Well, I can finally give a decent update now that both parties are set with their candidates. I just thought I would share a few thoughts.
1) I continue support Barack Obama, as I feel, for several reasons, he is the best choice in this election.
2) I can't seem to understand why the polls are so close. This should be in the bag for Obama. The Republican party should be in shambles after a disasterous 8 years with an extremely unpopular president, and a candidate not known for his conservative values (cornerstone of the Republican Party). It's a Catch-22 with the Republican Party. Half of the Republicans still like Bush; half hate him. Yet both halves seem to rally behind McCain; inexplicably, McCain simultaneously seems to be distancing himself from Bush AND tying himself to him. It'll be very interesting to see the roles of Bush and Cheny at the RNC next week. But I still don't get why this is such a close election.
3) At first I was disappointed by Obama's selection of Biden. After all the media hype, it seemed the poliically correct choice would have been Hilary Clinton, given all the votes she won in the primary. Biden was at that time a relative no name- just an obscure John Doe who, in my thoughts, would do little for Obama's campaign. Now, I feel totally different. Biden is a great compliment to Obama. He's decades of experience balance Obama's relative lack of experience greatly, while he stands out as dinstinguished from other members of Senate. He is one of the ppoorest Senators who still puts his family first. He just seems like a very cool guy.
4) I can't figure out why evangelical voters support McCain so much. Ok, maybe I can understand in 2004 why they would support Bush, in their twisted political mindset. But, McCain is not a roll model of morality. He's crude; he's divorced, and remarried a young, rich woman. Obama has a model family.
5) The Democrats engineered a brilliant convention. Every minute of it. Michelle Obama's speech on Monday painted a very personaable picture of Barack. Hiliary and Bill Clinton's speeches on Tuesday and Wednesday resoundingly supported Obama. But, Thursday topped them all. Obama opened up Mile High Stadium to whomever wanted to go and gave a brilliant speech. One of the most striking parts of his speech was when he attempted to tackle social issues as few democrats tend to do. What he did was really smart... he attempted to find middle ground in a lot of polarising social issues. On abortion, instead of pro-choice/pro-life, we should reduce unwanted pregnancies. On gay marriage, we should agree to work for the rights of gay ppl to visit loved ones in the hospital. Obama tackled every single issue, did it with finesse and flair. Millions of people watched this spectacle, and I think Obama did a great job of putting the fire back into his campaign.
6) John McCain showed a bit of class on Thursday. He chose not to announce his running mate beacuse it was "barack's special night". He even ran an ad in which he congratulated Obama. All he said was "job well done". It was a classy thing to do, and very smart for his campaign.
7) John McCain has chosen his running mate. It is a woman named Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska. This is a very interesting and bold selection. From one point of view, it was a very good selection. She is different, and has the repuation of a reformer, which works well with McCain's "maverick" image. She is social conservative, which works well for evangelical voters. And, she's a woman, which works well for embittered "hilary democrats". But, overall, I think it's a foolish and hypocritical choice. Firstly, I get the impression that McCain is trying to take the historical aspect away from Obama's campign, by getting a woman. Given the fact that she's an obscure governor from Alasaka, if she weren't a woman, she probably wouldn't have been chosen. It seems to me to be a desperate attempt to grab Hilliary-McCain voters. Most importantly is the issue of experience. The biggest criticism of Obama by the McCain people is that Obama is young and inexperienced. Well, what about Palin? She is younger than Obama and has less relevant experience. She has been the governor only two years, of an obscure and politically unimportant state (Alaska). McCain, who is 72 and in poor health, clearly did not choose someone who is the most qualified to step in as president. Obama chose someone who is ready to be president. McCain didn't. This is especially an issue because McCain is relatively more likely to be unable to serve, AND because McCain has made such an issue of Obama's experience.
We'll have to see what happens at the RNC.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
On change
So this morning at church, something was said that really struck a chord with me- and it wasn't by the pastor. A woman gave a "monologue" (hard to explain- my church is bizarre), and she talked about how we can all change the world. I know it's cliché, but as she was talking, I realised- you know she's right.
Now, she was referring more to a Christian context, but this can be considered more generally. The fact is- each and everyone one of us has a substantial amount of power to change the world- more than we probably appreciate. Let's consider the many ways in which we can have a direct impact on the larger world.
1) Our power as voters.
Anyone who is a citizen of a democratic country (which, admittedly, does not include everyone, but likely includes all of my readers) can play a direct role in the government of that country by voting. Sure, you might say, "how much does my vote REALLY count?". Additionally, you might question the legitimacy and honesty of the vote counting process (e.g., US in 2000). The reality is the real power comes in large groups, call them voting blocks- but groups are made up of individuals.
Even if our direct influene in national-level politics is limited, we have much greater influence on the more local scale. The town from which I hail has about 10 000. Let's assume that 7 500 are eligibe to vote. Of which 2 500 make the effort to vote in local elections (since most people really don't care). Well, 1 vote out of 2500 is a lot more powerful than 1 vote out of 20 million. A margin of victory of 10% (and it is often much less than this) is only 250 votes! So- each vote really counts.
2) Our power as consumers
This one is huge. Everything we buy- or don't buy- exerts a great amount of influence. This varies depending on what product is being purchased. Let'S take an ear of corn as the first example. Your decision to purchase an ear of corn has the following implications. Firstly, and most obviously, it effects your own life since you are likely to consume that ear of corn in the short term. Secondly, if you buy it from the grocery store, it helps fund this grocery store. This, in turn, has implications for the managers of the store, in addition to the employees, possibly family members of employees and managers, and even people seeking a job at the grocery store (the more business the store does, the more people they can hire, and the more they can pay them). It effects companies which sell their items at the grocery store since your desire to purchase that ear of corn exposes you to a myriad of other products, which you may likely buy. Thirdly, (or secondly if you buy it from a market/directly from a farm), it affects the farmer growing the corn.
Yes, perhaps this is a bit of a stretch- after all, does one ear of corn, costing about 30 cents, make a real difference? What about the 100 ears of corn you and your family may consume throughout the summer? What about the 100 kg of meat you may consume during the year? What about the 15000$ car you just bought- and the gas required to run it- and the insurance you need to purchase. These things have extraordinary impacts on the economy- and these are all results of the actions of a single individual.
3) Our power is tax payers
This one doesn't need too much explaining- and it might not refer to those of us who are currently impoverished students. But people who have a steady salary will pay taxes on it- and these taxes are essential to the budget of your government. So, in this sense, the government depends on YOU for its very existence.
4) Our power over our environment
Every single action has an impact on our environment. By individual life choices, we can help make our world greener- or more polluted. You may think we have little power to revolutionise the world. And perhaps this is partially right. However, in this respect, we do have extraordinary power to improve the state of our environment. I have written about this substantially. One person's decision to eat 150g of meat or less (instead of the average 350 g), has far-reaching implications. This saves over 50kg of meat per year! Think of the impact on the "meat farms" (euphemism), and the butcher shops. That's just if one person kept consumption to 150 g / day. The amount almost doubles if they chose to go vegetarian. And what if 2 or 3 peopel do this? 3 million? Or what if the same person chooses not to drive, or chooses to drive a hybrid vehicle? Or decreasing your electricity consumption? Or refusing to use disposable dishes? There is SO much that each of us could do as individuals that if we only do half of what we could the impact would be enormous.
5) The power of relationships
This may also sound cliché, but every single relationship we have changes the world. The impact can range from getting married, having children, and influencing the world directly through your children. After all, you never know whether or not you will give birth to a great person. But even on more platonic relationships. We may underestimate the impact these have. It's like a chain reaction. I think of my good friends. Individuals who have invested some of their time and engery in caring about me, and in spending time with me. I think of them and how they've influenced me to become the person I am right now. This isn't to say that I seek to become a clone of my friends. Instead, of my best friends, I might say that there is a little bit of each of them in me. Any subsequent friendships I may make will therefore involve the original influence of my good friends.
We may undervalue the power of friendships. I've heard stories of people on the brink of suicide not going through with it because someone reached it. Or people who were otherwise underacheivers were motivated to succeed by none other than good friends. I know that if it weren't for some very good friends of my own, I would never have gone to Mae Sot, and if I had never gone to Mae Sot, I would not be who I am right now.
This may seem convoluted. That is because it is convuluted. What's important to grasp is that we all have extraordinary power to change the worlds just based in our interaction with individuals. This is most amazing thing for me. I often think of myself as living in a bit of a bubble. I don't realise the impact I may have on other people. I wish and long to influence other people, but since people rarely acknowledge any specific actions, I am often led to believe that my life has little impact. That said, to me, I can't think of a single thing that makes me happier than having the power to make someone else's life in some way better. It's an amazing thing really.
6) The power of ambition.
There is one last way we can change the world- directly. I wrote an entry some time ago on ambition. http://rliamo144.blogspot.com/2008/05/on-ambition-15-january-2007.html Many of us have grandiose and pie in the sky dreams. Granted, most of us will never realise these dreams. For those of us who don,t realise these dreams, these dreams are still important because they guide us in a "beneficial direction". And as I said in that other entry, ambition can (and often does) inspire people around you. But, more importantly for this entry, dreams occasionally are realised. With a lot of ambition, a lot of hard work, and a lot of luck, you or me might become the next great person. Maybe president of the US? Maybe the next Bill Gates? Maybe the next William Shakespeare? Think of how much you can change the world then!
Conclusion:
So what's the main message of this entry? We should appreciate just how much power we have to change the world, in almost every decision we make. As voters, consumers, tax payers, friends, neighbours, and dreamers. We change the world in many direct or indirect ways. Let's all appreciate this great power..... and use it responsibly!!!
What does it mean to be responsible? This could be argued, but this is my opinion. First of all, let's aim for a green earth and a sustainable society. Secondly, let's aim for a tolerant, benign, and effective government. Let's aim for coroporate responsibility and improved quality of consumer goods. Let's aim for future generations (our chlidren) to be responsible and contributing members of our world. Let's aim to see the best in everyone and to inspire them. Let's aim to do our share to improve the lives of our brothers/neighbours/fellow human beings. Let's aim to innovate and revolutionise our world.
There's no excuses. We all have control over ourselves and our actions. Use your power to its fullest!
Now, she was referring more to a Christian context, but this can be considered more generally. The fact is- each and everyone one of us has a substantial amount of power to change the world- more than we probably appreciate. Let's consider the many ways in which we can have a direct impact on the larger world.
1) Our power as voters.
Anyone who is a citizen of a democratic country (which, admittedly, does not include everyone, but likely includes all of my readers) can play a direct role in the government of that country by voting. Sure, you might say, "how much does my vote REALLY count?". Additionally, you might question the legitimacy and honesty of the vote counting process (e.g., US in 2000). The reality is the real power comes in large groups, call them voting blocks- but groups are made up of individuals.
Even if our direct influene in national-level politics is limited, we have much greater influence on the more local scale. The town from which I hail has about 10 000. Let's assume that 7 500 are eligibe to vote. Of which 2 500 make the effort to vote in local elections (since most people really don't care). Well, 1 vote out of 2500 is a lot more powerful than 1 vote out of 20 million. A margin of victory of 10% (and it is often much less than this) is only 250 votes! So- each vote really counts.
2) Our power as consumers
This one is huge. Everything we buy- or don't buy- exerts a great amount of influence. This varies depending on what product is being purchased. Let'S take an ear of corn as the first example. Your decision to purchase an ear of corn has the following implications. Firstly, and most obviously, it effects your own life since you are likely to consume that ear of corn in the short term. Secondly, if you buy it from the grocery store, it helps fund this grocery store. This, in turn, has implications for the managers of the store, in addition to the employees, possibly family members of employees and managers, and even people seeking a job at the grocery store (the more business the store does, the more people they can hire, and the more they can pay them). It effects companies which sell their items at the grocery store since your desire to purchase that ear of corn exposes you to a myriad of other products, which you may likely buy. Thirdly, (or secondly if you buy it from a market/directly from a farm), it affects the farmer growing the corn.
Yes, perhaps this is a bit of a stretch- after all, does one ear of corn, costing about 30 cents, make a real difference? What about the 100 ears of corn you and your family may consume throughout the summer? What about the 100 kg of meat you may consume during the year? What about the 15000$ car you just bought- and the gas required to run it- and the insurance you need to purchase. These things have extraordinary impacts on the economy- and these are all results of the actions of a single individual.
3) Our power is tax payers
This one doesn't need too much explaining- and it might not refer to those of us who are currently impoverished students. But people who have a steady salary will pay taxes on it- and these taxes are essential to the budget of your government. So, in this sense, the government depends on YOU for its very existence.
4) Our power over our environment
Every single action has an impact on our environment. By individual life choices, we can help make our world greener- or more polluted. You may think we have little power to revolutionise the world. And perhaps this is partially right. However, in this respect, we do have extraordinary power to improve the state of our environment. I have written about this substantially. One person's decision to eat 150g of meat or less (instead of the average 350 g), has far-reaching implications. This saves over 50kg of meat per year! Think of the impact on the "meat farms" (euphemism), and the butcher shops. That's just if one person kept consumption to 150 g / day. The amount almost doubles if they chose to go vegetarian. And what if 2 or 3 peopel do this? 3 million? Or what if the same person chooses not to drive, or chooses to drive a hybrid vehicle? Or decreasing your electricity consumption? Or refusing to use disposable dishes? There is SO much that each of us could do as individuals that if we only do half of what we could the impact would be enormous.
5) The power of relationships
This may also sound cliché, but every single relationship we have changes the world. The impact can range from getting married, having children, and influencing the world directly through your children. After all, you never know whether or not you will give birth to a great person. But even on more platonic relationships. We may underestimate the impact these have. It's like a chain reaction. I think of my good friends. Individuals who have invested some of their time and engery in caring about me, and in spending time with me. I think of them and how they've influenced me to become the person I am right now. This isn't to say that I seek to become a clone of my friends. Instead, of my best friends, I might say that there is a little bit of each of them in me. Any subsequent friendships I may make will therefore involve the original influence of my good friends.
We may undervalue the power of friendships. I've heard stories of people on the brink of suicide not going through with it because someone reached it. Or people who were otherwise underacheivers were motivated to succeed by none other than good friends. I know that if it weren't for some very good friends of my own, I would never have gone to Mae Sot, and if I had never gone to Mae Sot, I would not be who I am right now.
This may seem convoluted. That is because it is convuluted. What's important to grasp is that we all have extraordinary power to change the worlds just based in our interaction with individuals. This is most amazing thing for me. I often think of myself as living in a bit of a bubble. I don't realise the impact I may have on other people. I wish and long to influence other people, but since people rarely acknowledge any specific actions, I am often led to believe that my life has little impact. That said, to me, I can't think of a single thing that makes me happier than having the power to make someone else's life in some way better. It's an amazing thing really.
6) The power of ambition.
There is one last way we can change the world- directly. I wrote an entry some time ago on ambition. http://rliamo144.blogspot.com/2008/05/on-ambition-15-january-2007.html Many of us have grandiose and pie in the sky dreams. Granted, most of us will never realise these dreams. For those of us who don,t realise these dreams, these dreams are still important because they guide us in a "beneficial direction". And as I said in that other entry, ambition can (and often does) inspire people around you. But, more importantly for this entry, dreams occasionally are realised. With a lot of ambition, a lot of hard work, and a lot of luck, you or me might become the next great person. Maybe president of the US? Maybe the next Bill Gates? Maybe the next William Shakespeare? Think of how much you can change the world then!
Conclusion:
So what's the main message of this entry? We should appreciate just how much power we have to change the world, in almost every decision we make. As voters, consumers, tax payers, friends, neighbours, and dreamers. We change the world in many direct or indirect ways. Let's all appreciate this great power..... and use it responsibly!!!
What does it mean to be responsible? This could be argued, but this is my opinion. First of all, let's aim for a green earth and a sustainable society. Secondly, let's aim for a tolerant, benign, and effective government. Let's aim for coroporate responsibility and improved quality of consumer goods. Let's aim for future generations (our chlidren) to be responsible and contributing members of our world. Let's aim to see the best in everyone and to inspire them. Let's aim to do our share to improve the lives of our brothers/neighbours/fellow human beings. Let's aim to innovate and revolutionise our world.
There's no excuses. We all have control over ourselves and our actions. Use your power to its fullest!
Friday, August 8, 2008
On meat-eating
Back in December, I wrote what I consider to be a pretty good entry on vegetarianism: http://rliamo144.blogspot.com/2008/05/vegetarians-vegans-and-carnivores.html. In it, I wrote that this is hardly the most important issue. I should revise this statement a little bit: it is an incredibly important issue. What can be more important than what we put into our body. Food has a tremendous impact in our lives, so I think we should think quite a lot about it. In this entry, I'm going to write some new ideas about the issue of meat eating. Although this article will provide different insights, my argument will be the same: I believe the ideal diet pattern is one which involves a moderate consumption of healthy meats.
Part I: Reasons not to eat meat
1) Eating meat is immoral?
Many people believe that eating the flesh of dead animals is immoral. I don't believe this, and this issue does not really play a role in my analysis. I think there is nothing wrong with eating the flesh of another dead organism- humans have been doing it for thousands of years, and almost all animals do it. I don't believe animals have "souls" despite our constant efforts to personify some of them.
2) Animals are currently bred inhumanely?
I won't suggest that I'm a fan of current practices of meat production, but it isn't so much because I sympathise with the "plight" of the animals. I'm sorry to say that I really don't. I'm much more concerned about the millions of humans that still live in deep hunger, abject poverty, and a state of bondage. What bothers me is the impact on the quality of meat. I believe that man was intended to eat meat- but meat of animals that walked around, and ate normal food. Chickens, cows, and pigs that remain stationary throughout their entire short-lived lives will not yield the same quality meat. More importantly, we are eating whatever they ate. Specifically, we consumer exactly 10% of the energy that they initially consumed. Cows normally eat grass. Can anyone see a nutritional difference between eating a grass-fed cow and a cow fed feces, or whatever they end up eating in these slaughterhouses? Meat today is not natural, nor is it extraordinarily healthy.
3) Eating meat is environmentally and oecologically unsustainable.
I'm not going to write more about this, as I already covered it quite a bit in my last entry.
4) Popular conceptions of daily protein requirements may be greatly skewed.
Do a google search for how much protein we are supposed to be eating per day. Answers range from 1-2 g/ kg body weight, to 2-3 if youre a body builder. More official sites, such as the World Health Organisation, and most governmental health departments, have recommendations closer to 0.8 g / kg.
Let me put this in perspective. Let's consider an average adult man, who weighs 70 k, which is roughly 160 lbs. Going by the bodybuilder recommendation, he should eat over 160 g of protein, being conservative (that's 1 g / lb, or 2.2 g / kg). Mainstream guides would say about 100 g, while the WHO is closer to just 60 g.
What should we believe? Well, if you want to be a body builder, then you should surely eat more protein- the 1g / lb rule might not be inaccurate. However, is bodybuilding particularly healthy or natural? In most instances, I believe it isn't (however much we may admire people who have built up their bodies). Not only is it unnatural, but its horribly unsustainable. Think about how much food it takes to get 160 g of protein PER DAY. Furthermore, it is suggested that too much protein can harm our health.
Considering that lower estimates come from more reputable sources, and that vegetarians rarely suffer from a lack of protein, I'd be inclied to believe that our requirements are closer to 0.8 g / kg of body weight. 60 g of protein per day is more more reasonable than you might think.
5) There are some good non-meat sources of protein.
Most meats contain between 25-30% protein. It is also a "complete" protein. You can't really debate that meat is the best source of protein.
But it's not the only source. Eggs are believed to have the highest quality protein, and each egg is usually 6-7 g of protein. That means 2 eggs in a day is already 13 g of protein. A warning- a lot of people believe that the egg white is the only healthy part of the egg- this couldn't be farther from the truth. Not only does the yolk contain half of the egg's protein content, but also ALL of its bountiful vitamins and minerals- so if you toss the yolk, you are making a BIG mistake, unless you suffer from high cholesterol.
Nuts (eg, cashews, etc) and peanuts are also typically about 25% protein. Surprised? This means that peanuts actually have the same amount of protein per weight as meat. The catch? Nuts are typically about 50% fats (although they are "healthy fats"). So while 100 g of nuts may provide 25 g of protein, it also provides 50g of fats, which is an awful lot.
Beans and lentils are another great source of protein, and other nutrients. Most beans are near 20% protein, and lentils are closer to 25%, which, again, rivals that of meat. They often have more iron than beef. The catch? For people watching their weight, all beans are high in carbs (but super low in fats!). The bigger concern for me is that it's very challenging (but not impossible) to make them taste good.
Most grains are 10-15% protein. Whole wheat _______ is always better than white _________. So, while it is lower than meat, and is an "incomplete protein", grains do provide something towards your protein requirement.
Dairy is also a great source of protein. Cheese is usually around 30% protein, although also 30% fat.
6) Meat is expensive!
One factor that I think is overlooked is the cost of meat. Meat is a luxury, and a student living on a strict budget has to consider this. Simple math reveals how impractical it can be to eat meat. Chicken breast often goes for $16/kg in my grocery store. Beef and pork are typically cheaper- maybe $10/kg, but they are much less healthy than chicken. Beans and lentils typically go for maybe $3/kg, and have the same content of protein. Peanuts are even cheaper and also have the same protein content. If we assume that most grains have half the protein of meats, they still usually cost less than half of the price of meat- certainly compared to chicken. The point in all this: nutritionally, we buy meat for its protein value, which we can get for cheaper in non-meat sources.
Part II: Reasons we shouldn't all rush to become vegetarian
1) Not all proteins are created equal
Earlier, I talked about a lot of different alternative sources of protein. But, with everyone there was some sort of disadvantage. None of them, except for eggs and dairy, are "complete proteins". OF course, meats are no longer the perfect protein source, with all the unhealhty toxins you consume along with the protein.
2) Not just protein- meat has other important nutrients.
Although mostly every essential nutrient can be found in some plant product, or at the very least dairy/eggs. I believe there is one B vitamin which is ONLY found in animal products, and vegans need to take suppliments in other to get it.
3) Eating meat is part of a more flexible lifestyle.
Let me clarify. Vegetarians eat vegetables. Meat-eaters eat vegetables AND meat. In theory, there is nothing that a vegetarian eats that a meat-eater would not eat. This is important in travelling, or when being entertained by someone. A meat eater never has to be worried about awkwardness due to not being able to eat a meal prepared for him. A meat eater doesn't have to make special accomodations in other countries with different dietary patterns. Perhaps most importantly, the meat eater is able to maximise the expereince of gastronomy. There are so many dishes and combinations of different foods that are just delicious. MAny a nation has its own sophisticated culinary tradition, and there are many different meals that are worth trying. The vegetarian is only able to try a fraction of this, whlie the meat eater can try them all. In this sense, the vegetarian is missing out in a huge part of life- experiencing the overwheming variety of food.
4) Meat tastes good.
When all else fails, the simple fact is: meat tastes good. Obviously, not everyone believes this, but enough people do. Meat requires so much less effort than other foods. You can roast a chicken in an oven with nothing more than salt, pepper, and maybe a little butter or olive oil, and it will be very tasty. Can you do the same with lentils? As much as I actually have come to like lentils, you need to work on them for them to be palatable. So while it's important to be responsible for what we put into our bodies, our lives our finite, and food is such a big part of it. We should make every meal pleasurable, and we shouldn'T sacrifice taste- at least not all the time.
Part III: a compromise
In almost all aspects of my life, I like to keep all doors open for as long as possible. It is for this reason that, despite many compelling arguments for a vegetarian lifestyle, that I will probably never give up meat. However, meat-consumption should be responsible. The average American eats closer to 400 g per day, and many other industrialsed nations are close to that. I think our daily intake should be closer to 100-150 g per day (or like 180/ day, 6 days out of 7). This is also confirmed by any official health organisation.
You might ask: does this provide enough protein. Let's go back to our example of the 70 kg man. Assume he eats 150 g of meat per day. At about 25% protein, thats near 40 g of protein in meat. Add in 1 egg (@ 6 g protein), 150 g bread (about 18 g protein), 2 servings dairy (about 16 g protein), and he's already well over his recommendation- and that's NOT a lot of food!
So, my recommendation is not to eat meat, it is to eat less. Your taste buds will still be happy, but your wallet, body, and planet will be even happier!
Part I: Reasons not to eat meat
1) Eating meat is immoral?
Many people believe that eating the flesh of dead animals is immoral. I don't believe this, and this issue does not really play a role in my analysis. I think there is nothing wrong with eating the flesh of another dead organism- humans have been doing it for thousands of years, and almost all animals do it. I don't believe animals have "souls" despite our constant efforts to personify some of them.
2) Animals are currently bred inhumanely?
I won't suggest that I'm a fan of current practices of meat production, but it isn't so much because I sympathise with the "plight" of the animals. I'm sorry to say that I really don't. I'm much more concerned about the millions of humans that still live in deep hunger, abject poverty, and a state of bondage. What bothers me is the impact on the quality of meat. I believe that man was intended to eat meat- but meat of animals that walked around, and ate normal food. Chickens, cows, and pigs that remain stationary throughout their entire short-lived lives will not yield the same quality meat. More importantly, we are eating whatever they ate. Specifically, we consumer exactly 10% of the energy that they initially consumed. Cows normally eat grass. Can anyone see a nutritional difference between eating a grass-fed cow and a cow fed feces, or whatever they end up eating in these slaughterhouses? Meat today is not natural, nor is it extraordinarily healthy.
3) Eating meat is environmentally and oecologically unsustainable.
I'm not going to write more about this, as I already covered it quite a bit in my last entry.
4) Popular conceptions of daily protein requirements may be greatly skewed.
Do a google search for how much protein we are supposed to be eating per day. Answers range from 1-2 g/ kg body weight, to 2-3 if youre a body builder. More official sites, such as the World Health Organisation, and most governmental health departments, have recommendations closer to 0.8 g / kg.
Let me put this in perspective. Let's consider an average adult man, who weighs 70 k, which is roughly 160 lbs. Going by the bodybuilder recommendation, he should eat over 160 g of protein, being conservative (that's 1 g / lb, or 2.2 g / kg). Mainstream guides would say about 100 g, while the WHO is closer to just 60 g.
What should we believe? Well, if you want to be a body builder, then you should surely eat more protein- the 1g / lb rule might not be inaccurate. However, is bodybuilding particularly healthy or natural? In most instances, I believe it isn't (however much we may admire people who have built up their bodies). Not only is it unnatural, but its horribly unsustainable. Think about how much food it takes to get 160 g of protein PER DAY. Furthermore, it is suggested that too much protein can harm our health.
Considering that lower estimates come from more reputable sources, and that vegetarians rarely suffer from a lack of protein, I'd be inclied to believe that our requirements are closer to 0.8 g / kg of body weight. 60 g of protein per day is more more reasonable than you might think.
5) There are some good non-meat sources of protein.
Most meats contain between 25-30% protein. It is also a "complete" protein. You can't really debate that meat is the best source of protein.
But it's not the only source. Eggs are believed to have the highest quality protein, and each egg is usually 6-7 g of protein. That means 2 eggs in a day is already 13 g of protein. A warning- a lot of people believe that the egg white is the only healthy part of the egg- this couldn't be farther from the truth. Not only does the yolk contain half of the egg's protein content, but also ALL of its bountiful vitamins and minerals- so if you toss the yolk, you are making a BIG mistake, unless you suffer from high cholesterol.
Nuts (eg, cashews, etc) and peanuts are also typically about 25% protein. Surprised? This means that peanuts actually have the same amount of protein per weight as meat. The catch? Nuts are typically about 50% fats (although they are "healthy fats"). So while 100 g of nuts may provide 25 g of protein, it also provides 50g of fats, which is an awful lot.
Beans and lentils are another great source of protein, and other nutrients. Most beans are near 20% protein, and lentils are closer to 25%, which, again, rivals that of meat. They often have more iron than beef. The catch? For people watching their weight, all beans are high in carbs (but super low in fats!). The bigger concern for me is that it's very challenging (but not impossible) to make them taste good.
Most grains are 10-15% protein. Whole wheat _______ is always better than white _________. So, while it is lower than meat, and is an "incomplete protein", grains do provide something towards your protein requirement.
Dairy is also a great source of protein. Cheese is usually around 30% protein, although also 30% fat.
6) Meat is expensive!
One factor that I think is overlooked is the cost of meat. Meat is a luxury, and a student living on a strict budget has to consider this. Simple math reveals how impractical it can be to eat meat. Chicken breast often goes for $16/kg in my grocery store. Beef and pork are typically cheaper- maybe $10/kg, but they are much less healthy than chicken. Beans and lentils typically go for maybe $3/kg, and have the same content of protein. Peanuts are even cheaper and also have the same protein content. If we assume that most grains have half the protein of meats, they still usually cost less than half of the price of meat- certainly compared to chicken. The point in all this: nutritionally, we buy meat for its protein value, which we can get for cheaper in non-meat sources.
Part II: Reasons we shouldn't all rush to become vegetarian
1) Not all proteins are created equal
Earlier, I talked about a lot of different alternative sources of protein. But, with everyone there was some sort of disadvantage. None of them, except for eggs and dairy, are "complete proteins". OF course, meats are no longer the perfect protein source, with all the unhealhty toxins you consume along with the protein.
2) Not just protein- meat has other important nutrients.
Although mostly every essential nutrient can be found in some plant product, or at the very least dairy/eggs. I believe there is one B vitamin which is ONLY found in animal products, and vegans need to take suppliments in other to get it.
3) Eating meat is part of a more flexible lifestyle.
Let me clarify. Vegetarians eat vegetables. Meat-eaters eat vegetables AND meat. In theory, there is nothing that a vegetarian eats that a meat-eater would not eat. This is important in travelling, or when being entertained by someone. A meat eater never has to be worried about awkwardness due to not being able to eat a meal prepared for him. A meat eater doesn't have to make special accomodations in other countries with different dietary patterns. Perhaps most importantly, the meat eater is able to maximise the expereince of gastronomy. There are so many dishes and combinations of different foods that are just delicious. MAny a nation has its own sophisticated culinary tradition, and there are many different meals that are worth trying. The vegetarian is only able to try a fraction of this, whlie the meat eater can try them all. In this sense, the vegetarian is missing out in a huge part of life- experiencing the overwheming variety of food.
4) Meat tastes good.
When all else fails, the simple fact is: meat tastes good. Obviously, not everyone believes this, but enough people do. Meat requires so much less effort than other foods. You can roast a chicken in an oven with nothing more than salt, pepper, and maybe a little butter or olive oil, and it will be very tasty. Can you do the same with lentils? As much as I actually have come to like lentils, you need to work on them for them to be palatable. So while it's important to be responsible for what we put into our bodies, our lives our finite, and food is such a big part of it. We should make every meal pleasurable, and we shouldn'T sacrifice taste- at least not all the time.
Part III: a compromise
In almost all aspects of my life, I like to keep all doors open for as long as possible. It is for this reason that, despite many compelling arguments for a vegetarian lifestyle, that I will probably never give up meat. However, meat-consumption should be responsible. The average American eats closer to 400 g per day, and many other industrialsed nations are close to that. I think our daily intake should be closer to 100-150 g per day (or like 180/ day, 6 days out of 7). This is also confirmed by any official health organisation.
You might ask: does this provide enough protein. Let's go back to our example of the 70 kg man. Assume he eats 150 g of meat per day. At about 25% protein, thats near 40 g of protein in meat. Add in 1 egg (@ 6 g protein), 150 g bread (about 18 g protein), 2 servings dairy (about 16 g protein), and he's already well over his recommendation- and that's NOT a lot of food!
So, my recommendation is not to eat meat, it is to eat less. Your taste buds will still be happy, but your wallet, body, and planet will be even happier!
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Trying to understand my feelings towards my country
For a long time, especially after arriving in Canada, I felt completely divorced from my identity as an American. After all, I was just one of many Americans embrassed of my country.
Sometime between first arriving in Canada (in 2005), and today (2008), my feelings have changed somewhat. This is probably in large part due to what I wrote about in my last entry- specifically, my realisation that in many parts of the world, especially outside the West, Americans aren't as hated as we may think. Sure, everyone hates the government, but most intelligent people are able to distinguish the people from the government. Another contributing factor to my acceptance of my own American identity is the realisation that Canada really isn't a much different or better place.
So, I like America now, right? It's not that simple. My feelings are quite complex. The simplest way I could explain how I feel is this: I like Americans, but not America.
What does that mean? Well, firstly, and this should go without saying, but I don't like the current government. In fact, I can't think of an American presidential administration that I can truly regard with pride. As much as people like to laud Clinton, his administration was flawed, and his foreign policy was riddled with much of the arrogance that plagues Mr. Bush and his cronies. The US also has a shameful history. That said, what country is without some "skelatons" in their "closet"? What country has a truly "good" government? The bottom line is that an entire country shouldn't be judged on the basis of its government.
So, if I can separate America from its government, then why do I still "dislike" America? I don't know if "dislike" is the right word. The better way to express this is that I have no desire to live in America. The first reason for this is that, having grown up there, I see the US as uninspiring and unexotic. I guess this could happen to anyone with his mother country. But I see something greatly unendearing, even culturally impoverished, when I look at the North American social landscape. This, again, is something I've written about before. It's possible that the only reason I feel this way is because, as I've said, the US is "unexotic" to me. Or it's possible that North America is simply a culturally impoverished wasteland. Either way, to me it's uninspiring.
The second reason I desire not to live in the US? This is where it gets touchy. Many Americans living in the US (more on the opposite later) irk me. Not all, of course. But I feel trapped when I'm around people who have never left the country, and have no interest in doing so. I feel trapped when these same people feel liek they know whats right for people in countries they know nothing about- and probably haven't even heard of. I feel uncomfortable when people want to create a society based on overly literal if archaic interpretations of a 2000 yr old text, which leads to bigotry and intolerence. Of course, there are many Americans that are not like this. But the reality is, many more are. Even if not all Americans are bible thumping jesus freaks, far too many are frighteningly ignorant, yet set in their ways.
Things look pretty bleak, eh? Not totally. As I've already said, I currently have pretty much no desire to live in the US- at least not in the near future. Yet, I'm no longer ashamed to be American. Why is this? Well, for all the bad things America and its governments have done, there are also many good things. The US is one of the most generous countries on the planet; and it is also home to the most opportunities. It's a world leader in sports, entertainment, and almost every aspect of pop culture. It's a country that pretty much everybody recognises, and its a country that many many people admire.
This point aside, I find it somewhat satisfying when I meet Americans living abroad. I feel like they aren't like the stereotypical Americans I described above. Maybe some of them are- but any American willing to live abroad will inherently be more worldly than the average American. And I guess I feel like there is a strange, inexplicable bond. I know I felt it the most when I met the American missionaries in Mae Sot- pretty much the only Americans I met while I was there. There's no way I can easily explain this without being overly general and politically incorrect.
After reading this entry (if you've made it this far), you're probably left with a feeling of complete confusion. That's exactly what I feel! If I could summarise everything, I would say this: I am proud to be an American expatriate. This means that, while I don't approve of my government, I will continue to vote and participate in my country's democratic system. This means that while I don't find my country an interesting place to live, it can be an interesting place to visit and offers a lot to the open minded tourist. This means that while I have little urge to move back to the US, I will not abandon my American identity. This means that while I don't like many of the ignorant people in my country, I enjoy Americans open-minded enough to discover their world. This means I'm proud to be American, but I would by no means call myself a staunch patriot. I am proud to be an American expatriate.
Sometime between first arriving in Canada (in 2005), and today (2008), my feelings have changed somewhat. This is probably in large part due to what I wrote about in my last entry- specifically, my realisation that in many parts of the world, especially outside the West, Americans aren't as hated as we may think. Sure, everyone hates the government, but most intelligent people are able to distinguish the people from the government. Another contributing factor to my acceptance of my own American identity is the realisation that Canada really isn't a much different or better place.
So, I like America now, right? It's not that simple. My feelings are quite complex. The simplest way I could explain how I feel is this: I like Americans, but not America.
What does that mean? Well, firstly, and this should go without saying, but I don't like the current government. In fact, I can't think of an American presidential administration that I can truly regard with pride. As much as people like to laud Clinton, his administration was flawed, and his foreign policy was riddled with much of the arrogance that plagues Mr. Bush and his cronies. The US also has a shameful history. That said, what country is without some "skelatons" in their "closet"? What country has a truly "good" government? The bottom line is that an entire country shouldn't be judged on the basis of its government.
So, if I can separate America from its government, then why do I still "dislike" America? I don't know if "dislike" is the right word. The better way to express this is that I have no desire to live in America. The first reason for this is that, having grown up there, I see the US as uninspiring and unexotic. I guess this could happen to anyone with his mother country. But I see something greatly unendearing, even culturally impoverished, when I look at the North American social landscape. This, again, is something I've written about before. It's possible that the only reason I feel this way is because, as I've said, the US is "unexotic" to me. Or it's possible that North America is simply a culturally impoverished wasteland. Either way, to me it's uninspiring.
The second reason I desire not to live in the US? This is where it gets touchy. Many Americans living in the US (more on the opposite later) irk me. Not all, of course. But I feel trapped when I'm around people who have never left the country, and have no interest in doing so. I feel trapped when these same people feel liek they know whats right for people in countries they know nothing about- and probably haven't even heard of. I feel uncomfortable when people want to create a society based on overly literal if archaic interpretations of a 2000 yr old text, which leads to bigotry and intolerence. Of course, there are many Americans that are not like this. But the reality is, many more are. Even if not all Americans are bible thumping jesus freaks, far too many are frighteningly ignorant, yet set in their ways.
Things look pretty bleak, eh? Not totally. As I've already said, I currently have pretty much no desire to live in the US- at least not in the near future. Yet, I'm no longer ashamed to be American. Why is this? Well, for all the bad things America and its governments have done, there are also many good things. The US is one of the most generous countries on the planet; and it is also home to the most opportunities. It's a world leader in sports, entertainment, and almost every aspect of pop culture. It's a country that pretty much everybody recognises, and its a country that many many people admire.
This point aside, I find it somewhat satisfying when I meet Americans living abroad. I feel like they aren't like the stereotypical Americans I described above. Maybe some of them are- but any American willing to live abroad will inherently be more worldly than the average American. And I guess I feel like there is a strange, inexplicable bond. I know I felt it the most when I met the American missionaries in Mae Sot- pretty much the only Americans I met while I was there. There's no way I can easily explain this without being overly general and politically incorrect.
After reading this entry (if you've made it this far), you're probably left with a feeling of complete confusion. That's exactly what I feel! If I could summarise everything, I would say this: I am proud to be an American expatriate. This means that, while I don't approve of my government, I will continue to vote and participate in my country's democratic system. This means that while I don't find my country an interesting place to live, it can be an interesting place to visit and offers a lot to the open minded tourist. This means that while I have little urge to move back to the US, I will not abandon my American identity. This means that while I don't like many of the ignorant people in my country, I enjoy Americans open-minded enough to discover their world. This means I'm proud to be American, but I would by no means call myself a staunch patriot. I am proud to be an American expatriate.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
How are Americans seen abroad
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)