who enslaves them and rules with an iron fist. It is intended to be a commentary on how the American people really have no choice and Democratic or Republican are electing an evil party.

In Canada we in theory have it better, with our multitude of parties to vote for. However after attending recent local debates and watching the federal election debate it just seems like we have less effective form of their government. Especially with regards to the debate I recently viewed at Langara, no party particularly stood for anything above the other parties with the exception of the Conservative Party. Of course the green party didn’t really have much to say about social issues, but that’s beside the point. Every party’s speech was directed at debunking the Conservative candidate, as well as all the questions asked by the audience. There was nothing that came up that the Green, NDP or Liberal party disagreed on, other than they each thought they should be elected. I realize that each party does have their differences, sometimes even vast, but they don’t seem to be anything that couldn’t be worked around any less effectively than they do now battling it out in the House of Commons. The English debate between the Federal Candidates just seemed to prove the anti conservative movement even more, while making most of the other party leaders look like and angry mob. What has basically happened is we have two sides against each other: the pro Conservative and the anti Conservative. The pro Conservatives are in the minority at around 35% of the popular vote. The only problem is the anti Conservatives seem to have divided themselves up amongst 3 smaller groups, and thus cannot win even a minority government with any one of the parties. So this division of the anti Conservative side has actually disenfranchised 65% of the people in our country who wish for our policies to be parallel to those of George W. Bush.

Should we merge into one? Would that be even worse by limiting the specifics of various groups of people’s voices? Its hard to say for sure, as it is more a matter of opinion, but I for one have seen enough Anything But Conservative posters to think not.

Medecins Sans Frontieres

2008-10-06T23:33:00.000-07:00

This past weekend (Oct. 5th - 7th) there was a large exhibit out side of the Vancouver Public Library. I originally found out about it while coincidentally trying to take out a movie from the Library and saw them setting up several large white tents inside of a temporary fence. Reading the signs I realized it was and event for Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) a humanitarian organization formed in France. The event was set up to increase awareness of their organization, what they do, and the tragedy they experience all over the world everyday. The organization (MSF) sounded familiar but I really knew nothing about what they actually did so I found this display incredibly informative and eye opening.

The display its self was designed to be a mock refugee camp, where someone like my self could enter one end, let by a volunteer for MSF and get an explanatory tour of the various aspects of living in a refugee camp. Our tour guide was a man named Patrick, a water engineer from Montreal who had just been on a mission in an African region. One of the first things he explained to us is that while they refer to it as a refugee camp the people MSF deals with are not actually refugees as are classified by the UN. A refugee is someone displaced out of his/her country by war or other reasons and is in turn recognized and aided by the UN; MSF works with internally displaced peoples, which are people uprooted from their home by war or other reasons who remain in their country of origin. The UN does not recognize people in this situation. By current estimates there are currently 42 million people displaced within their own country, all lacking basic needs such as food, medicine and education. MSF seeks to provide for these people when their local government is unable, and the UN does not have the resources or ability due to bureaucratic barriers.

As we are just starting to learn from our mistakes and ignorance of the recent path (eg Rwanda, Cambodia etc) there are new tragedies occurring everyday, violations of human rights on a massive scale. In several places like Sudan, Darfur, and Columbia, governments do not have the political will or resources to look after their own people so MSF takes this responsibility. It is incredible the difference in living styles from our homes to theirs, I think one way in which this is really demonstrated is Patrick told of how each family in the camp was allocated 10-20 liters of water per day. Then he asked us how much water we thought we each consumed in a day, the general answer in our group was 30 to 50 liters. So it came as quite a shock when he told us the average person in the western world can use from 250 to 300 liters per day. Water how ever is one of several problems the people organizing and living in these camps face everyday; other struggles include all the health risks, food, fire wood, tensions between inside and out the camps, medicine and the various diseases which can spread so easily in a crowed unclean environment to name a few. Among all of this however I think one of my biggest shocks came from finding out how the organization is funded, almost entirely from private donation.

One of the reasons MSF can be so quick to respond and aid peoples is that they receive limited funding from government bodies. For instance in 2005 MSF worldwide received just 13.9% of its income from Government and institutions. This enables them to move with greater freedom not hindered by inter-government friction between donor and receiving bodies. Speaking with people at the event and reading their fiscal summary it is clear that there current ration of private funding to government funding is of deep importance to them and something they will continue to strive for.

All in all, this event was very effective at educating and raising awareness. This is the kind of organization needed more often in order to engage the general public; it is becoming increasingly difficult to pry people from their everyday lives and see what is going on in the world around them. Hands on experience and intense visuals like the kind seen at “A Refugee Camp in the Heart of the City” are powerful tools against apathy, though I hope if you were not able to make it to this event you can still realize the close interconnectedness we share with all human beings, and that some of those people are not fairing nearly as well as we in the west are.

Check out their web site at www.doctorswithoutborders.org

See what you can do to contribute.

No need to stand for, stand against.

2008-10-01T15:28:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I was riding my bike home and I saw a poster that in big letters said "ABC" as I rode closer I realized it was in fact an acronym standing for Anything But Conservative. I thought this was an interesting voting strategy, and certainly a sign of desperation on the writers part. It shows true frustration when people will give up standing for something, only to stand against something as long as others will join them. I don't disagree either, with the Conservative party taking us more the way of the Americans as far as being involved with armed conflict, and environmental issues; as the Conservatives seem to be the only party not making a plan to reach the Kyoto protocol and want to "reduce this into a simple conversation about carbon tax" says Mark Winfield a political scientist and professor at York University. As well as Stephen Harper is the only Federal Candidate yet to release and on the record statement of what his party would do to tackle global, domestic and Aboriginal poverty, according to Gerry Barr chair of Make Poverty History.

So in light of that I have a hard time disagreeing with the sign, I miss the Canada I used to hear about, the one that helped peace keeping missions, and contributed to aiding developing nations and protected its citizens. The Conservative party doesn't seem to be in support of anything related to these, although they may have done other positive things, do they represent what we as Canadians stand for? And if not then who does represent what it means to be Canadian?

(Canada in recent years has dropped its contribution considerably in UN peacekeeping missions, ranked roughly 53rd in the world with only 168 troops this year. Also Canada is 15th on the list of aid donors when looking at % of GNI donated, giving only .28 percent of its gross national income. Also we pay taxes but we still have to pay health care every month! What's up with that?)

Coalition of Terror

2008-09-26T21:30:00.000-07:00

It seems common among people who are some what left wing (especially notable in the young adult demographic) who are against American, or more specifically anti-Bush as it is kind of a pop culture phenomena right now. However the majority of these people probably don’t have specific reasons why they take this side. There are many different reasons for this, all individually important (political apathy, and a feeling of disconectedness from the “real world” for a few) however I don’t mean to address those here, I just intend to give reasons to those people.

America as a nation has always put its self on a pedestal of fighting for the just and right cause, more often than not using deceit if not out right lies to motivate its people and gain support. Take for example the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam where the opening attack by the Vietcong was fabricated, since than not much has changed. Although I don’t believe we know or are willing accept just how big a deception they present. For example they currently want us to support their attack on a group of rogue nations, the so called “axis of evil” consisting of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. According to the 2002 address to congress, by George W. Bush these are three “rogue states” which need to be taken down by the American Army for the good of the free world. This use of language is incredibly effective at gaining the support of the American public, especially when coupled with a catch fraise like “lets roll!” to turn the emotion into one similar to playing a heroic video game. Just as it was an effective rally point for Regans administration for gathering the American people together, united to fight the “Evil Empire” of the Soviet Union. However people are beginning to grow tired of this talk and see it for what it generally really is; a war waged for money and power, with nothing more than controlling motives. This is shown by a large Washington based survey on 17000 people in 15 countries. The basis of the study found that despite “growing concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the US presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a danger to world peace.” From 1999 to 2006 several European countries dropped well below a 50% favorable rating towards the US, with the acception of the UK which only dropped to 56%. As well several Muslim countries which the US had in the past held a strong relationship with slumped incredibly low, countries such as Indonesia falling from 75% to 30%, and Turkey from 52% to 12%. This is in no small part due to Iraq and the worlds opposition to the US lead invasion, however there are several other examples, which have been showing a trend in the policies of the US and which the general public seems to be unaware of. Several instances of the US acting in the face of the world, as a “rogue state” Here are just a few examples I took from an article by Richard Du Boff:

In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement- the frist time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.

In 1972 the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention was ratified by 144 nations, including the United States. In July 2001, the US walked out of a London Conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the convention by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001 US Undersecretary of State John Bolton Stated that “the protocol is dead,” at the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan and Syria of violating the convention, but offering no specific allegations or supporting evidence.

The UN Agreement to curb the International flow of Illicit Small Arms was passed in July 2001, with the US the only nation to oppose it.

The US still has not ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the economic and social rights of children. The only other country not to ratify it is Somalia, which has no functioning government.

In July 2001, the US was the only nation among the G8 group of industrial nations to refuse to support the proposed International Plan for Cleaner Energy.

The US refused in February 2001 to join 123 other nations pledged to ban the use and production of anti personnel bombs and mines, In September 2001, the US withdrew from the International Conference on Racism, which brought together 163 countries in durban, South Africa.

The land Mine Treaty, banning land mines, was signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with Russia, China, India Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President Clinton rejected the Treaty, claiming the mines were needed to protect south Korea against North Korea’s “overwhelming military advantage.” He stated that the US would “eventually” comply in 2006, but his promise was disavowed by President George W Bush in August 2001.

There are several more examples of how the US has blatantly acted as a rogue state in the face of multinational organizations such as the UN, and basically all others trying to achieve stability, or peace. Not that countries the US has invaded (e.g.. Iraq) don’t need stability or help, but bombs are never an answer, especially when America does not have stability or self sufficiency in mind for any of them Iraq included.

So as we move into a millennium of greater interconnectedness and shared information we see ethics, public importance and truth maintain a back seat. And what are we going to do about it?

Information taken from

Richard Du Boff’s If you still don't see the US as a rouge nation, read this. (The Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives)

and Ewen MacAskill’s US viewed as bigger threat to peace that Iran, worldwide poll finds. (Guardian Weekly 06)

Presidential intelligence

2008-09-26T21:26:00.000-07:00

I am not strongly attached to either presidential candidate, mostly due to my own lack of investigating, which I realize I should probably be more informed about, but hey I don't get to vote. In that case I think its fine for me to point out downfalls of either. In a recent interview with a Spanish radio station, McCain showed some curiously close traits to our old favorite Bush. A certain air of cluelessness, a certain innocence. Now to be fair, McCain's foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann, has said it was deliberate and that McCain is purposefully taking things slow not committing to a white house meeting immediately. However when one hears the tape it seems obvious McCain innocently had no idea what was being talked about and became confused with which country was being talked about. Easy enough to do as Zapatero sounds dangerously alike to The Zapatistas a group of armed revolutionaries located in Mexico, whom McCain referred to during the interview, saying the Americans would work with the Mexican government and applauding their efforts in the war on drugs.

This contrary to the wit and humor present as Barack Obama is being interviewed by Bill O'reilly, although it is a very unfair comparison as the Spanish Interviewer had a thick and quick accent. The only point to be taken from this is not just McCain is unintelligent, but that we must be careful to look at ones intellect overall, and how they conduct them self's. Not just policy choices as is commonly stressed, as they can easily dissolve in times of crisis and character will take over. And I'm sure Americans are tired of being the laughing stock of world politics with the endless Bush: Jokes, comics, etc.