Americans hated abroad?
This is something Canadians like to claim.... after all, they make sure to wear maple leafs when going abroad, lest they be mistaken for Americans. But are Americans really as hated abroad as we are led to believe?
As you might be able to tell from previous entries, I have travelled just a little bit, and being American, I believe I am a fair authority in this. I also have lived in Canada for 3 years, and I can easily pretend to be Canadian (especially when I'm speaking French, and carrying Canadian currency & a Quebecois drivers licence). For the sake of this discussion, I will only consider countries that I've been to in after 2003- firstly, because prior to then I was too young and niave to judge this, and secondly because 2003 was a pivotal year in US-Int'l relations (becuase of the Iraq invasions). I will consider the following countries: Canada, Portugal, Belgium, Singapore, Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Morocco. Not a whole lot of countries, but it covers 4 continents, and I think it's a pretty diverse base. (Note: I didn't include certain other countries because I don't feel I was there long enough to make any sort of judgement).
Out of the 8 countries I have listed, the only one where I would say I experienced open hostility for being American is none other than the self-proclaimed politest country in the world: Canada (that Canada is a polite country is another great myth that I could spend an entire entry debunking.... but I won't since many of my readers may be Canadian). Of course, you have to consider a few things. I've lived in Canada for 3 years, and therefore I've encountered many different types of people- inherently increasing the chances that I will encounter ouvert anti-Americanism. I also don't go around advertising myself as American- in any of the places above.
Having lived in Canada for some time now, learning a lot about the country, and being able to speak French allows me to easily pass off as Canadian, especially when I truthfully say things like, "I live in Montreal, Canada", affords me a really interesting perspective. Talking to a lot of Canadians, they say (rightfully so) that non-North Americans can't distinguish between Americans and Canadian. This prompts them, as I've already said, to port maple leafs when abroad, with the belief that Canadians are more respected abroad. I believe that my experiences serve as a counterexample to this proposition. I can say this particularly about Belgium, Morocco, Burma, and Thailand. IN this countries, when asked (as I often was) where I was from, I mixed up my responses: sometimes i was from Canada, sometimes i was from USA, and sometimes (in Burma) I was from "Ingagyo" (Mars). The latter unsurprisingly led to laughter and humorous small talk. As for Canada/US: often, particulalry in Belgium, the difference in response was imperceptible- except this one guy said "now are you actually from Canada, or just an American pretending?". Elsewhere, saying I was from Canada was a conversation stopper- people in non-western nations often know as little about Canada as Americans do, and are left with nothing else to say. Saying I was American almost never got a passive response. People enthusiastically would ask me which city I was from, what I thought about George Bush/ Barack Obama / Oprah/ Michael Jackson / etc.
In all of this, I propose several theories, especially about how Americans are perceived in "third world areas". 1) Through its exportation of pop culture, the USA is known and recognised more than almost any other country- possible rivals being the UK, China, and India (depending of course on the country you're in). Simply put, many things, from Hollywood, to Rock N Roll, are recognised, appreciated, and celebrated. And similarly, the birthplace of these things, the USA, is recognised, appreciated, and celebtrated. It also puts the US on the map more so than many other countries (especially Canada).
2) It's lack of colonial imperialism (compared to the UK and France in particular) means that many third world countries don't have a tense history with the US. French presence in Morocco, or British presence in Burma may remind some peoples of the days of colonialism, whereas with the sole major exception of the Philippines, the US doesn't have this sort of "baggage" with many nations. In fact, the US is itself a former colony of the UK (and, technically, France and Spain).
3) It's reputation of prosperity and "beacons of morality and democracy" may seem as a glimmer of hope for some people in impoverished/ ruthlessly rules nations. Many dream of emigrating to the US in the (perhaps nïave) hope of sharing in the "American dream". Others, like in the unique case of Burma, actually dream of an American invasion to usurp unappreciated rulers. The US, unlike most nations, started as an "experiment in democracy" and tries very hard to maintain this image (with mixed success).
4) Southeast Asia in particular is inundated with tourists that come especially from Europe/Australia- often acting very similarly to the oft-stereotyped "Ugly American". In a somewhat ironic twist, Americans making it to Southeast Asia (and to Africa for that matter), are a) rare, and b) often more adventerous/respectful travelers than others. Let me clarify myself with a specific example. I will use Thailand, because I lived there for about 3 months, and because it is the most touristy country in SEAsia (and hence one of the most touristy countries in the developing world). Most of the Western tourists (to say nothing of the Japanese, Chinese and Arab tourists) were from Europe or Australia/New Zealand, with France being particularly represented. I observed behaviours, especially among the French, that closely ressemble the "Ugly American" stereotype- making no effort to speak Thai, complaining about stupid things in restaurants/stores, walking around shirtless (which is somewhat of a thai faux pas), etc. - just irresponsible travel. American tourists are quite rare in Thailand, which is understandable considering how far away it is. Whereas for European holidaymakers Thailand is a common destination (analogous to our Mexico), it is only for atypical Americans. OFten, but of course not always, an American willing to go to an uncommon place like Thailand is not like the typical American traveller- and thus more open minded and respectful. Thais may recognise this, and thus respect Americans more because of it. Of course, I can't say so for sure, since I'm not Thai.
5) People aren't stupid and can distinguish a government from its people. The Bush government is almost universally loathed. I staunchly believes that this doesn't hold true for the American people. Of course, we may look like total idiots for having elected him twice, but that aside, actions of our president are not normally tied to us. More and more Americans of course are growing weary of Mr. Bush themselves.
All of these things said, there is definitely some truth in the statement that Americans are disliked abroad. I haven't been to every country, nor have I consulted specialists from every country. In Latin America, I'd imagine feelings are particularly mixed and perhaps negative especially in some places like Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela (and often with good reason!). Apart from having an enourmous complex, Canadians aren't normally rude to Americans in general (except in so far that Canadians are by no means the world's friendlist people). While some Western Europeans may have grown weary of Americans, this by no means true of all Western Europeans. Yes, I believe the Anglo-American friendship may not be at its highpoint, and many French people are certainly frustrated with Americans- but French people in particular have good reason to be- disrespectful tourists combined with hostile rhetoric would make for soured relations. What about Eastern Europe? Of course, there are those countries still dreaming of the glory of the USSR- like Belarus and Russia. But, there are also places like Kosovo, and other balkan nations that adore the US. North Africa & the Middle East? Again, I think people's images are greatly distorted. OF course Iraqis may not be crazy about American soldiers. And I'm not sure if there are any Arabs who support the US-led invasion of Iraq. That said, most Arabs are not fundamentalists and do not wish death to Americans. Likewise, most Americans who voluntarily travel to the Arab world recognise this, and treat their Arab counterparts with respect. Many Arab countries hold substantial investments in the US: like Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. What about Sub-Saharan Africa? I have not been here, so I can't speak from experience, but the US has a great history of aid-giving in this region, without any colonial baggage, so from what I understand, Americans are adored here. I know from experience that Americans are often appreciated in many parts of Asia. I know this is true in Israel.
Anyway, without becoming too much more tedious, I would like to suggest a reform to the belief that Americans are hated abroad. I would say this: Americans may encounter (often deserved) mistreatment in some parts of Western Europe (especially France), Latin America, "evil" nations like Belarus, Russia, and North Korea, and some parts of the Arab World.... of course, I don't think it would be quite as bad in all places as we might think- even Iran. In many other places, Americans are beloved more than other Westerners- despite Bush.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Summer Plans (part x+1)
Well.... in what is apparantly an usual strike of good luck, I actually got a second job (ie, in addition to the one which will start on the 28th). This job will only be on Tuesday nights (I start tonight!), and I will be supervising ultimate games... and that's it! It's a self-reffed sport, so I'm just there in the case of disputes or questions.
It seems like a pretty fun job, and I'm actually kinda looking forward to it.
IN the mean time, my mom and stepfather are coming into town today, and will be here until Saturday!
It seems like a pretty fun job, and I'm actually kinda looking forward to it.
IN the mean time, my mom and stepfather are coming into town today, and will be here until Saturday!
Friday, July 11, 2008
Where I stand on a whole host of topics
A few days ago, I was a part of an interesting conversation that involved the elaboration of certain political stances. Anyway, I thought I would state where I stand on many different issues. Unlike most people, I've changed my stances often, and am very open to different positions. IE, with me, nothing is ever set in stone.
Private vs Public Education: In this case, I would almost certainly have to say public, with a certain condition: acceptance to public schools should be conditional on merit, and not based on meeting a quota. That said, I believe education should be pretty much a top priority for governments, and higher education should be accessible to all those who earn it. I favour a very European model: education should be universal from roughly K-11, at which point students should be tested and allowed to chose their different paths. In order to admitted into postsecondary institutions (ie, universities) they should be required to pass a rigirous (but, unlike the SAT, relevant) exam and/or they should have shown exemplary achievement throughout secondary school (maybe equivilent to 3,3+/4, or something like top 25%). Others should be encouraged to go for vocational schools, either paid by the state, or greatly subsidised. In short, I favour public education with limited accessibility to higher education.
Private vs Public Health Care: This one is a little tough for me, because I've lived in two countries that represent two different extremes, and both systems are mediocre. The US is very private, and has exceptional quality health care, but only for those who can afford it. Many private insurance firms are dishonest and interested in profits, not public health. Such a system is absolutely unacceptable. By contrast, in Canada everyone is gauranteed free access to health care.... but it's mediocre. The top quality doctors all go to the US where they can make much more money; since the health care is free, clinics are often underfunded and inundated with droves of people- meaning long long waits for almost any situation. So, where do we draw the line? Personally, I believe public health care should be a priority. Healthcare institutions should be well-funded- ideally a second priority behind education (or perhaps even above education). People should have to pay for abusing the system (eg, frivilous doctor visits), and people should have to pay for not taking care of themselves. This means, for example, hefty taxes should be placed on cigarettes and junk food. Quebec actually does a good job at this.... however, people should also be encouraged to take care of themselves. Governments should subsidise gym memberships (which are often prohibitively expensive) and fresh healthy foods (which are often much more expensive than junk food). Such investments by the government would pay off by decreasing the burden on the health care system.
Taxation: I support increased income taxes on the rich. Basically, my proposed tax plan would look something like this: The poorest 10% would pay 0% taxes; 10-35%ile would pay a really low rate: maybe like 5% or something. The 35-50%ile would pay roughly 10%; the 50-60%ile would pay around 15%; the 60-75%ile would pay 20%; the 75-90%ile would pay 30%; the 90-97%ile would pay 40%; the top 3% would pay 50%. A real tax system would probably be more explicit than this; ie, there wouldnt actually be such a huge jump between indivisuals on the 74% and 76%ile, but this is very hypothetical. Basically, I would make income taxes very low for the poorest, and very high for the richest people. As for loopholes: people in the government should work hard to make sure people don't have Swiss bank accounts, and those people who do should be convicted along with other serious criminals.
I would abolish sales tax for most things. Sales tax is actually a heavier burden on the poor people and, as it stands in places like Québec, doesn't actually tax only the luxuries. I would get rid of sales tax on: grocery store food (except junk food), clothes, household necessities (rubbish bags, paper towels, brooms, etc), and books. I would keep sales tax on: restaurant/prepared food, things that are truly luxuries (tvs, dvds, jewellery, most electronics, other knick-knacks). Most importantly, prices should always be displayed already including taxes.
Salary Cap: This is a tough issue. In theory, I would strongly support a salary cap of- maybe $5 million a year, which is more than enough to maintain an indulgent lifestyle. In reality, such a salary cap would be impossible and harmful to enforce. Wealthy and talented "specialists" (to make reference to Civ IV) would almost certainly flee to those countries where they could still make money, which would be detrimental to the original economies. For example: the California economy largely benefits from the Hollywood Industry, which is why its the indisputed movie capital of the world. If such a salary cap where enforced- in a town where people easily make $20million + per movie, Hollywood would move elsewhere- perhaps to Mexico. So, in real practice, I could not support a salary cap, unless it were universally enforced.
Free Trade: This is also a tough issue, and one which, for some reason, evokes very strong emotions. This may surprise some people, but I'm actually against universal free trade- for the reason that I believe that countries should more focus on developing trade networks with their neighbours. What about regional trade blocks (eg, EU, NAFTA)? This has a lot of sides to it. Not having free trade encourages countries to be more self-sufficient, which I think is a good thing. In general, you should always be able to provide for yourself, because you can't always gaurantee to loyality/stability of your trading partners. This is especially true in most parts of Africa. However, due to the present structure of nation-states, most countries are incapable of being self-sufficient. While some countries have been (and are) able to overcome such obstacles with great success (such as Japan and Singapore), other countries really need free trade: such countries like Mali, which can't really survive on its own given its current environment. To this end, free trade is beneficial. However, free trade encourages specialisation. If you can get resource X cheaply from your neighbour, just work on making lots of resource Y to trade away, instead of trying to develop resource X for yourself. Good, right? Just a few problems with this. Firstly, if your source of resource X is for some reason undependable, then its very risky. Secondly, in many cases, the specialisation for resource Y may be artificial. "coffee-producing nations" may be forced to use most of their land for coffee, instead of such necessities as wheat or rice, simply to satisfy a foreign demand for coffee. This could have environmental and oecological implications.
Environmentalism: Although I don't consider myself a tree-hugger, I think care for the environment should be a priority, but only for those countries that could afford it. Industrialised countries, in particular the US, should better enforce environment-friendly policies: this means, in particular: tougher standards on factories and better mass transit. The typical American excuse for not being more green is that China, it's emerging competitor, is just as bad. This is true... if anything, China is a worse contributer (on pure size, but not per-capita). However, I support a double standard: the US is a very rich country, whereas China isn't quite yet. China is still a few decades behind the US in terms of overall economic development. I believe China's great surplusses should currently be used to develop its infrastrucutre, particularly in the deeply impoverished hinterlands. When China is considered fully developed, which I believe may happen within 10 years, then and only then should they be asked to conform to the Kyoto Protocol.
Otherwise, I see environmentalism as a personal issue. Yes, government action is important, but unlike other issues, we each have a lot of power with respec to caring for the environment. We should all act responsibly. For example: turn lights off when not using them, recycle whenver possible, avoid using disposable anything, use mass transit (or bicycles/hybrid cards) whenever possible, eat less meat, etc. Individual efforts at living a more sustainable life could be as important as any government initiative.
Capital Punishment: In almost all cases, I staunchly oppose capital punishment. However, I'm not sure that it should be 100% abolished. I think use can be reserved for extreme cases. Otherwise, I believe all criminals should be given another chance. Prison conditions should be improved, and focus should be more on rehabilitation than punishment. Prisoners should be deeply examined before even considering release.
Abortion: It upsets me that this issue is as political as it currently is in the US. It should not be a political issue, as it is deeply personal. As with most social policies, I must separate my personal beliefs from what should be legal. Someone could always come up with some exceptional case where use of abortion would be necessary, and likewise, abortion will always exist in some form. If only for these reasons, abortion should remain legal, and should not enter courtroom discussion. However, I believe that executing the procedure should always be at the doctor's discretion; if the doctor deems it inappropriate (such as if someone is frivously getting pregnant, or its really late in the pregnancy), then s/he should be allowed to refuse the client.
Gay marriage: This may also surprise people, but I rather strongly support gay marriage. Yes, in the Bible (as in most religious texts) it is pretty clear that God intended marriage as a union between man and woman. However, I have many counters to this. Firstly, and most importantly, we must divorce (no pun intended!) the concept of religious and legal marriage- as they are two totally different things. Marriage always has and probably always will exist outside the confines of religion- otherwise, it would be like saying athiests couldn't get married, which simply isn't the case. Secondly, if we always went stricly by the books, than many marriages that exist today wouldn't be allowed. Thirdly, the US (along with many other countries) has no one established religion, and therefore must be tolerant to other beliefs regarding this, which is by no means universal. It is for this reason that I also support the legalisation of polygynous and polyandrous marriages. In fact, I think divorce is a much greater problem than gay marriage. As a product of a divorced family, I can attest that divorce causes horrible problems in a family (especially on young children), and I think it is much worse than gay marriage. (Divorce is also, by the way, banned in the Bible, except in unordinary circumstances).
As for gay adoption, if the perspective parents are proved to be qualified, than why not?
Evolution vs "Intelligent Design": I believe that both theories are neither proven entirely correct or incorrect. Therefore, I favour a fair and balanced teaching of both theories.
Foreign Policy: Obviously, this is different for each country. Canada will have an extremely different foreign policy than the US, simply because the US is a much more powerful country. That said, I tend to favour more isolationist policies. I believe that one soveriegn country should not mettle in the affairs of one other soveriegn country, unless the second sovereign country is either on the brink of destruction, or wrecking havock on other countries. This means that, in my opinion, any one soveriegn nation should not mettle in any domestic affairs in any other soveriegn nation.
There are some important exceptions to this rule. Firstly, is trade relationships. If two countries are involved in trade, and country X has a problem with some policy of country Y, then I believe that country does have the right to impose trade sanctions on the other country. Such trade sanctions would only exist between those two countries. I think this is appropriate because by trading with a country, you are helping it, and thus condoning the current state of government. This is a somewhat tough issue though because it has often been abused, particularly by the US. The US has used sanctions to fulfil its own prophecies, particularly with communist states such as Cuba. I mean that Cuba is prehaps impoverished today in part DUE to US Sanctions. Which means that the US ensured the fulfilment of the prophecy that communist states will fail simply by enforcing crippling sanctions. Despite heavily abuse of trade sanctions, I respect the sovereignty of nations to do so at their will, and the US, at the time, did have reasons for imposing sanctions.
A second exception is the relationship between countries and their former colonies. This is a bit of special relatioship. In the 17th-20th centuries, many European countries colonised areas in the non-western World. In so doing, they disrupted lifestyles and created entirely new "nations". This is paricularly true in Africa where nothing close to the current model of nation states existed. Most such nation-states are thus young and unstable. Since nationstatehood may not be their "natural" state of government, many of these countries have not yet successfully adapted to such a state of governence. As such, I believe that all countries should have ties to their former colonies. This may or may not mean direct reparations, but at the very least, people in former colonies should be allowed to attend university/ become a skilled worker in ther former host, given they could show proper qualifications (by attend university I mean they should be subsidised- in case that wasn't obvious).
What about the relationship between undeveloped nations and richer nations that didn't colonise them? There needn't be any relationship, but I think in general, richer nations should help out poorer nations, maybe by giving them aid, or artificially generous trades. This should not be mandatory however.
The other important exception is the case when nations are causing (or suffering from) extreme human suffering. In this case, case, it should be a supranational organisation such as the UN (or even smaller NGOs) who act. However, as the UN is a very big organisation it can be hard to get anything done. For instance, a rogue country like North Korea or Burma maybe shouldn't be allowed to be a member of the UN, but as long as they have allies in the UN (in both cases: China), nothing will happen. In such a case, action should be undertaken by regional blocks. Particularly in the case of Burma, I believe it should be the responsibility of ASEAN (Assoc. of Southeast Asian nations) to act. Simply put, if Burma wants to continue her membership in ASEAN, she should have to conform to a set of standards enforced by ASEAN.
I think this entry has already become too long, although I know there are issues I haven't covered. If there is some other issue you would like to see my thoughts on, let me know, and I'll include it in a future entry. I would also like to know YOUR thoughts on the above issues, particularly if you disagree with me.
Private vs Public Education: In this case, I would almost certainly have to say public, with a certain condition: acceptance to public schools should be conditional on merit, and not based on meeting a quota. That said, I believe education should be pretty much a top priority for governments, and higher education should be accessible to all those who earn it. I favour a very European model: education should be universal from roughly K-11, at which point students should be tested and allowed to chose their different paths. In order to admitted into postsecondary institutions (ie, universities) they should be required to pass a rigirous (but, unlike the SAT, relevant) exam and/or they should have shown exemplary achievement throughout secondary school (maybe equivilent to 3,3+/4, or something like top 25%). Others should be encouraged to go for vocational schools, either paid by the state, or greatly subsidised. In short, I favour public education with limited accessibility to higher education.
Private vs Public Health Care: This one is a little tough for me, because I've lived in two countries that represent two different extremes, and both systems are mediocre. The US is very private, and has exceptional quality health care, but only for those who can afford it. Many private insurance firms are dishonest and interested in profits, not public health. Such a system is absolutely unacceptable. By contrast, in Canada everyone is gauranteed free access to health care.... but it's mediocre. The top quality doctors all go to the US where they can make much more money; since the health care is free, clinics are often underfunded and inundated with droves of people- meaning long long waits for almost any situation. So, where do we draw the line? Personally, I believe public health care should be a priority. Healthcare institutions should be well-funded- ideally a second priority behind education (or perhaps even above education). People should have to pay for abusing the system (eg, frivilous doctor visits), and people should have to pay for not taking care of themselves. This means, for example, hefty taxes should be placed on cigarettes and junk food. Quebec actually does a good job at this.... however, people should also be encouraged to take care of themselves. Governments should subsidise gym memberships (which are often prohibitively expensive) and fresh healthy foods (which are often much more expensive than junk food). Such investments by the government would pay off by decreasing the burden on the health care system.
Taxation: I support increased income taxes on the rich. Basically, my proposed tax plan would look something like this: The poorest 10% would pay 0% taxes; 10-35%ile would pay a really low rate: maybe like 5% or something. The 35-50%ile would pay roughly 10%; the 50-60%ile would pay around 15%; the 60-75%ile would pay 20%; the 75-90%ile would pay 30%; the 90-97%ile would pay 40%; the top 3% would pay 50%. A real tax system would probably be more explicit than this; ie, there wouldnt actually be such a huge jump between indivisuals on the 74% and 76%ile, but this is very hypothetical. Basically, I would make income taxes very low for the poorest, and very high for the richest people. As for loopholes: people in the government should work hard to make sure people don't have Swiss bank accounts, and those people who do should be convicted along with other serious criminals.
I would abolish sales tax for most things. Sales tax is actually a heavier burden on the poor people and, as it stands in places like Québec, doesn't actually tax only the luxuries. I would get rid of sales tax on: grocery store food (except junk food), clothes, household necessities (rubbish bags, paper towels, brooms, etc), and books. I would keep sales tax on: restaurant/prepared food, things that are truly luxuries (tvs, dvds, jewellery, most electronics, other knick-knacks). Most importantly, prices should always be displayed already including taxes.
Salary Cap: This is a tough issue. In theory, I would strongly support a salary cap of- maybe $5 million a year, which is more than enough to maintain an indulgent lifestyle. In reality, such a salary cap would be impossible and harmful to enforce. Wealthy and talented "specialists" (to make reference to Civ IV) would almost certainly flee to those countries where they could still make money, which would be detrimental to the original economies. For example: the California economy largely benefits from the Hollywood Industry, which is why its the indisputed movie capital of the world. If such a salary cap where enforced- in a town where people easily make $20million + per movie, Hollywood would move elsewhere- perhaps to Mexico. So, in real practice, I could not support a salary cap, unless it were universally enforced.
Free Trade: This is also a tough issue, and one which, for some reason, evokes very strong emotions. This may surprise some people, but I'm actually against universal free trade- for the reason that I believe that countries should more focus on developing trade networks with their neighbours. What about regional trade blocks (eg, EU, NAFTA)? This has a lot of sides to it. Not having free trade encourages countries to be more self-sufficient, which I think is a good thing. In general, you should always be able to provide for yourself, because you can't always gaurantee to loyality/stability of your trading partners. This is especially true in most parts of Africa. However, due to the present structure of nation-states, most countries are incapable of being self-sufficient. While some countries have been (and are) able to overcome such obstacles with great success (such as Japan and Singapore), other countries really need free trade: such countries like Mali, which can't really survive on its own given its current environment. To this end, free trade is beneficial. However, free trade encourages specialisation. If you can get resource X cheaply from your neighbour, just work on making lots of resource Y to trade away, instead of trying to develop resource X for yourself. Good, right? Just a few problems with this. Firstly, if your source of resource X is for some reason undependable, then its very risky. Secondly, in many cases, the specialisation for resource Y may be artificial. "coffee-producing nations" may be forced to use most of their land for coffee, instead of such necessities as wheat or rice, simply to satisfy a foreign demand for coffee. This could have environmental and oecological implications.
Environmentalism: Although I don't consider myself a tree-hugger, I think care for the environment should be a priority, but only for those countries that could afford it. Industrialised countries, in particular the US, should better enforce environment-friendly policies: this means, in particular: tougher standards on factories and better mass transit. The typical American excuse for not being more green is that China, it's emerging competitor, is just as bad. This is true... if anything, China is a worse contributer (on pure size, but not per-capita). However, I support a double standard: the US is a very rich country, whereas China isn't quite yet. China is still a few decades behind the US in terms of overall economic development. I believe China's great surplusses should currently be used to develop its infrastrucutre, particularly in the deeply impoverished hinterlands. When China is considered fully developed, which I believe may happen within 10 years, then and only then should they be asked to conform to the Kyoto Protocol.
Otherwise, I see environmentalism as a personal issue. Yes, government action is important, but unlike other issues, we each have a lot of power with respec to caring for the environment. We should all act responsibly. For example: turn lights off when not using them, recycle whenver possible, avoid using disposable anything, use mass transit (or bicycles/hybrid cards) whenever possible, eat less meat, etc. Individual efforts at living a more sustainable life could be as important as any government initiative.
Capital Punishment: In almost all cases, I staunchly oppose capital punishment. However, I'm not sure that it should be 100% abolished. I think use can be reserved for extreme cases. Otherwise, I believe all criminals should be given another chance. Prison conditions should be improved, and focus should be more on rehabilitation than punishment. Prisoners should be deeply examined before even considering release.
Abortion: It upsets me that this issue is as political as it currently is in the US. It should not be a political issue, as it is deeply personal. As with most social policies, I must separate my personal beliefs from what should be legal. Someone could always come up with some exceptional case where use of abortion would be necessary, and likewise, abortion will always exist in some form. If only for these reasons, abortion should remain legal, and should not enter courtroom discussion. However, I believe that executing the procedure should always be at the doctor's discretion; if the doctor deems it inappropriate (such as if someone is frivously getting pregnant, or its really late in the pregnancy), then s/he should be allowed to refuse the client.
Gay marriage: This may also surprise people, but I rather strongly support gay marriage. Yes, in the Bible (as in most religious texts) it is pretty clear that God intended marriage as a union between man and woman. However, I have many counters to this. Firstly, and most importantly, we must divorce (no pun intended!) the concept of religious and legal marriage- as they are two totally different things. Marriage always has and probably always will exist outside the confines of religion- otherwise, it would be like saying athiests couldn't get married, which simply isn't the case. Secondly, if we always went stricly by the books, than many marriages that exist today wouldn't be allowed. Thirdly, the US (along with many other countries) has no one established religion, and therefore must be tolerant to other beliefs regarding this, which is by no means universal. It is for this reason that I also support the legalisation of polygynous and polyandrous marriages. In fact, I think divorce is a much greater problem than gay marriage. As a product of a divorced family, I can attest that divorce causes horrible problems in a family (especially on young children), and I think it is much worse than gay marriage. (Divorce is also, by the way, banned in the Bible, except in unordinary circumstances).
As for gay adoption, if the perspective parents are proved to be qualified, than why not?
Evolution vs "Intelligent Design": I believe that both theories are neither proven entirely correct or incorrect. Therefore, I favour a fair and balanced teaching of both theories.
Foreign Policy: Obviously, this is different for each country. Canada will have an extremely different foreign policy than the US, simply because the US is a much more powerful country. That said, I tend to favour more isolationist policies. I believe that one soveriegn country should not mettle in the affairs of one other soveriegn country, unless the second sovereign country is either on the brink of destruction, or wrecking havock on other countries. This means that, in my opinion, any one soveriegn nation should not mettle in any domestic affairs in any other soveriegn nation.
There are some important exceptions to this rule. Firstly, is trade relationships. If two countries are involved in trade, and country X has a problem with some policy of country Y, then I believe that country does have the right to impose trade sanctions on the other country. Such trade sanctions would only exist between those two countries. I think this is appropriate because by trading with a country, you are helping it, and thus condoning the current state of government. This is a somewhat tough issue though because it has often been abused, particularly by the US. The US has used sanctions to fulfil its own prophecies, particularly with communist states such as Cuba. I mean that Cuba is prehaps impoverished today in part DUE to US Sanctions. Which means that the US ensured the fulfilment of the prophecy that communist states will fail simply by enforcing crippling sanctions. Despite heavily abuse of trade sanctions, I respect the sovereignty of nations to do so at their will, and the US, at the time, did have reasons for imposing sanctions.
A second exception is the relationship between countries and their former colonies. This is a bit of special relatioship. In the 17th-20th centuries, many European countries colonised areas in the non-western World. In so doing, they disrupted lifestyles and created entirely new "nations". This is paricularly true in Africa where nothing close to the current model of nation states existed. Most such nation-states are thus young and unstable. Since nationstatehood may not be their "natural" state of government, many of these countries have not yet successfully adapted to such a state of governence. As such, I believe that all countries should have ties to their former colonies. This may or may not mean direct reparations, but at the very least, people in former colonies should be allowed to attend university/ become a skilled worker in ther former host, given they could show proper qualifications (by attend university I mean they should be subsidised- in case that wasn't obvious).
What about the relationship between undeveloped nations and richer nations that didn't colonise them? There needn't be any relationship, but I think in general, richer nations should help out poorer nations, maybe by giving them aid, or artificially generous trades. This should not be mandatory however.
The other important exception is the case when nations are causing (or suffering from) extreme human suffering. In this case, case, it should be a supranational organisation such as the UN (or even smaller NGOs) who act. However, as the UN is a very big organisation it can be hard to get anything done. For instance, a rogue country like North Korea or Burma maybe shouldn't be allowed to be a member of the UN, but as long as they have allies in the UN (in both cases: China), nothing will happen. In such a case, action should be undertaken by regional blocks. Particularly in the case of Burma, I believe it should be the responsibility of ASEAN (Assoc. of Southeast Asian nations) to act. Simply put, if Burma wants to continue her membership in ASEAN, she should have to conform to a set of standards enforced by ASEAN.
I think this entry has already become too long, although I know there are issues I haven't covered. If there is some other issue you would like to see my thoughts on, let me know, and I'll include it in a future entry. I would also like to know YOUR thoughts on the above issues, particularly if you disagree with me.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Summer Plans (part x)
Well, at July 10, summer is, by some standards more than half over. And here I am, still pondering "plans". As you may know from my last entry, the job that I was satisfied with (while hardly enthusiastic), has been delayed by three weeks. As such, my late August plans were destroyed, while I had three more weeks of- well not much to do.
I previously mentioned being offered a part time job on campus during the school year- this would be working with the McGill copy services. While I was originally hesitant (as I didn'T want to overload myself in my ever so important last year), having not worked all summer, I decided I really could use the money. Well, last week I went to "interview" for that job, and I was offered full-time summer work with the McGill copy services. It's 9-5, which is what i wanted, it doesn't involve working at a call centre, and it actually pays more. Great, right? Well the only rub is that it doesn't actually start until July 28, and then will only last for 3 or 4 weeks. Well- it's better than nothing. I decided to take this job, becuase I don't actually know if the call center place will ever call back again, given the chicanery they pulled last time.
This leaves with me just over 2 weeks free now, and potentially 2 weeks free in late August. I was for a long time considering using one of those free weeks in July to go to Louisiana, but I'm currently leaning against it because it will be a pretty tight fit. In the mean time, I have been studying reasonably hard for the GRE. Depending on what date this job finishes (which like everything else is unpredictable), I may still be able to fit in that trip to Louisiana.... but this remains very much in the air.
I previously mentioned being offered a part time job on campus during the school year- this would be working with the McGill copy services. While I was originally hesitant (as I didn'T want to overload myself in my ever so important last year), having not worked all summer, I decided I really could use the money. Well, last week I went to "interview" for that job, and I was offered full-time summer work with the McGill copy services. It's 9-5, which is what i wanted, it doesn't involve working at a call centre, and it actually pays more. Great, right? Well the only rub is that it doesn't actually start until July 28, and then will only last for 3 or 4 weeks. Well- it's better than nothing. I decided to take this job, becuase I don't actually know if the call center place will ever call back again, given the chicanery they pulled last time.
This leaves with me just over 2 weeks free now, and potentially 2 weeks free in late August. I was for a long time considering using one of those free weeks in July to go to Louisiana, but I'm currently leaning against it because it will be a pretty tight fit. In the mean time, I have been studying reasonably hard for the GRE. Depending on what date this job finishes (which like everything else is unpredictable), I may still be able to fit in that trip to Louisiana.... but this remains very much in the air.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
A novel view of the American North-South dichotomy
From the beginning of American history, there has existed a strong North-South dichotomy. This culiminated, by but no means concluded, in the American Civil War, taking place in the early 1860s. This notion has been refurbished recently, in large part because of the last two presidential elections; I'm sure you've all seen the "red state/ blue state maps" In many ways, the North country (especially the Northeast) represents an extremely different country than the South (especially the "deep south").
Born in raised in Trenton, NJ, I am very much a Northerner. Having lived the last 3 years in Montreal has done little to change this, as central Canada does not differ substantially from the Northern US. If this is a point you wish to debate with me, please e-mail me at ROCO148@msn.com with your disagreements. However, this point is not really the focus of this entry, so I will not really discuss it any further.
Politically speaking, I definitely identify much more with the North. I, like most people north of the Mason-Dixie line, believe that the Bush administration has been horrendous for the USA and for the world. I am economically and socially liberal- I support welfare and gay marriage, like many of my Northern comrades.
Despite politically identifying with the North, in almost all other ways I feel more sympathetic for the South, in particular the "Deep South" (ie, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana). Admittedly, my travel experience in the South is extremely limited, but I have been, briefly, to Nashville, TN, and I have met people from the South. Let me discuss why I am more attracted to the South than to the North.
1. The North is dominated by decripid old indistrial cities, while Southern cities have more "charm".
I don't really think this statement needs too much support: just take Detroit, Phildelphia, Baltimore and Albany, and compare them to Nashville, Savannah, New Orleans and Mobile- which cities seem nicer?
2. Southerners are extremely friendly and hospitable.
This isn't to say that Northerners are terrible people. Quite the contrary. However, have you ever been walking on the streets of New York when a stranger went up to you, bade you good afternoon, asked where you were from/where you were going/how long you've been there, and wished you all the best? This has only happened to me in two places: the American South and Burma.
3. Southern culture is extremely rich.
The South has an entire culinary tradition to itself- and it is arguably the best in North America (North of Mexico of course). What does the North have? Pretentiously expensive Italian food, and a bazillion fast food chains. Will you ever see a book based on good ole fashioned Northern cookin'? How many great styles of music come from the North? As opposed to all the music coming from the South (jazz, rock n roll, country-western).
4. Southerners are much more generous
One of the most striking differences between North and South is the difference in per-capita GDP. The wealthiest states, like New Jersey and Connecticut, are all in the North, whereas the poorest states, like Mississippi and West Virginia, are Southern. Yet, charitable donations percapita is almost the inverse of the per capita income list. According to the generosity index, http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/natl/generosity_index/2006.html, a state like Massachussets, one of the 5 richest, consisitently ranks among the 10 least generous. According to this USA Today article, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-20-national-giving_x.htm, Mississippi is the most generous state, despite having the country's LOWEST per capita GDP. In fact, of the top 10 states cited in the article, almost ALL were in the South (the sole exception being South Dakota). You can get full rankings here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-20-state-giving_x.htm. It's almost the opposite of any ranking of state by percapita income.
5. Northerners are overly obsessed with money
Everything in the North seems to be about money. People work 60 hours a week and commute 2 hours to work, just because that means more money. This isn't inherently a bad thing. This is, of course, why Northerners are so much wealthier than their Southern counterparts. However, is this the ideal? While Northerners quibble over dollars, people in the South are willing to sacrifice some money in order to spend more quality time with their famiy, or community.
Anyway, I apologise if anything here seems horribly inaccurate or overly generalising. And it maybe true that my view of the South is overly romantic. At any rate, I believe the South is the superior part, and the true heart and soul of America.
Born in raised in Trenton, NJ, I am very much a Northerner. Having lived the last 3 years in Montreal has done little to change this, as central Canada does not differ substantially from the Northern US. If this is a point you wish to debate with me, please e-mail me at ROCO148@msn.com with your disagreements. However, this point is not really the focus of this entry, so I will not really discuss it any further.
Politically speaking, I definitely identify much more with the North. I, like most people north of the Mason-Dixie line, believe that the Bush administration has been horrendous for the USA and for the world. I am economically and socially liberal- I support welfare and gay marriage, like many of my Northern comrades.
Despite politically identifying with the North, in almost all other ways I feel more sympathetic for the South, in particular the "Deep South" (ie, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana). Admittedly, my travel experience in the South is extremely limited, but I have been, briefly, to Nashville, TN, and I have met people from the South. Let me discuss why I am more attracted to the South than to the North.
1. The North is dominated by decripid old indistrial cities, while Southern cities have more "charm".
I don't really think this statement needs too much support: just take Detroit, Phildelphia, Baltimore and Albany, and compare them to Nashville, Savannah, New Orleans and Mobile- which cities seem nicer?
2. Southerners are extremely friendly and hospitable.
This isn't to say that Northerners are terrible people. Quite the contrary. However, have you ever been walking on the streets of New York when a stranger went up to you, bade you good afternoon, asked where you were from/where you were going/how long you've been there, and wished you all the best? This has only happened to me in two places: the American South and Burma.
3. Southern culture is extremely rich.
The South has an entire culinary tradition to itself- and it is arguably the best in North America (North of Mexico of course). What does the North have? Pretentiously expensive Italian food, and a bazillion fast food chains. Will you ever see a book based on good ole fashioned Northern cookin'? How many great styles of music come from the North? As opposed to all the music coming from the South (jazz, rock n roll, country-western).
4. Southerners are much more generous
One of the most striking differences between North and South is the difference in per-capita GDP. The wealthiest states, like New Jersey and Connecticut, are all in the North, whereas the poorest states, like Mississippi and West Virginia, are Southern. Yet, charitable donations percapita is almost the inverse of the per capita income list. According to the generosity index, http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/natl/generosity_index/2006.html, a state like Massachussets, one of the 5 richest, consisitently ranks among the 10 least generous. According to this USA Today article, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-20-national-giving_x.htm, Mississippi is the most generous state, despite having the country's LOWEST per capita GDP. In fact, of the top 10 states cited in the article, almost ALL were in the South (the sole exception being South Dakota). You can get full rankings here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-20-state-giving_x.htm. It's almost the opposite of any ranking of state by percapita income.
5. Northerners are overly obsessed with money
Everything in the North seems to be about money. People work 60 hours a week and commute 2 hours to work, just because that means more money. This isn't inherently a bad thing. This is, of course, why Northerners are so much wealthier than their Southern counterparts. However, is this the ideal? While Northerners quibble over dollars, people in the South are willing to sacrifice some money in order to spend more quality time with their famiy, or community.
Anyway, I apologise if anything here seems horribly inaccurate or overly generalising. And it maybe true that my view of the South is overly romantic. At any rate, I believe the South is the superior part, and the true heart and soul of America.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Summer Plans (part 8)
Ahhh!!!! I'm soooooo frustrated!!!!!
So my summer was finally starting to become clear.... yes, I know, July 3rd is an awfully late time to "start becoming clear", but it's better than nothing. I had a job- I went for training, and everything seemed to be set. The job was supposed to last for 5 weeks: so from about 6 July to maybe 15 August.... then I would have about two weeks free, with which I wanted to go home for a bit, then travel around Louisiana.
The training was last Wednesday night. I was told that I would start sometime between the 6th and 8th of July and that I would recieve a phone call clarifying this. It's now Thursday the 3rd, and the phone call never came. So, I decided to give them a call.
What I was told completely surprised me. Keep in mind that they never actually called me- I had to find this out for myself. They told me that their project had been delayed and wouldn't start until late July- around the 25th. Not to sound too immature but.... wtf???????
Well- there goes all my plans. What to do now? I got so excited about actually being able to stop home and go to Louisiana.... in fact, I still have enough left on my voucher I used for Morocco to cover a return trip to new Orleans from JFK... but when can I use it now? I need to be in Montreal from July 14th onward. (Parents visiting from 14th-18th, job would start last week of july).
*sighs*
So my summer was finally starting to become clear.... yes, I know, July 3rd is an awfully late time to "start becoming clear", but it's better than nothing. I had a job- I went for training, and everything seemed to be set. The job was supposed to last for 5 weeks: so from about 6 July to maybe 15 August.... then I would have about two weeks free, with which I wanted to go home for a bit, then travel around Louisiana.
The training was last Wednesday night. I was told that I would start sometime between the 6th and 8th of July and that I would recieve a phone call clarifying this. It's now Thursday the 3rd, and the phone call never came. So, I decided to give them a call.
What I was told completely surprised me. Keep in mind that they never actually called me- I had to find this out for myself. They told me that their project had been delayed and wouldn't start until late July- around the 25th. Not to sound too immature but.... wtf???????
Well- there goes all my plans. What to do now? I got so excited about actually being able to stop home and go to Louisiana.... in fact, I still have enough left on my voucher I used for Morocco to cover a return trip to new Orleans from JFK... but when can I use it now? I need to be in Montreal from July 14th onward. (Parents visiting from 14th-18th, job would start last week of july).
*sighs*
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Standardised Testing
I really hate standardised tests. I guess I don't know too many people who love them, but I particularly dislike them.
I decided to register for the GRE after all. More on that later.....
First: why I hate standardised tests.
1) I don't do well on them. Well, I guess I can't hold this against them- but I must admit I'm biased.
2) I don't believe the tests accurately measure, well, anything. I believe that these tests accurately measure neither intelligence, nor academic success (which are not the same). I know that my SAT scores did not very accurately predict my ability to achieve in university (as represented by my GPA). Example: the vocab tested is not really revelent or useful- it tests your ability to memorise words rather than your ability to reason. Now, I'm not saying these tests are all bad- after all, there are general trends of people who do well vs ppl do don't well. What I mean is that intelligent people who do well in university often do relatively well on these tests vis-à-vis people who have below average intelligence and/or do poorly in school. But it doesn't really test your ability to reason or analyse. (A noteable exception to this is the ACT- which is an entirely self-contained test. You don't need to learn/memorise any single fact- you just need to unpack what'S already there). Alas, I ramble. My point: knowledge tested on these tests, in particular the SAT and GRE, is largely esoteric and irrelevant. If anything, in the words of the princeton review people, these tests test nothing more than your ability to take standardised tests.
3) They are elitist. I'm not even talking about the "elite" vocabulary used (which can be an issue). I'm talking about how expensive these tests are! The GRE for example costs $175!!! Not including, of course, review materials. This is hardly accessible for people on limited incomes (ie, students). These tests are produced by a corporation, which is out to make money- not to serve any sort of community. Thus- they can charge whatever the want, for the aim of making a profit. The fact that almost all graduate schools in the US make this fee necessary for most people wanting to go to graduate school.
So- if these tests are so stupid, then why did I decide to take the GRE?
Well- it's about keeping my options as open as possible. I think I would ideally still like to do my graduate degree in Europe or Asia. But the simple fact is- most of the world's best graduate programmes are based in the US. It's an undeniable fact.... and they all require the GRE! Eliminating all US options would be greatly limiting myself. The other thing is that a strong performance on the GRE can help me find scholarships, and will bolster my chances at getting into a graduate programme.
So, I plan to review hard, and hopefully do well on the test. It's about making the most of a crappy test.
I decided to register for the GRE after all. More on that later.....
First: why I hate standardised tests.
1) I don't do well on them. Well, I guess I can't hold this against them- but I must admit I'm biased.
2) I don't believe the tests accurately measure, well, anything. I believe that these tests accurately measure neither intelligence, nor academic success (which are not the same). I know that my SAT scores did not very accurately predict my ability to achieve in university (as represented by my GPA). Example: the vocab tested is not really revelent or useful- it tests your ability to memorise words rather than your ability to reason. Now, I'm not saying these tests are all bad- after all, there are general trends of people who do well vs ppl do don't well. What I mean is that intelligent people who do well in university often do relatively well on these tests vis-à-vis people who have below average intelligence and/or do poorly in school. But it doesn't really test your ability to reason or analyse. (A noteable exception to this is the ACT- which is an entirely self-contained test. You don't need to learn/memorise any single fact- you just need to unpack what'S already there). Alas, I ramble. My point: knowledge tested on these tests, in particular the SAT and GRE, is largely esoteric and irrelevant. If anything, in the words of the princeton review people, these tests test nothing more than your ability to take standardised tests.
3) They are elitist. I'm not even talking about the "elite" vocabulary used (which can be an issue). I'm talking about how expensive these tests are! The GRE for example costs $175!!! Not including, of course, review materials. This is hardly accessible for people on limited incomes (ie, students). These tests are produced by a corporation, which is out to make money- not to serve any sort of community. Thus- they can charge whatever the want, for the aim of making a profit. The fact that almost all graduate schools in the US make this fee necessary for most people wanting to go to graduate school.
So- if these tests are so stupid, then why did I decide to take the GRE?
Well- it's about keeping my options as open as possible. I think I would ideally still like to do my graduate degree in Europe or Asia. But the simple fact is- most of the world's best graduate programmes are based in the US. It's an undeniable fact.... and they all require the GRE! Eliminating all US options would be greatly limiting myself. The other thing is that a strong performance on the GRE can help me find scholarships, and will bolster my chances at getting into a graduate programme.
So, I plan to review hard, and hopefully do well on the test. It's about making the most of a crappy test.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)