Opinions Vary

Media: Is it Good or Bad?

2006-11-16T15:54:00.000-08:00

We are living in a world of media over-exposure; indeed, the media informs us everyday about what’s going worldwide without almost any effort, always by pushing a button on our television or on the radio or with a simple click on Internet.

This side of media sounds good, but if we look at it more closely, we rapidly observe that the media can encourage risky behaviors and can manipulate our spirit if we are not a critical. Indeed, this dangerous side will affect the weakest, so precisely children, who build their thoughts and creativity everyday.

That’s why many intellectuals but also teachers and parents were made activists and militate for an awakening of the influence of the media.

So our aim in this topic is to make the pro and against concerning the role of the media and show where is the good and the bad part on its influence.

Provide links please

2006-11-11T21:08:00.000-08:00

This form of media is popular because you can back up your statements with easily verifiable "links." Your posts need to provide more links. Cite evidence to support your arguments, and provide links to that evidence. Feel free to refer to others who have written about these issues by linking to their writing. Links allow us to judge for ourselves and think in a critical way. Expressing your opinion is fine, but it won't carry much weight if we can't see where you are coming from.

A comment on Media

2006-11-11T13:38:00.001-08:00

I would like to talk about media, but more precisely about the influence of media on people. More specifically, I will take the example of the Iraq war because of the documentary we watched last time. Therefore, I will focus on the impact and drawbacks of TV.

At first, I was deeply against the war. I also demonstrated in Paris, such as millions of people throughout the world, just before the war finally started (against the UN agreement).

After that, we can simply watch at the news to know what is going on in Iraq. That is where we have to trust media…

I mean by media, any kind of source of information available: TV, radio, newspapers, internet...

To be honest, I first realized the real power of media during that war, and more precisely the power and huge influence of TV. Why TV? Because everybody watches TV, let alone 99% of people.
In my opinion, you have to compare lots of sources of information to be able to say, “Now, I am informed”. Unfortunately, nobody really has the time to do so. That is why TV is the main source of information because it is the easiest way to get the information. It is maybe the easiest, but certainly not the more accurate way to get it.

During that war, and even nowadays in 2006, I am still amazed to see so many differences and so many points of view, so much ignorance about that war. The reason is TV channel did not give the same and not always the good information.

Because I was very concerned about that war, I watched the news, of course on French TV, but I was also following the US news on FOX, CNN and on others public channels. I wanted to have a wide panel of channels to be able to compare the information efficiently.
My point of view is that the information has to be given in a very neutral way, without any change from the original version or without any personal point of view (of the channel). I was very disappointed to observe that information on TV quickly became misinformation, and even manipulation. I really think of FOX while I am making that point. That is not the only example, but to me, it represents the most obvious. Moreover, I really think it helped, and continues helping the government to hold on during that war because they were using the information at their advantage. I especially think of the randomly shootout in Iraqi villages (to help liberalizing the Iraqi people?), the “effort” made to hide the daily act of torture toward Iraqi prisoners or also minimizing American human losses. I was really choked to see so much misinformation. As I said just above, this is manipulation.
So how can we trust those kinds of TV channels? Personally, I simply decided to stop watching at FOX for instance (which is not the only one). I really think it is disgusting to manipulate million of people at will, just to be credible and not to lose the following election…

[I repeat myself: "If you want to discuss issues about America with Americans, at least get your facts straight before telling us how everything we do is wrong. Making statements that are blatantly false is just embarrassing; if you just make stuff up because it “feels” right, then the person on the other side of the discussion will discount your opinions and quickly lose interest." At least provide the source for your information particularly when making a statement of fact. By the way, this is torture (en français). The people who did the panties on the head thing at Abu Grahib are in jail where they belong. That is the difference - if an American does it, he/she is punished. If a terrorist does it, he's rewarded. Every major newspaper and television news source headlined the Abu Grahib story and pictures for no less than three months. How is this hiding anything? They don't hide it, they dwell on it and intensify it! (If you want a good example of suppressed news, see this story. I'm pretty sure it happened because hundreds of people have written about it online, but it has not been reported by any major news sourse.) "Daily torture" as you say is what "al Qaeda in Iraq" does, not to mention decapitation, driving car-bombs into crowds of childred, booby-trapping toys, booby-trapping bodies, etc, etc. Also, I am wondering... can you even watch FoxNews in France? On what specifically are you basing your opinion? -Wagner]

Does the UN still have a legitimate role?

2006-11-07T22:00:00.000-08:00

We plan to engage our audience in a lively debate over this very question by splitting into two groups:

Younnès and Erwan : agree that the UN has a legitimate role. Their task is to convince us of the positive aspects of the UN and advocate ways in which the organization ought to be strengthened.

Michael and Cédric : argue against the legitimacy of the UN. This group is out to convince the public that the UN is wasteful, corrupt, ineffective, and should perhaps be abolished.

Arguments are to focus on two essential UN goals :
- To maintain peace and international security.
- To promote international cooperation in areas useful to world progress.

In our debate we plan to address whether:

-to grant the UN an independent, career military force and the means to sustain such a force.
-voting power at the UN should be a function of economic might rather than population or WWII alignment.
-the UN's legitimacy has changed due to specific events over the past 60 years.

Because the anti-UN group took the time to post this, we'd like to get our audience interested with the following bit of polling data on American attitudes from a Luntz Maslansky survey which concluded on Sept. 5th 2006.

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/HudsonPoll_UNfinal.pdf :

France has not been a world power for almost a century. They shouldn’t be a permanent member of the Security Council – holding a powerful veto over world and American interests.

51% AGREE
30% STRONGLY AGREE
21% SOMEWHAT AGREE
44% DISAGREE
25% SOMEWHAT DISAGREE
19% STRONGLY DISAGREE
5% DON’T KNOW/REFUSED

Immigration

2006-11-06T16:55:00.000-08:00

We will be discussing immigration policy using four general possible points of view. Each of us will pick one point of view and argue both for and against that policy.

I will be looking at the "open-borders" view, which essentially argues that human beings should be allowed to move freely between countries without restrictions. In my analysis I will also be looking at the effect of social welfare programs on this sort of policy, as well as the different motivations that drive people to immigrate (to work vs. to collect welfare).

The second type of policy would be one where the government delineates a set of standard minimum requirements and anyone who meets those requirements would be allowed to immigrate. Requirements may include things like a minimum education level, clean criminal background, etc.

The third type of policy would be one where the government actually selects those who it wants to immigrate. For example the government may decide that it only wants to let in people with graduate degrees, or perhaps only those from a particular field, such as medicine.

The fourth type of policy is one that allows no immigration whatsoever. A current example of a country with this type of policy is North Korea. The analysis of this view will probably include a discussion of the type of government that prefers this sort of immigration policy.

That's what we have so far, but we will update with our four analyses shortly!

Update on Education

2006-11-04T21:51:00.000-08:00

Thank you all for your input, I would like to add my pesonal comments about the eduactional system here in the United States. I may not know a lot about the school system in France, but I have a little knowledge about the system here in America. Yes, it is true that most American students are heavily into sports. Students are interested in sport because it is fun and very athletic. Sport is also a game of leisure. Athletes in America who play professionally are paid large sums of money and are not required to have a college degree. I think a year or two ago, the NBA decided to set an age limit on the drafting procss of students into the NBA. The minimum age limit was 19 years old, or the person had to be in his last year of high school. That is, this person should at least have a high school diploma before joining the NBA. Teams in the NBA do draft players out of high schools. Here are examples to back up my claim: “When the NBA and the players’ association hit on a new collective bargaining agreement Tuesday, part of the deal was setting a minimum-age limit for the draft which ends the exodus of prep players directly to the NBA. Before, players were eligible when their high school class graduated. Now players must be at least 19 by draft night and they must wait at least one year until after their high school class graduates (so, technically, some players could be in the NBA at 18 if they graduated high school at 17).” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8305294/ ; & “When NBA owners and the NBA Players Association meet this summer to hammer out a new NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement, NBA commissioner David Stern is expected to push through a new age limit on players looking to enter the NBA. That limit is anticipated to be 20 years and older OR two years since the player's class graduated high school -- whichever comes first. The current agreement allows American players to declare themselves for the NBA Draft in the year that their high school class graduates and allows International players to declare provided they turn 18 by the night of that year's Draft.” http://probasketball.about.com/od/nbadraft/i/nbaagelimit.htm
Can you imagine making millions right out of high school, just by playing sports? Is there anything better or easier then that? Is the purpose of going to school not to make money? I believe that could be one of the many reasons American students do concentrate strongly on sports. It is an easy way out!! However, there are some professional athletes who do earn college degrees while playing in the NBA, or playing other professional sports. An example of such person is Scottie Pippen. He earned his bachelor's degree from University of Central Arkansas in the field of kinesiology. Therefore, I believe going to college or attending Universities is a personal and family choice. It is true there are no guarantees that when a student graduates from college, he or she would get a job. Neither are there guarantees that if a student plays sports, he or she would get drafted. But, it is true, that if and when a student graduates, he or she would definitely pay back the loan taken to attend college or the university (unless the student had a scholarship, or, his or her parents could afford to send him or her to school). On the other hand, from what I have gathered, education in France is free to all? In that case isn’t it expected that all students do go to high school, and continue on with higher educations? Here in America, it is mandatory that students go to school from first grade to high school. This form of education is free. Some parents who can afford to, send their children to private school. Private schools have access to some of the best educational systems and trainings available. Sadly, majority of the public school systems do not have access to such information. This does not mean public school teacher are not trying their best to teach their students; it only means the public school teachers may not have access to the best information possible to help their students achieve better grades. An example backing this claim comes from an episode taken from the Oprah Winfrey’s show earlier this year. Student from a private school in Chicago swapped school for a day with students from a public school in Chicago. The experiences were entirely different for both sets of students. Here is a clip from the Oprah show: “When they arrived at Harper, the students from Neuqua Valley were shocked immediately by the difference between Harper and their own school. For starters, students have to enter Harper through a metal detector. They have a pool at Neuqua Valley, but the Harper pool hasn't been filled with water in a decade. The Neuqua Valley students have an award-winning music department, while Harper doesn't have enough instruments for a music class and relies on improvised instruments—like banging on desks.”
http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200604/20060411/slide_20060411_284_104.jhtml
Another example is from Jonathan Kozol, an advocate for education for children, “Education is taken for granted in modern American society. If a child cannot afford to attend a private or parochial school, which are generally seen as better than the alternative, then they go to public school. The assumption is made, because of compulsory attendance laws, and the societal emphasis on childhood learning, no matter what, a child is getting an education.”
http://www.learntoquestion.com/seevak/groups/2002/sites/kozol/Seevak02/html/edad-open.htm
I think this is why the school voucher system came into place. Even though the voucher system is very controversial, it allows parents to choose which school (public or private) system or neighborhood school they want their children to attend. There are others who disagree with the voucher system. These people, including me, feel that the school system should be fixed across the board. Every student should have equal opportunity to all educational information available. Certain school should not be privileged to certain information, while others are not. Children should not be taken from the poor neighborhoods into rich neighborhoods to attend school. All educational system should be the same across the board regardless of the geographical locations. Unfortunately, this is not the case for all school systems in America.
Some students who attend public schools do not have access to grants or scholarship information for colleges or universities. Unlike students in private schools who have wealth of information at their fingertip. Therefore, the “easy way out” becomes the only solution. The decision for students to play sports, become a singer, a rapper or even decide to go, or not to go to school, again, I believe is a person, or family choice. Thank you,
Tuwe

Use spell-check!

2006-11-02T22:20:00.000-08:00

These are not email notes to your friends back home. Other students and faculty will see this. Please, ~~click on the little blue check-mark icon in your edit window~~ from now on, edit your text using a program like Word and use the grammar-check feature.

EDUCATION

2006-11-01T13:42:00.000-08:00

Our topic is Education : We have started discussed it ! I hope everyone will contribute with its own ideas!
here are our first ideas!

Thank you all for your input. But I would like to add, even though there are lots of differences between the France and the American school system, here are some reasons why I feel there is:

I may not have lots of knowledge about the school system in France, but I have a little knowledge of the system here in America. Yes, it is true that most of the students here in the American school system focus on sports then in the French school system. Sport is important because it is fun and very athletic. Also, it is a game of leisure. Plus, the players are paid large sum of money. I think it was years ago when players were even require to at least having a high school diploma before qualifying for the big league or at least before playing pro football or basket ball. But most of the teams do get their players from high schools. [Not true. Besides Tracy McGrady and Lebron James, name one professional athlete who was drafted straight out of an American high school. -Wagner]

Anyway,I really do believe that going to college or attending Universities is a personal and family choice. It is true that there are no guaranteed that when a person graduates from college, he or she would get a job. Neither is it guaranteed that if a student plays sports, he or she world get a contract. But, it is true that if, and when he or she graduates, he or she would definitely pay back the loan taken to attend college or the university. Unless the student had a scholarship or parents could afford to send him or her to school.

On the other hand, from what I have gathered, education in France is free to all? Therefore it is expected that if not all, but most high school graduates continue on with higher educations?

Here in America, it is maandatory that students go to school from 1st to high school. That form of education is free. Some of the parents, who can afford to, send their children to private school. Private school system sometimes means that those boys and girls do have access to some of the best educational systems and training available. That does not mean that public school teacher are not trying their best to teach their students, it only means the teachers may not have access to the best information possible to help their students achieve better grades. That is why the School voucher system came into place. Even though this is very controversial, it allows the parents to choose which school (public or private) system or neighborhood they want to send their kids to. Although others disagree with this, because they think that the system should be fixed and every student should have equal opportunity to all of the information available. They think that kids should not be taken from the poor neighborhood and taken to the rich neighborhood to attend school should be the same across the board. That I agree with, unfortunately, the system is not set that way. Therefore, other kids do not have access to the scholarship information available to those in private schools or rich neighborhood. [Private school teachers here in Turlock make half of what public school teachers make. And no, they do not have better resources at all. There is, however, more parent involvement in school activities in private schools than there is in public schools. - Wagner] The choice is to play sports, or try to become a singer, rapper or even decide to, or not to go to school at all, again is a person choice. [So, you're saying that learning Math or English aren't viable options? - Wagner]
Here is a quote I will leave you all with. “A pure voucher system would only [...give hope to children all over the country currently stuck in failed schools... -Wagner] encourage economic, racial, ethnic, and religious stratification in our society. America’s success has been built on our ability to unify our diverse populations.” http://www.nea.org
Tuwe

I do not know if talking about the differnce in education in France and in the US is enough...Because there are many difference (more than sports! :-))American students can wait later to choose only one field of study Foreign langages are not mandatory and are taught later. There are less hours of course in a week- ...

But the importance of education is also really different! In France whatever you experience you will always say I am graduated from that business school! Even when you are 50, the first thing you say is not your current position but the fact that you are from that school. In the US I think working experience and the way you do your job is more important than the study you have done... In France, it is not the case...

Another point is: What the place of education in the economy of a country? France is really specific in the way that the government spend more for primary and secondary school (per pupils) than it spends per students for university !!But the place of education in government budget is still really high... I do not know which place it occurs in the US budget! I think it is still important to link the education subject to an economic context! And maybe also we can enlarge the subject to other countries...(education in China, in other european countries, in developping countries, /.... ) Is education must be or not a priority for developping countries? How can they do to finance it? On which level must government focus? Another stuff is that in France professional education (to make kind of manual job) is not well seen... Is it the same in the us ??
Geraldine

Thanks rudy for having begun the topic. I agree with you that in the American system, sports tends to take a huge place . All what you have is good, Rudy. I just would like to add that without sports, a significant part of student won't afford to go to good universities (thank you, scholarship). Another problem is that where is the barriers ? Because, firms sponsorized a lot those teams! Here in Turlock they are fast foods or pizerria but think about larger universities like Stanford, UCLA, MIT...I don't think that they are only sponsorised by local businesses but rather by corporations [Why would you think that? -Wagner]...but isn't it the same as playing as a professional? Though it is college sports!
[College athletes are not paid. There are rules against that. If a university paid its atletes, it would be banned from competition. -Wagner]
And also I would like to point out as differences, the fact you don't have to pay a lot to attend French universities. Though there is more and more business school that ask a lot for tuitions .

But in France paying a lot doesn't necessarily mean that you will pay for good education! Here it seems that the higher you pay, the better is the education! It is true that in France we don't have all those activities ( housing, trips, free foods, campus...) that they offer. At the same time, are we willing to pay for them? If the housing price still goes up in Paris, I will!!! Another difference is taht most of the professors in France are professional not teacher so that they take on their take on their free time to teach! Is that a good things? I think yesand no, because we don't only have the theory but sometime some practical example taken from their personal experiences. Though, since teaching is not their first job, thime toey don't often take tudents! Ihe time to talk and know the stt is really impersonal! The professor seems to be inaccessible and sometimes don't even know the name of its student! He delegates a lot to the TA.
Noro

Concerning the debate about Education, I propose that we point out the main differences between the educational systems of USA and France, and try to say why we think such aspect is a good think or not …

I personally point out a big difference concerning the place of sport in US education. Indeed, Sport actively takes part of the American student life,with, according to me, all the positive following points:- Concerning the community, it helps to develop the ‘team spirit’ and feeling of membership which is very valuable for students’ success - Concerning the individual, it inculcates values of respect, defeats,challenges …

But of course, some negatives aspects occur:-If Sport has a so important role today in American education, it is partially because of the possibility to raise money easily as compared to the French system: Indeed events in US are often sponsorised by junky food brands with negative impacts on students’ health. In France, advertisement is banned to public education.- Moreover, I recently read a surprising data: less than 1% of thebest sportive students will become professional after university career!That is to say, 99% have sacrificed so much for their passion (at detrimentof ourses) for few things at the end …
Rudy
[Sarcrificed? They got a college education that they would not have been able to afford without the scholarship, plus they got to do something they enjoy doing. How is this a sacrifice? I've always been jealous of those with athletic scholarships. I wish I had had one! I would have loved to play college football!!!
In general, you all are making way too much out of sports in education. 99% of College students do not play collegiate sports. -Wagner]

Things you should know when doing business in a foreign country

2006-09-13T06:04:00.000-07:00

In the comments section, please tell us something that a person would want to know when doing business in a certain country so as not to accidentally offend those you are trying to do business with or embarrass oneself. I had given an example in class, that in Middle Eastern countries it is considered rude to show the sole of your shoe.

I am an American and so I am most familiar with American customs, though most of them I probably follow without even realizing that people in other parts of the world do things differently. So here is my example of an American custom that people from other countries might want to take into account when negotiating business, though most Americans probably haven’t thought about it: When people talk to each other, they have a comfort zone, like a personal space. If you stand too far away, then one might think that you don’t like him or her. If you stand too close, they will feel uncomfortable and instinctively step back. One might even move back a bit without realizing it, and one might feel defensive without realizing it. The American comfort zone, safe talking distance, may be found as follows: Extend your right arm straight out in front of you and give the “thumbs-up” sign. Now turn your thumb so that it points left. Now imagine someone’s head situated just so that your thumb is in that other person’s ear. That is a safe talking distance for most Americans. Other cultures have different comfort zones. Latinos and Asians tend to stand a bit closer to those they are conversing with, for example.

Now it’s your turn. Leave your examples of “things you should know when doing business abroad” in the comments, and feel free to comment and expand upon others’ comments.

Do Daddies Matter?

2006-06-19T21:25:00.000-07:00

In general, I and other posters will avoid copying and pasting more than a few lines from quoted articles, but I am making an exception here. The following was shamelessly copied from this article:

According to the CDC, DoJ, DHHS and the Bureau of the Census, the 30 percent of children who live apart from their fathers will account for 63 percent of teen suicides, 70 percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions, 71 percent of high-school dropouts, 75 percent of children in chemical-abuse centers, 80 percent of rapists, 85 percent of youths in prison, and 85 percent of children who exhibit behavioral disorders. In addition, 90 percent of homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. In fact, children born to unwed mothers are 10 times more likely to live in poverty as children with fathers in the home.

"[The causal link between fatherless children and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime," notes social researcher Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, adds, "[The absence of fathers] from family life is surely the most socially consequential family trend of our era."

Words of Wisdom

2006-02-18T01:35:00.000-08:00

Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.

What's the speed of dark?

Light travels faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.

The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese in the trap.

He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

Remember, half the people you know are below average.

On the other hand, you have different fingers.

A day without sunshine is like...night.

Just remember - if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.

Life isn't like a box of chocolates.... it's more like a jar of Jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your butt tomorrow.

Solidarity? What solidarity?

2006-02-14T23:00:00.000-08:00

Denmark has been left by the rest of Europe to twist in the wind. It is being spit upon by what I thought were civilized nations. I am disgusted with the governments of the west (including my own) for not standing behind Denmark 100%.
"Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech. There is no but." Without free speech and expression, we have only tyranny.

Oh - and Happy Valentine's Day.

Fat Tax take II

2006-01-16T07:17:00.000-08:00

A message from France. I've been in Paris for a month now and have made several observations comparing cultures and lifestyles. The one thing that has caught my attention more than anything else is the French appreciation to the food and it's ambiance. The food, even similar dishes comparable to America, tastes much different. It's more real, more genuine. It's not superficial and loaded with perservatives. People pride themselves with food here and I've seen only 2 or 3 "overweight" individuals. (1 that spoke english very well, so sue me for interpreting that he was American).
I wish that all Americans could experience this cultural difference and realize how their mistreatment is due to narrow scoped food corporations, the marketing, and the common ignorance of the American family.

Another note to Americans, French people drink like fishes...don't blame your obesity on alcohol. French people can drink you under the table.

This blog is in response of the article The Fat Tax: A Controversial Tool in War Against Obesity

If there were capitalism everywhere then we wouldn't have food shortages

2006-01-04T14:14:00.000-08:00

(Click the preceding table for details.) As they do every year, the index authors observe the average per capita income of countries in each category. Over the years, they have consistently found a strong, positive correlation between economic freedom and prosperity. I just have one question: When is the last time a capitalist democracy suffered from a famine?

Moral Consequences of Economic Growth

2005-12-28T02:22:00.000-08:00

Though Christmas is over, I'm adding this book to my wish-list. A review from Publishers Weekly reads:

This probing study argues that, far from fostering rapacious materialism, economic growth is a prerequisite for the creation of a liberal, open society. Harvard economist Friedman, author of Day of Reckoning: The Consequences of American Economic Policy in the 1980s, contends that periods of robust economic growth, in which most people see their circumstances palpably improving, foster tolerance, democracy and generous public support for the disadvantaged. Economic stagnation and insecurity, by contrast, usher in distrust, retrenchment and reaction, as well as a tightfisted callousness toward the poor and—from the nativism of 19th-century Populists to the white supremacist movement of the 1980s—a scapegoating of immigrants and minorities. Exploring two centuries of historical evidence, from income and unemployment data to period novels, Friedman elucidates connections between economic conditions, social attitudes and public policy throughout the world. He offers a nuanced defense of globalization against claims that it promotes inequality and, less convincingly, remains optimistic that technology will resolve the conflicts between continual growth and environmental degradation.

If someone is productive and expecting to be rewarded for that productivity, does that make him/her materialistic in your mind? If someone prefers more wealth to less, does that make him or her immoral?

PREVIOUS: On Economic Inequality and the U.S. Government

The $100 Laptop

2005-12-27T21:48:00.000-08:00

Regarding economic development ideas for third world nations and reducing poverty: This site has some nice pictures of the $100 laptop computer being developed by MIT and Quanta Computer of Taiwan for children in third-world countries.

Joyeux Noël

2005-12-25T09:52:00.000-08:00

I may not be able to say it right, but at least I can spell it.

Another Fake Headline

2005-12-15T11:04:00.000-08:00

From AFP: "Bush defends Iraq war, says he will attack another nation if necessary"

The article is about a speech that US President Bush gave yesterday. I actually watched the speech in question on C-Span, and Mr. Bush never said what the AFP is reporting he said. Of course, he did not say that he would "not" attack another nation if necessary, either. Jacques Chirac didn't say that he would not attack another nation, so should we conclude that Jacques is a warmongering cowboy? Who writes these headlines, anyway?

Why I dislike the UN

2005-12-10T09:20:00.000-08:00

Two words – Rwandan Genocide:

The Rwandan Genocide was the slaughter of an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus by a group of Hutu extremists known as Interahamwe during a period of 100 days in 1994.
For many, the Rwandan Genocide stands out as historically significant not only because of the sheer number of people that were murdered in such a short period of time, but also because of the way many Western countries responded to the atrocities. Despite intelligence provided before the killing began, and international news media coverage reflecting the true scale of violence as the genocide unfolded, virtually all first-world countries declined to intervene. The United Nations refused to authorize its peacekeeping operation in Rwanda at the time to take action to bring the killing to a halt. Despite numerous requests by Canadian General Roméo Dallaire the UN peacekeepers on the ground were forbidden from engaging the militias or even discharging their weapons. In the weeks prior to the attacks the UN ignored reports of Hutu militias amassing weapons and rejected plans for a pre-emptive interdiction. This failure to act became the focus of bitter recriminations towards individual policymakers specifically, such as Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh, as well as the United Nations and countries such as France and the United States more generally and President Clinton specifically. Clinton was kept informed on a daily basis by his closest advisors and by the U.S. Embassy of Rwanda. Clinton was also advised by others close to him to "stay out of Rwanda" because of the possible political backlash similar to that which occurred just a year earlier in a failed attempt to help the country of Somalia in the Battle of Mogadishu.

And to add insult to injury, Joseph Gérard Maurice Baril, Military Advisor to the United Nations Secretary-General and head of the Military Division of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations of the United Nations at the time of the Rwandan genocide advised that the UN take No action in Rwanda. The result was the slaughter of almost a million people. Talk about poor judgment! He is now a "Judge" - surprise surprise. In 2002, he led the Canadian board of inquiry into the "friendly fire" incident in Afghanistan on April 17, 2002. That's right. Murderers with machetes chopping innocent people into pieces 'couldn't be stopped' and almost a million die, but 4 Canadians die, in what everyone agrees is an accident, and Joseph Gérard Maurice Baril convenes a "board of inquiry."

And don't even get me started on Darfur.

More on Socialized Medicine

2005-12-09T08:12:00.000-08:00

I just came across this chart:
Can someone explain for me why people in countries with socialized medicine aren't living longer than those in the U.S.?

PREVIOUS: On Socialized Medicine

If I were King of the USA for a day, I would...

2005-12-07T20:36:00.000-08:00

Institute tort reform in medicine. (This would reduce insurance premiums and increase access to medical care.)

Withdraw from NATO and the UN.

Auction off the UN building and use the proceeds to pay down the national debt.

Establish a commission to locate programs with waste and fraud and cut such programs. Get rid of the DEA, DoE, DoT, and ATF. (I thought alcohol, tobacco and firearms were legal.) Let the individual states handle their own drug, transportation and energy issues.

Get rid of the CIA and replace it with something less political.

Prohibit all judicial judgments from being swayed by foreign laws. Order reversal of Supreme Court rulings like Roe v. Wade (leave abortion up to the states, but ban late-term abortions, require parental-notification for minors except in cases of child abuse, and require husband notification except in cases of spouse abuse), Casey v. Planned Parenthood (husbands should have reproductive rights, too!), Roper v. Simmons, and Kelo v. New London (the state should not be allowed to take property from one person and give it to another, more politically connected person).

Remove the words "and general Welfare" from Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Repeal the 16th, 17th, and 23rd Amendments.

Remove the words, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," from the 2nd Amendment.

Eliminate most restrictions on nuclear power production and make fusion research a priority (i.e., fund it).

Build a space elevator.

Force bankrupt companies to sell their assets to pay contractual obligations to their employees. Promising pension benefits and then not delivering is not acceptable.

Require that every public government document be stored in an open-source format.

Require that the Navy release John Kerry's full military record, confirming or denying what many think includes a dishonorable discharge followed by a replacement honorable discharge granted after former President Carter's general pardon.

Institute playoffs in college football.

Privatize Social Security.

Mandate school vouchers for private school equal to the per-pupil funding for public schools. (I think that more competition in the market for education would improve the product.)

Increase subsidies to the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) program - who says negative interest rates can't happen?

Punish individuals who fail to take reasonable steps to verify whether employees are legal residents of the United States, and create a system to help them in such a verification process.

Secure the borders.

Protect unborn human beings just as other human beings are protected.

Abolish the death penalty. (It's more expensive than life in prison anyway.)

Mandate life in prison without parole for child molestation, kidnapping, violent rape or first degree murder.

Require that no Congressional district be of a geometric shape with more than seven sides. (Have you ever seen California's Congressional district map? Yikes!)

Replace the existing income tax system with a 10% flat tax, or replace the federal income tax with a federal sales tax (exempting food and residential housing), or better yet just tax total wealth (which would increase total tax revenue even if only a small percentage of wealth were taxed). If it were possible to maintain basic government functions (i.e., protect citizens' rights and enforce contracts) without taxation, then I would eliminate taxes altogether.

Require a super-majority to raise taxes.

Prohibit government legislators from hiring accountants to do their taxes for them. If it's too complex for the Senator to figure out, then he/she has no business imposing his/her loopy tax loopholes on the rest of us.

Abolish the death tax.

Require that welfare be only for the destitute and that it not be a permanent subsidy but only for emergency situations. (This goes for corporate welfare as well as individual welfare.)

Make Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" required reading for high school graduation.

Students would be required to pass a basic Finance class to graduate from high school. Many of the most important decisions they will make in their adult lives will be financial decisions, yet most people have no clue how to make such decisions.

QUESTION: What would you do if you were King (or Queen) for a day?

Rebuilding the South

2005-12-06T12:17:00.000-08:00

I have seen a stream of media coverage lately on "rebuilding the hurricane zone." The way that it is currently being presented in the media is horrific. I just heard on CNN news that "these people are building shelters and new homes in New Orleans and they don't even know if these structures will make it past the next hurricane season. I seems as if the media is comparing these people to the old story of the people who kept rebuiding their home on the river and it kept getting washed away year after year. Maybe it's not the most intellegent place to rebuild... who can argue with that? The problem I have is that these people have lost their homes, all their resources and some of them even lost their families. If they had the opportunity to build a home in California, they probably would. Instead, they are left with little more than the aid that America is providing for them. Maybe they recieved aid money to rebuild in the same location? Who knows... but the media portrayed these people as dumb. Haven't these people lost enough already? Why should their pride be next?

Sarbanes-Oxley: too much of a good thing?

2005-11-30T19:18:00.000-08:00

Is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 one of the reasons why an increasing number of companies are opting to go private? When Georgia Pacific (GP ; S&P investment rank, 3 STARS; recent price, $47) CEO Pete Corell attributed his willingness to sell to a private company in part because of what he viewed as onerous regulations like those contained within Sarbanes-Oxley (popularly known as SOX), the news set off market speculation about whether other public companies would follow suit.
How real is this threat? And what does it mean for investors? Standard & Poor's Chief Economist David Wyss believes SOX is a factor in the recent wave of privatizations, but a relatively minor one. He does, however, think the legislation makes it even harder to be a public company, which creates another incentive for outfits to stay or go private. "Most of the issue is, I think, transitional. Once companies learn to operate in the new environment, it should stabilize," Wyss says.
SOX came about as a result of the large corporate financial scandals involving Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Arthur Andersen, and others. Under the law, all publicly traded companies are required to submit an annual report on the effectiveness of their internal-accounting controls to the Securities & Exchange Commission.
A study by law firm Foley & Lardner found that all the costs associated with being a big public company (i.e., annual revenues of $1 billion or more) averaged $14.3 million in 2004, up 45% from the year before, due largely to the requirements of SOX. The study also found that fees paid to outside auditors have continued to increase by double-digit percentages year over year since the enactment of SOX in 2002, with a dramatic increase experienced in 2004. Foley & Lardner attribute this increase to substantial costs associated with the financial control audits required under Section 404 of SOX.

After the cars, the ladies

2005-11-30T02:20:00.000-08:00

It looks like everything sets on fire in the suburbs of Paris. For the past couple of months, they were known for burning cars. Did you know they also burn ladies? Yes, you just read the right word. On november 13th, in Neuilly-sur-marne, Chahrazad Belayni was attacked in front of her building by a young ( pakistani ) man who sprinkled gasoline on the lady and set her on fire. Burnt to 60%, the 18 years old lady, has been put in an artificial coma to keep her away from suffering. The young man had met the lady a little while ago, she gave him her phone number but he started to act funny. This sunday, on november 13th, he showed up at Chahrazad Belayni’s parent appartement and ask her father if he could marry her. Because she did not want to be part of the man’s life, he decided she should not be able to live anymore. So he set her on fire.

I say ladies because another young lady escaped being set on fire in early november in Noisy-le-Grand. In Ricamarie, the same week end on november 6th, a women was set on fire in a bus in the middle of the afternoon.

Some do not escape though. 17 years old Sohane Benziane was also sprinkled with gasoline by a young man in front of her building, was set on fire and died on october 4th 2002. After her funerals, two commemorative stones were dispayed where the young lady “burnt”. One said “In the memory of Sohane, hoping that girls and boys will live together in equality and respect”. The other one said the same thing with a few extra words: “Died burned alive”. And like this is not enough, the second stone with the extra words was distroyed and had to be replaced.

Why are the media more busy talking about cars burning than about human beings being burnt? What happened to young men that made them punish ladies by burning them? I guess there is something I do not understand. Machism is part of french culture but this is way beyond machism. I relate those crimes to middle-age when women were set on fire when they did something “bad” or should I say something a man did not like. I think these crimes are a real threat to human rights and democracy. When Sohane died, I really thought it will make people aware of what domestic violences are. I thought justice would be made. Sohane’s attacker’s trial won’t take place untill next year. Why does it take four years to have this man going to court when there is at least a dozen of teenagers that witnessed the scene? And why did it take three years to have these three words “Died burnt alive” being legally written on the stone? Even if it does not show a good image of the city, mayors should be more concern with their citizens security than by their reputations. When will we all, men and women, be able to live in respect of one another?

Is Truth Subjective?

2005-11-27T09:57:00.000-08:00

Someone just told me, "Truth is relative." I disagreed. Though it is subject to interpretation, truth, I argued, by its definition is universal. Yes, two people can observe the same event and come away swearing that they saw two different things, but that does not convince me that two different events happened.

Many well-educated, intelligent people strongly contend that there is no such thing as objective fact. I don't buy it. Would you trust an engineer or an architect who denies the law of gravity, or insists that yards and meters are the same?

The news media in particular seem to believe that truth is relative. They frequently report what selected individuals say about a subject without relating what is said to objective truth. They frequently present one side of a story without acknowledging that another side even exists. They cite polls: "Do you think Michael Jackson is guilty? Do you think Scott Peterson killed his wife and unborn son?" The results of such polls tell us nothing. They have no bearing on the guilt or innocence of people like Michael Jackson or Scott Peterson. All such polls do is emphasize that perception and reality are two different things, but the way the TV news media emphasize the results of their polls, you would think that perception is what shapes reality, not the other way around.

Perhaps this is a consequence of the news industry being heavily influenced by an entertainment industry that specializes in translating imagination into reality. (You're right - I was just looking for an excuse to post that link. Click it!)

Open thread on Global Warming

2005-11-25T09:38:00.000-08:00

Here is a clip featuring Triumph the Insult Comic Dog interviewing some Republican congressmen about global warming. Click it!

I'll concede that global warming exists, on Mars, but I am not convinced that it is a threat to human existence. Is this a political or social issue? Not so much in the United States as far as I can tell, but it does seem to be a political and social issue in other parts of the world.

Blaming hurricanes on global warming seems particularly disingenuous to me. Why do you think the University of Miami's teams are called the Hurricanes?

''People like to embrace global warming because it gives them a scapegoat,'' Goldenberg said. 'They say, `This is not normal. It's some kind of weird thing that's all the government's fault,' instead of saying, 'Hey, guys, this is normal. We're stuck in the hurricanes' path, and that's just the way it is.' ''

Ever since the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 in early 2001 against ratification of the Kyoto treaty, that word, "scapegoat," has become more and more relevant to the global warming debate.

UPDATE: I just can't resist posting a link to this related article: "War on climate change targets flatulent cows." *Snicker*

Open thread on U.S. Foreign Policy: Middle East

2005-11-25T08:44:00.000-08:00

First item, some recent news about the negotiations between the EU and Iran:

VIENNA, Austria - The European Union accused Iran on Thursday of having documents that show how to make nuclear warheads and joined the United States in warning Tehran it faced referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

Question: If little or no progress is made after years of negotiations, is it still worth the effort to continue trying to negotiate? As I follow this particular soap opera, I am reminded of a line from Monty Python's The Holy Grail:"

Now go away, or I will taunt you a second time.

In my view any nation, including Iran, has the right to make any decision they perceive to be in their own national interests, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences of those decisions. The same is true of individuals. Iran has "the right" to develop nuclear energy, but U.S. Foreign Policy is that an Iran with nuclear weapons is not acceptable. That is just the way it is, for now. Without making a judgment about this policy, I can observe that this policy is based upon U.S. security interests.

Second item:

King Abdullah [of Jordan] said the new cabinet's mission would be "to wage all-out war against extremist groups and their ideology," in a message to Bakhit. "This requires the urgent introduction of an anti-terrorist law."

It seems like the old phrase, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," seems an appropriate cliché now as it was in prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

And speaking of Iraq, the third item is to open the debate on this "elephant in the room" (as promised). A brief history of the War with Iraq and the events leading up to it may be found here. The text of the 10/11/02 resolution passed by both houses of U.S. Congress authorizing the use of force in Iraq may be found here.

If I had to summarize the reasons for the U.S. military being in Iraq, they would be as follows:

To remove Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein and his government administration after twelve years of defying the 1991 cease-fire accord and noncompliance to 17 U.N. resolutions.

Account for WMD that Saddam had.

To transform Iraq into a stable, prefereably democratic nation that can defend itself against its neighbors and deny transit for terrorists.

No, I don't think it was for oil or money. If you are going to be intellectually honest, you would at least have to concede that Iraq was perceived as a threat to the U.S., and a case can be made that Iraq was invaded for security reasons - at least that country's government won't be actively trying to kill Americans. (I'm probably the only academic you will hear make this argument, but if you lived in the U.S. before 2003 and paid attention at all, you would have noticed Saddam making threats to "destroy America" and Iraq firing on U.S. jets enforcing the U.N imposed "no-fly zones" almost every day.) Bosnia, Kosovo, Panama, and Vietnam on the other hand had very little if anything to do with the safety of American citizens. U.S. and European military forces are still occupying Kosovo.

Logically, you can have one of four differing positions - ok, maybe six differing positions on this issue:

1) The U.S. should not have invaded Iraq and the U.S. military should leave Iraq immediately.

2) The U.S. should not have invaded Iraq, but it did so the U.S. military should stay and finish its mission.

3) The U.S. was right to invade Iraq, but now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, the U.S. military should withdraw.

4) The U.S. was right to invade Iraq, and the U.S. military should stay and finish its mission.

5) It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong to invade Iraq. All that matters is what happens from this point into the future. American forces should stay in Iraq until it is no longer a haven for terrorists.

6) It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong to invade Iraq. All that matters is what happens from this point into the future. Iraq has become a ralying point for terrorists; the American soldiers there are just targets for violence; the U.S. military should leave Iraq.

Which of these positions do you have? Is there another position on this issue that I missed? Put me down for #5 - kind of the "you broke it - you buy it" policy. I don't care whether it was right or wrong to invade Iraq given 20/20 hindsight - that decision was made a long time ago and the invasion itself is a "sunk cost" - what matters is what happens in the future. I can't say the invasion of Iraq was a surprise though. What I don't understand is how the people who thought the U.S. military involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo was a good thing can complain that Iraq was/is a bad thing. Kosovo was and still is a mess.

I found the following in the comments section of a post at "The Astute Blogger" about the riots in France which, in a nutshell, sums up the current debate. I submit it merely as a reference point, without judgment:

Ghost Dansing: His policies have turned Iraq into a breeder reactor for terrorism that will continue to produce radicalized, miltarily trained and motivated terrorists capable of actions abroad, for years!

Robert Crawford: We've killed at least 40,000 terrorists in Iraq. That's not a "breeder reactor", it's a Roach Motel.

You may be thinking that the 40,000 number was just made-up, or that many of those are Iraqi civilians. Well, before you jump to conclusions, look at some analyses of civilian casualties. Actually, I am having trouble finding a source for that 40,000 figure, but after much searching I did find this article which puts the number at about 50,000 "insurgents killed or captured since the insurgency began after the invasion in 2003." Nice ratio - about 25 to 1! I wonder why our news media feed us daily tallies of how many Americans have died but never report how many "al-Qaeda in Iraq," "foreign fighters," and other "insurgents" have died.

I keep hearing people saying, "Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists." Well, that is just silly. Of course Saddam sponsored terroists.

A [2004] study from the Hudson Institute details how Saddam provided money, support and shelter to a league of extraordinary terrorists. Abdul Rahman Yasin, the chemist for the first World Trade Center bombing, was given sanctuary in Baghdad after his U.S. indictment. Abu Nidal, the terrorist mastermind who killed hundreds including 10 Americans, lived in Baghdad from 1999 until he was murdered in 2002. Abu Abbas, the architect of the Achille Lauro hijacking that resulted in the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, was captured in Baghdad by U.S. forces. The list goes on and on...

Not to mention he openly supported suicide bombings and paid $25,000 apiece to suicide bombers' families as incentive. I think the argument is that Saddam did not sponsor al-Qaeda. Ok, then if Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, why did al-Qaeda feel the need to attack Spain, one of America's coalition partners? If Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, why is there an "al-Qaeda in Iraq" blowing up children, chopping off heads, and assassinating Saddam's prosecution lawyers?

Other Iraq War related pieces are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and there are thousands of other relevant links. I would be interested in a post which organizes such links by category.

UPDATE: (12/5/05) The IAEA chairman Muhammad El Baradei said that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb. The diplomatic window for this standoff appears to be closing. Military resolution could come soon.

PREVIOUS: Opposition to US Foreign Policy

Open thread on Immigration

2005-11-19T18:55:00.000-08:00

I'll restart this discussion with an article in today's WSJ titled, Kiss the Melting Pot Goodbye:

Immigration works only if immigrants come to feel like full participants in our society, with all the rights, responsibilities and opportunities enjoyed by others, no matter how long they've been here. Developed gradually, partly by accident and partly by design, this approach to social integration is based as much in tradition as in law. But a key element is birthright citizenship -- in practice for whites since the nation's founding, and codified for all in the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

Newcomers put down roots and invest all-out in their lives here because they know their children will be guaranteed full membership. And children, knowing they have a secure place and a shot at the same opportunities as all other young people, feel entitled to aspire to the nation's highest pinnacles of success.

Things are different in Europe. No European nation grants birthright citizenship to the offspring of its immigrants. And largely as a consequence, no European nation has succeeded in giving second-generation newcomers the sense that they truly belong, and are fully entitled participants in the economy, the body politic and mainstream society.

The article was criticizing discussion in the House of Representatives about abolishing birthright citizenship in the U.S. Sometimes it seems like our representatives in Washington D.C. are completely disconnected from the rest of the country - ending birthright citizenship would be sheer lunacy (in my opinion). It would make those words etched on the Statue of Liberty sound hollow:

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

All Americans, even "Native American" Indians, are descended from immigrants. (Indians’ ancestors migrated from Asia.) To my knowledge, the vast majority of Americans welcome legal immigrants with open arms; I am not aware of any major non-bureaucratic problems, social or otherwise, due to legal immigration or legal immigrants (other than the supply of visas being so much lower than demand). The problem people in the U.S. are really worried about is illegal immigration – people crossing the US northern and southern borders illegally, by the millions, sometimes with criminal intent. People have become so frustrated with our government for not enforcing immigration laws that private citizens have begun watching the borders themselves and alerting the federal broder patrol authorities when they spot people coming across the Mexican or Canadian border. If you want to investigate current U.S. immigration issues, there are many sources of information - even weblogs, like this one devoted entirely to U.S. immigration concerns.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that this issue has received increased attention since 9/11/01 due to the threat, and the reality, of terrorists crossing our borders with intent to commit mass-murder.

UPDATE 2: From the Wall Street Journal,

Are We Losing the Global Race for Talent?
By DEVESH KAPUR and JOHN MCHALE
November 21, 2005; Page A17

Other industrialized countries recognize the importance of human capital for economic growth, and they have ratcheted up recruitment of the world's mobile talent. Meanwhile, the U.S., the undisputed leader in attracting global talent, has erected barriers for skilled migrants and watches passively as they stay home or go elsewhere.

UPDATE 3: Maybe we should follow France's example (seriously):

Authorities will better enforce requirements that immigrants seeking 10-year residency permits or French citizenship must master the French language and integrate into society, Mr. de Villepin said.
France also will implement a stricter screening process for foreign students and plans to crack down on fraudulent marriages that some immigrants use to obtain residency, he said.

Enforce existing immigration laws? What a novel idea!

PREVIOUS: Is this an immigration issue?

Open thread on capitalism & communism

2005-11-18T10:55:00.000-08:00

I am a capitalist inasmuch as I believe that every individual has a right to his or her own property. This should be obvious from my previous posts. It is hard for me to imagine how asset markets could exist without ownership rights. But as a starting point for the discussion I will try, this time, to present a coherent argument for communism as I understand it:

Let’s just say for example that John is starving and James has some food. John asks James to feed him, but James says, "I will not give you any of my food unless you wash my car." To a capitalist that might sound like a reasonable trade, but to a communist that would not be “fair” – it would be coercion because, according to the communist’s view of property, the food belongs to all persons in need of it and James is in effect stealing food from John by not allowing him to eat it without first washing James’ car. A communist would consider this "oppression" or "blackmail," because James’ behavior is equivalent to taking food away from a starving man.

Open thread on U.S. foreign policy: Asia

2005-11-18T09:07:00.000-08:00

A good place to start a discussion of U.S. foreign policy would be the speech President Bush gave in Kyoto, Japan on Wednesday. Here is an excerpt:

"Freedom is the basis of our growing ties to other nations in the region. And in the 21st century, freedom is the destiny of every man, woman and child ...

Here in Japan, Prime Minister Koizumi has shown leadership by pushing critical reforms to open your economy and make Japan's institutions more responsive to the needs of its people. The Prime Minister knows that nations grow in wealth and stature when they trust in the wisdom and talents of their people and that lesson is now spreading all across this great region.

Freedom is the bedrock of America's friendship with Japan and it is the bedrock of our engagement with Asia. As a Pacific nation, America is drawn by trade and values and history to be a part of the future of this region. The extraordinary economic growth of the Pacific Rim has opened new possibilities for progress and it has raised new challenges that affect us all. These challenges include working for free and fair trade, protecting our people from new threats..."

See also: "Bush's Asia Strategy." Here's an excerpt:

Mr. Bush was of course talking about more than economic freedom in Kyoto. He was suggesting that the democratic world will retain its suspicions of China until the party loosens its tight grip on the behavior of the Chinese people: "As the people of China grow in prosperity, their demands for political freedom will grow as well. . . . By meeting the legitimate demands of its citizens for freedom and openness, China's leaders can help their country grow into a modern, prosperous and confident nation."

In short, Mr. Bush on this swing through Asia has been sending the message that the U.S. wishes China well but that Beijing will not earn trust from the world until it takes steps to grant its people their rights of free expression and the protection of law. It was a reminder that, while China is pressing its claim to great power status, it won't be accepted by the world's democracies until it makes democratic reforms. Mr. Bush clearly wanted to emphasize that Asia has strong democracies that are more inclined to side with the U.S. than China in any face-off.

When governments derive their power "from the consent of the governed," they are not a threat to the U.S.

PREVIOUS: Opposition to U.S foreign policy

Open thread on energy dependence

2005-11-17T10:38:00.000-08:00

Here's my two cents on the subject:

I think most Americans want to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy for the same reason that they want to maintain some level of agricultural subsidies. Economic integration and interdependence may help stabilize foreign relations, it makes us better off economically, too, but a lack of self-sufficiency can be dangerous. What if an economic war broke out and we couldn’t put gas in our cars or food on our plates? The same is true for individuals – I don’t want to have to rely on someone else for my survival. It's too bad we can't produce more energy - whether it is drilling for oil or building nuclear power plants, today's regulatory environment makes it nearly impossible to produce more energy from within our own national borders. Look to alternative sources of energy you say? Well, there's always a cost. For example, we have thousands of windmills in California producing electricity, but it turns out those windmills are killing birds, including endangered species, by the tens of thousands! Given modern technology, drilling for oil in Alaska's wildlife refuge would not hurt any animals, but it won't happen anytime in the foreseeable future. Just one more example of politicians saying one thing but doing another.

PREVIOUS: On Energy Dependence and the Role of Government

Open thread on entertainment media bias: Do the media producers have an agenda?

2005-11-17T09:50:00.000-08:00

I'll open the discussion with a quote from what I thought was a thoughtful essay on the subject from Frank J.:

"I assume you need writers of both viewpoints and restrain from making contrived events in the episode that support one side or the other. The problem with shows like Boston Legal is they have talented liberal writers who probably assume they know conservatives well enough to write them when, in reality, they to conservatives are like those monkeys to the black obelisk in 2001: A Space Odyssey. And it's disappointing because of the talent involved, but there's a limit to how much my intelligence can be insulted and I still enjoy a show."

Normally Frank J. is just being funny, but in this post he is being serious.

I can't tell you how many times I've watched what would otherwise be an interesting and entertaining TV show (e.g., The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) or movie (e.g., The Stepford Wives) and been disappointed, insulted and sometimes even disgusted by the one-sided treatment of political, social and cultural issues.

On Economic Inequality and the U.S. Government

2005-11-16T17:38:00.000-08:00

Most people would probably agree that the Declaration of Independence has been the most powerful ideological and political force in U.S. history. Nearly all Americans are familiar with the following passage:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

It is my opinion that these words form the very foundation upon which the U.S. as a nation has been built, and that the words quoted above underlie much of what is American, not only politically both in terms of domestic and foreign policy, but economically, socially and culturally as well. Americans believe in those words and what they represent, and that belief is a big part of what makes us Americans.

Let's look closely at these words. First off, the phrase, “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” indicates that what follows in the remainder of that particular sentence is not opinion but fact that is directly observable. If you take those words, “all men are created equal” literally, then they ring true in a way that is incontestable. We were all born as babies. (I am here making the same assumption as our Supreme Court did in 1973, i.e., created = born. In the U.S., unborn human beings do not have the right to life.) We were all created helpless, dependent, and for all practical purposes equal both mentally and physically – I do not think that at birth one could argue that one baby’s brain is superior to another’s, or if you believe in “souls” that one baby’s soul is more pure and innocent than another’s. Some babies do have female reproductive organs while others have male reproductive organs, but otherwise there are no apparent physical differences. I suppose one could argue the point - a mother’s own baby is the most beautiful baby that ever lived in her eyes - but from my perspective it does appear self-evident that we were all born fundamentally equal.

The point is that the founding fathers in 1776 were referring in this statement to human nature, not as they would have it perfected but as it is. All of us face the same world and, given the liberty to choose between them, we would face the same opportunities. (Infants and children have very limited liberties as their parents make most decisions for them, so here I am talking about adults.) I think that the founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence were referring to the way things are when they said that “all men are created equal” rather than asserting a right or entitlement. They were not saying that all individuals have a right to become equal to everyone else in any way, but only that we were created equal.

Unfortunately, equality as the basis for a system of government was not spelled out very well in the Declaration of Independence, nor was it well defined in the Constitution, and as a result the words are often used to argue not for equal opportunities for all, but equal outcomes or equal conditions for all, regardless of one’s efforts, abilities, or the choices one has made in life. Many have taken this idea that, “all men are created equal” and endowed with certain rights, and used it to imply that everyone should be equal, financially at least.

I don’t blame the founding fathers of my country for this – the phrasing of the Declaration of Independence regarding equality among mankind was, most likely, necessary to get the southern colonies to sign on since their economic wellbeing relied heavily on slave ownership – but this ambiguity was bad in that it allowed the concept of equal opportunity to become one alleging a right to equal living conditions and even equally valid moral principles, even if one set of principles contradicts another. Everyone wants to believe that he or she is as good as everyone else, but the fact is that some people are better at some things than other people, and the fact is that some belief systems match reality better than others, some decision criteria have consistently better outcomes than others, and I could go on. Egalitarianism has become more and more politically correct whether the framework is equality of moral principles, culture, or social acceptance, but this essay primarily focuses on how the concept of economic equality has shaped modern society, on what the founding fathers actually intended when they created the Declaration of Independence, and draws a line of distinction between “equal opportunities” and “equal outcomes.”

One thing that both northern and southern colonists did agree on was a profound respect for property rights and hard work. This would be evident to anyone who has studied American history. The colonists of 1776 strongly believed that one should be rewarded for one’s effort and individual achievement. This is important because at that time, “pursuit of happiness” meant being able to reach for one’s dreams, to work hard and lay claim to the fruits of one’s labor. Such a claim is not possible without property rights for individuals. But now the original meaning of these words has eroded.

Why is it that when America is attacked on an ideological level it is almost always couched in terms of an attack on free-market capitalism? The Soviets called us, “capitalist pigs,” for example. Why is the businessman despised even more than the government, even when a government institution is usurping the people’s right to govern themselves? This has been true throughout history. And it’s not just that rich people are hated, but only certain rich people – the productive ones, the corporate executives and business people. Celebrities and athletes, like Britney Spears or Michael Jordan are not despised for their wealth, yet Bill Gates is. (Actually, I don’t like Bill Gates, but it has nothing to do with his being the richest man in the country.) Quite the contrary – celebrities are fawned over. It is their popularity that is the source of their wealth. But the inventor of a new vaccine, or the designer of a more efficient engine, they are often treated as if they do not have a right to be wealthier than the rest of us. Why?

I have lots more questions and I would like you, dear reader, to seriously try to answer them: Why is it always a major “problem” that there is economic inequality? And if the gap between rich and poor is wide, how is it the government’s job to fix the problem? How wide is too wide? Is it necessarily a bad thing for one to have more than another? Is it morally wrong? Is it true that if you extend democracy far enough (i.e., one person = one vote) you arrive at socialism? Is this a good thing? If we got rid of economic inequality, would we be rid of envy? Is the object of wealth redistribution to be free of want? Is it possible to be free of want? How can it be harmful to anyone if you are just being productive, being rewarded for your achievement, and accumulating wealth? Does the rich person’s income come at the expense of poor people? Is the reason that I cannot afford to buy a Lamborghini that someone else owns one? Yes, there is great inequality in the distribution of wealth in the U.S., but so what? Who creates the jobs? Who is better off, the poorest 5% of Americans or the poorest 90% of Africans? Does the fact that you answered, “The poorest 5% of Americans,” to that last question mean that Americans are just lucky and Africans unlucky? If so, what is the source of this luck or lack thereof?

(A side-note, and somebody fact-check me here: I think that the African continent has more natural resources in terms of raw materials, metals, minerals, timber, gas & oil than the rest of the world combined, yet the economy of the entire African continent is comparable in size to California's - not that California's economy is small.)

Poverty is simply defined as a lack of wealth. Poverty stricken nations in Africa have received more than half a trillion dollars in humanitarian aid from the U.S. over the past 40 years, much of it from private charities and churches, yet there is more poverty in Africa now than there was in the 1960s. Simply giving poor people money, while self-sacrificing and merciful, does not by itself eliminate the problem. Nobody has less wealth because somebody else has more.

There is great inequality in the distribution of wealth in the U.S.; the N.Y. Times reports this information about once a month and puts it in terms that imply that there is something wrong with our society because of this – that our society is falling apart (it is not, or if it is then that would not be because of disparities in income). A more meaningful and newsworthy statistic, if we are truly concerned with the welfare of the less fortunate, would be the percentage of Americans who are not able to survive given their economic resources. The (low) number of people who live below subsistence level is never reported as “news.”

When I criticize wealth redistribution and social programming, I am not criticizing the giving to people who would not otherwise be able to survive – such redistributions are out of compassion. But the fact is that only a very tiny percentage, maybe 1% of the wealth that is redistributed by our government from one group of people to another actually goes to people who would not otherwise be able to survive. (In this line of reasoning, I am treating Social Security as if it were a pension fund, though an unfunded one, rather than wealth redistribution.) Most wealth redistribution is based, not on compassion, but in my opinion it is based more on envy. And that, if true, is shameful – it is shameful that envy shapes our political culture.

Too harsh? Look at the current situation in Congress. In 2003 tax rates were cut across the board, for rich and poor alike – even those who did not pay taxes prior to 2003 got bigger “refund checks,” they effectively had a more negative tax rate. Everybody got a tax cut. The result we now know was a dramatic increase in tax revenue taken in by the U.S. Treasury, yet the Democrats in Congress have consistently fought against the tax cuts, and even the Republicans in Congress are reluctant to make the 2003 tax cuts permanent. Even knowing that raising tax rates back to pre-2003 levels would decrease the tax revenue collected by the government, these people still want to raise taxes. Why? I think it is because envy shapes our political culture. Because a majority has less and a minority has more, it is in the politicians’ interests to increase taxes on that minority which has more because it seems more fair to the majority group in the voting population, even knowing that total tax revenue would decrease as a direct result – even knowing that the majority group that has less would not be made better off economically. They just ‘feel better’ knowing that the rich and those “evil capitalist-pig” businessmen face higher tax rates. It is not about increasing tax revenue or decreasing the federal budget deficit; it is about reducing economic inequality, even when it benefits no one economically (except politicians).

Politicians are often heard saying that rich people are not paying their fair share. Well, how much is fair? If we take money from the rich by force and give it to the poor, are we increasing the general welfare? Let’s see, if there is a minority of wealthy people and a majority of relatively poor people, then doing this would increase the happiness of the majority of people (assuming that money makes people happy and that there are no other ethical considerations), and the minority of formerly rich people would be made less happy. Voilà – more happy people. Does this make it right? I would argue that this cannot result in an increase in "general welfare" but rather an increase in the welfare of one group at the expense of another. I personally would not want to benefit from the forced sacrifice of another person. I personally find the whole idea repulsive. I’d rather earn my keep. (By the way, Robin Hood did not take from the rich and give to the poor; what he did was he took from the government and gave back to the taxpayers what was rightfully theirs to begin with.)

The U.S. government doesn’t even tax wealth itself anyway. The primary tax paid to the federal government is the income tax, which is not a tax on wealth but a tax on productivity. (There is no federal sales tax, though some states have it. Sales tax would be a tax on consumption.) Income tax is a tax on physical and mental effort. The message our legislature seems to be sending is: “Don’t even bother to try!” Particularly for those whose means of support is a government check, there is a strong disincentive to work, because working and earning money will decrease your government check.

One final point: It seems to me that the primary beneficiary of wealth redistribution programs is the government itself. The freedoms of individuals and how they associate with each other (e.g., business organization) have been heavily restricted over this past century, and our increasingly centralized government has been growing in size, scope and in power to change people’s lives. The fact that this trend has continued into the twenty-first century probably explains why current poll ratings for government officials are so low, both for Congress (both parties and both houses) and the President. This trend makes many people uncomfortable, both here and abroad. Yes, Republicans have a majority in both houses of Congress and they hold the Presidency, but at this point many republican voters are even angrier with our government than those who voted for democrats. Here’s why: When Republican politicians ran for office, they made campaign promises: drill for oil in ANWR so we can be less dependent on foreign oil, fix Social Security, simplify the tax code, make the 2003 tax cuts permanent, make government smaller, etc. These promises have yet to be filled. Particularly since gaining a majority in the Senate in the 2002 elections, Republican politicians have been acting more and more like Democrats. Maybe if these people would actually do what we elected them to do then their poll numbers wouldn't be so low.

UPDATE: The U.N. weighs in on the economic inequality issue:

The "knowledge gap" is a major cause of poverty and is behind almost 60 percent of the giant income disparity between Sub-Saharan African countries and industrialized countries, a U.N. development agency said Wednesday.

Corporate Welfare: unfair government spending programs

2005-11-14T23:10:00.000-08:00

Corporate welfare should be defined as any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries. That includes programs that provide direct grants to businesses, programs that provide research and other services for industries, and programs that provide subsidized loans or insurance to companies. We can also include targeted corporate tax loopholes.
There are more than 100 such corporate subsidy programs in the federal US budget today, with annual expenditures of $65 billion. Terminating those programs could save taxpayers more than $300 billion over the next five years. The list of companies receiving these benefits are all included in the Fortune 500: General Electric, Archer Daniels Midland, Hewlett Packard, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler...
Why should we be against corporate welfare?
1. Corporate Welfare takes a too huge part in the Federal Treasury:
Every year $65 billion of taxpayer money is spent on programs that subsidize businesses.
2. Corporate Welfare creates an unfair relationship between a few wealthy companies and the US government:
The firms and industries that contribute the most to political campaign are the largest recipients of government handouts. Most of these companies are major contributors to congressional and presidential campaigns and also hire lobbyists to protect their subsidies. By giving selected businesses and industries special advantages, corporate subsidies put businesses and industries that are less politically well connected at a disadvantage. As a consequence, the corporate welfare is unfair. Grants are not given because of the economic situation of the firm, but because of the relationship between the government and the company.
In reality, the best thing government can do to promote economic growth is simply to let private entrepreneurs with their own capital at risk determine how the economy’s resources will be directed. That means minimize governmental interference in the marketplace, and reduce the overall cost and regulatory burden of government.

Why social French model is obliged to fail?

2005-11-14T20:26:00.000-08:00

[The] French [political] Model [is] based on equality and solidarity [and] is going to reach its limit. [The French government cannot continue to issue additional debt to support the] social security system anymore. [They are trying to reform or mend the] mutualist retirement system, but it is very difficult. Indeed, how can we [tell] people who have paid retirement for the previous generation to reduce their own expectations.
To support this system, high tax rates are necessary. Moreover, people who pay [for the] welfare of all the others should be convinced [that] there are no free-riders.

That is the key point; in France, some people exploit this system and [divert] it from its first aim which is [to] help people who [are in] need. There are more and more free-riders. As a consequence, [the] intellectual and financial French elite [are] leaving. Numerous researchers are going [to] the US because they are paid better and recognized. Many wealthy people are leaving to live abroad, in Belgium, in Switzerland or in England [where] there are less taxes. The middle class is more and more upset and angry about this problem. The system is not sustainable anymore. Citizens vote for extremist parties and are afraid of their future.

When I [make] this assessment, I don’t say that this system is totally bad. But [a change in direction is needed]. Politicians must be strong and [amend] the French model. Citizens must trust in their representatives and let them work.

If we don’t [make] this effort [to change, then] when [the] wealthy and intellectual elite [have gone] far away, the system will implode, and [the] consequences could be worse than expected. The end of the system is near. It has to be reformed.

Opposition to U.S foreign policy

2005-11-14T10:19:00.000-08:00

As the United States grew into a global power, its government has become more involved with other countries. This situation has led to opposition to U. S foreign policy and has become one of the major sources for Anti-American sentiment.
People criticizes U.S foreign policy because they see contradictions between foreign policy rhetoric and actions.
For instance, one of goals of U.S foreign policy is Promotion of peace, freedom and democracy in all regions of the world. There is a contradiction because the mention of peace is opposed to the long list of U.S military Involvement. For example, we know that U.S had participated at Vietnam War. During this war,the U.S conducted massive bombing campaingns against Cambodia where 600,000 civilians were killed. We can, also, quoted Gulf War, Irak War… So it’s a big military involvement for a country which wishes to promote peace.
The mention of freedom and democracy is opposed to the many former and current dictatorship that receive(d) U.S financial or military support especially in Latin America and the Middle East.
In the Middle East, America supports regimes such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan that are unpopular with many people in those countries because they are seen as oppressive and tyrannical.
Regarding Latin America, America has frequently supported undemocratic governments, coups, or insurgent movements in Latin America such as Guatemala or Honduras, usually to prevent the spread of Communism but most of all for their economic reasons it means to protect U.S interests.
Another goal of US foreign policy is free trade, unencumbered by tariffs, interdictions and other economic barriers. There is, also, a contradiction here. The mention of free trade is opposed to U.S import tarriffs (to protect local industries from global competition) introduced by U.S in March 2002 on foreign goods like wood and steel. This action was seen by many people outside the U.S as an instance of America failing to practice what it preaches in terms of free trade.
Moreover, it exists a problem with Arms trade. Many criticize the United States for boycotting treaties like the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Small Arms Treaty, or the anti-personnel landmine banning Ottawa Treaty. And don't understand campaigns against attempts to build weapons of mass destruction by countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea, whereas U.S is known to hold the world’s largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to continue development of new types of weapons. But most of all, some people doesn't understand why U.S reacts violently with these countries while ignoring similar programs by other countries like Israel (for instance).

Clemency and the Death Penalty

2005-11-13T01:51:00.000-08:00

At 12.01am on December 13, Stanley Williams will be executed by lethal injection for the murders of four people. The only person who can spare him, should he choose to exercise his power of clemency, is the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
In 1981, Williams was found guilty of four murders and given four death sentences. But his conviction, Williams has argued, was unsafe. He says forensic evidence was never linked to him and the prosecution relied on the testimony of informants whose integrity was compromised. His lawyers also said that jury election was tainted: the prosecutor, Robert Martin, dismissed the three blacks in the jury pool.
Although he has always maintained his innocence, he has renounced his gang life and written books for children aimed at steering them away from gangs. He has counselled gang members from behind bars, been nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Is it possible to be rehabilitated in prison?
Should Gov. Schwarzenegger grant clemency?

French Riots Undermine Confidence In Euro

2005-11-08T10:41:00.000-08:00

An article of interest. Here's an excerpt:

Nov 8 (Reuters) - The spread of social unrest in France is undermining investor confidence in the euro and raising fears of an interest rate hike in the euro zone, a prospect that is taking a heavy toll on bonds.

The euro plunged to a two-year low versus the dollar as youths across France torched more than 1,000 vehicles despite government plans to impose curfews to quell 2 weeks of violence.

France harmed by her suburb crisis: causes and consequences.

2005-11-08T10:17:00.000-08:00

This is the 12th day of crisis in the French suburbs and the problem [is getting worse. The rampage continues] outside of Paris and [in] its suburbs. The French government has just announced plans to impose curfews in the cities and suburbs affected by the riots but I don't think that this act will change anything.

This crisis was spurred by the death of two teenagers who were electrocuted after clambering into a power sub-station while apparently fleeing police.

I believe strongly that there is a problem with this direction in the country of France.

When a politician like Nicolas Sarkozy, the actual interior minister, promises to visit such an area or such a commune every week (where there are poor families and many violence problems), it’s only to increase his popularity. He is trying to show that he is concerned by the problem of families who have difficulty living decently. At the same time, he is saying that he is going to clean this kind of area.

He can’t be friendly and at the same time aggressive. This strategy can’t work and the current riots are the result of the way that the government takes care of suburbs.

To my mind I think that it’s the way to run the country which is the problem and it's not an immigration issue.

Most of the foreign media believe strongly that it’s an immigration issue but France needs these immigrants because we haven’t got enough workers for that certain kind of work.

We are always thinking that we delocalized production abroad because of the cheaper cost of the labor force but another problem is that France needs some manual laborers and these workers are mainly the immigrants.

Indeed, nowadays, more and more people are doing long studies (because French universities are really affordable in comparison to other countries) which leads to the fact that developed countries are having more and more employees in general services (banking, marketing…) and produce only a few goods other than cars, for instance, where they use mainly machines.

Without immigrants, a country like France would not be able even to work normally.

I mean that they provide a workforce that is essential for France.

The question is not about immigrants but about policies and also what the government should do in short run.
The way I see it, there are a couple choices, either crack down more severely and be more proactive about arresting rioters or hold more talks with youths involved in the unrest or both.

website links: here, here

PREVIOUS:

Tout l'enfer se casse lâchement
Riots in France
Is this an immigration issue?
About Riots in France
How is setting buildings and cars on fire going to do anything other than create hatred?
Anger Deeply Anchored

American Tourists in Paris

2005-11-08T10:12:00.000-08:00

I think that the situation in Paris is being exaggerated by the media in some ways, and it is not given enough attention in different respects. If I were not familiar with any aspect of French culture, I would assume that the situation was preventing a large number of people from going about their daily lives. I am not in any way implying that we need not sympathize with those people who have lost their homes and those 900+ people who lost their cars between this past Friday and Saturday. However, my cousin is currently living in Paris and says that from inside the city, you would not even know the extent to which the violent protests are happening in the suburbs. I guess it made me feel that journalists were and are "scaring" American tourists by saying that Paris is not safe. This should not be the case. Having been to Europe previously, I have been able to experience les grèves (the strikes) in several different areas of France and they are really not that big of an issue, but merely a way of life. This particular situation is very different, however. Normally, the strikers are a mélange of the young, the educated, and the professional population, depending on what is being protested. It seems that the people involved in committing these violent acts are only between the ages of 15-18 which surely changes the scope of the matter. Besides, there is really nothing concrete that they seem to be protesting other that the two teenagers who were electrocuted. Yes, it is chaos there, but not everywhere. I was just angered by a journalist's statement that Paris is not a safe tourist location for Americans because of this situation. If an American is going to go to France for vacation and intentionally going to those suburbs, they don't know how to vacation very well in Europe. It is not a crisis that people “should” not take the RER between Charles de Gaulle and Paris, because there are PLENTY of busses that can travel safely and avoid dangerous areas.

Riot and insecurity in France

2005-11-07T20:54:00.000-08:00

What is today’s image of France around the world: young people burning cars and buildings with a strong repression of the police force supported by Mr Sarkozy.
From my point of view, it is true that the riot all over France is a reaction to a more deeply problem than to the death of the 2 teenagers near Paris: in certain suburbs, people live under violence, unemployment, and insecurity. There is a high rate of delinquency and criminality.
We can surely feel in pain for these people living in bad conditions and who are unemployed. Of course they have rights (to have a job, to live in a decent way), but also duties (to respect the law, to respect our neighbours, etc). What is the right of these young people burning everything, to be the author of destruction of innocent people’s buildings and of the death of a man yesterday? No one… As lot of French politicians said, there is no durable response to violent acts. They just can obtain actions made in urge with in fact a direct impact on their conditions, but this impact is not durable.
The government has surely answered to the riot with violence. But, the problem of these suburbs can’t be solved in one day.
The repression of these days is not the answer of the government for the uneasiness of these young people, but a strict react to fight and neutralize the riot. The government has to show that people must respect the law: it is their duty, if they don’t, the police are here to reinstate the peace. We can’t excuse them to make such a riot because they are a minority of immigrants. They are now French citizens, as those whose cars were burnt. They have rights and duties.
Since years, the government is trying to make effort to insert these young people in the society. The result can’t be seen in 1 year: it is a year-after-year work, creating for instance social associations in these poor areas, new jobs and new sort of working contracts to facilitate their insertion in the economy. The unemployment rate is high in these suburbs because their level of education is low. They can’t find easily a job. Sometimes, you earn more taking advantages of all the helps of the government than working. But, the trouble is that when people don’t work, they don’t feel integrated to the society and are more delinquent. As I’m concerned, I believe that the government should give less helps to them and should better continue to improve its work on employment. So that, people living there can more easily find a job and feel integrated in the society. It will follow less misunderstanding, dissatisfaction, insecurity and violence.
We shouldn’t blame the action of the government, because if we don’t trust our government anymore, it is a source of violence and insecurity. The government is working for years on the problem of unemployment and insecurity in the poor suburbs. It should improve its work and restore the peace in France. But, the results can’t be seen in 1 day or 1 week. Every French citizen should be patient.

PREVIOUS:
About Riots in France

How is setting buildings and cars on fire going to do anything other than create hatred?

Anger Deeply Anchored

Tout l'enfer se casse lâchement

Riots in France

Is this an immigration issue?

About riots in France

2005-11-07T17:37:00.000-08:00

It seems clear that what happened in Clichy sous Bois last week was an accident (the death of two young people). So the police is not to be blamed on that particular incident. But like Serigne said, riots that occured after are an expression of anger. Anger against police's persecution, racism and unemployment. It is like theses young were waiting for an excuse to break everything.
We have to recall that most part of young people in projects in France are arabs and africans. They constitute the main minorities and France has a serious problem with its minorities. In these neighborhoods, the unemployment rate is 40%, four times the nation unemployment rate (10%). It is used to say that these populations do not want to integrate themselves in the french society. I do not agree with that statement. Some effectively reject french values, but they are few.
On the contrary, I completely agree with what Francis Fukuyama wrote on the Wall Street Journal published on wednesday, november 2nd 2005, in his article called "A year of living dangerously". He says :"The identity problem is particularly severe for second- and third-generation children of immigrants. They grow up outside the traditional culture of their parents, but unlike most newcomers to the United States, few feel truly accepted by the surrounding society. Comtemporary Europeans downplay national identity in favor of an open, tolerant post-national Europeanness. But the Dutch, Germans, French and others all retain a strong sense of their national identity, and, to differing degrees, it is one that is not accessible to people coming from Turkey, Morocco or Pakistan."
I think that France did not want to integrate these particular minorities because they are not white. Criminality is also and often linked with minorities. With that level of unemployment, what can you expect? No job, no money, no food, no hope, so the only way for these person to sustain themselves is to go on illegal businesses like drugs and others. In projects around Paris and in every project in France there are problems. There are crimes, unemployment, poverty.
What the French government wants to takle is criminality and only criminality. To Nicolas Sarkozy, State Minister in charge of national security, every young coming from the project is a delinquent.
The only answer they give to all these problems is repression and more police forces. The answer given by the socialist government before was welfare. If you want to end with projects, you have to use both. Be strong with criminals and bring them to justice because they have to be accountable for what they do. Give incentives to reduce unemployment because high unemployment rate leads young people to delinquency. The real question is: can French government afford that kind of policy?
By using just repression, the government will just have riots like we have right now. On the long run, you will have more people in jail, which will increase our taxes buy building more jails, and I really don't want to pay more taxes (the promise to reduce income tax has not been respected because the government stopped the cut). There will be no job creation because no incentives to do so, so more poverty which will end with more crime and so on and so on.

PREVIOUS:
How is setting buildings and cars on fire going to do anything other than create hatred?
Anger Deeply Anchored
Tout l'enfer se casse lâchement
Riots in France
Is this an immigration issue?

Why European Union does need a consistent economic policy?

2005-11-06T23:07:00.000-08:00

Nowadays, [the] European Union is [conducting] monetary policy for [the] Euro from [the] European Central Bank in Frankfurt. However, budgets are decided at the state level. Each member can do what it wants if it respects a floor level for its [government fiscal budget] deficit of 3% of GDP.

Monetary policicy and [fiscal] policy are the two parts of [government] economic policy. The problem is that the decisions about both are not [made] in the same place [nor] by the same government. As a consequence, Europe is unable to boost its economy with increasing of debt like US [did while decreasing tax rates - actually, if all the US had done was increase national debt then interest rates would have had to rise, which they did not]. Stability pact[s] prevent better growth in Europe.

So, now that [the] Euro is a strong part of European identity, we should go further to obtain more consistency in EU's economic policy in creating a real european budget and giving power to [centralized?] European institutions to make decisions about those policies. That's the only way, because we can't go back to individual state[s'] currencies. And that's why we need to support a new project of European constitution which will be more [responsive to] economic problems but which means less power for Nations and the road of [a] Federation of European States. As a result we [would] gain in growth and help our economy to take off again in a structural point of view.

How is setting buildings and cars on fire going to do anything other than create hatred?

2005-11-06T22:56:00.000-08:00

Let me just say at the outset that I love French culture, but that I know very little of French society and history. I am commenting as an American with the perspective of an ‘outsider’ and I know it, so if you are French, please do not be offended by what I write here. It may be that I just don't know what I'm talking about, or maybe an outsider's viewpoint can have some value.

I have been trying to understand what is going on in France with the riots, and looking for something comparable in my own experience and that of America. We did have race riots in the 1960s (around the time I was born, actually). But these riots were different. Though some of the people, members of the Black Panthers for example, did seem to hate America, most of the protestors were actually pro-American. Our riots came towards the end of a civil rights revolution that was peaceful mostly and largely successful. When they occurred, Congress had already passed the Civil Rights Bill that essentially eliminated the injustices that sparked the riots. The movement led by Martin Luther King was challenging America to live up to its creed -- though he was killed, his words still live:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I, too, have that same dream. I think that a majority of Americans share that dream. Sometimes it feels like we’re heading in the wrong direction though as we reach for that dream. The color of one’s skin or one’s ethnicity should not matter, particularly where government is concerned. It pains me when particular ‘groups’ of people are given special rights that other groups do not share.

I think that the violence back in the 1960s was motivated primarily by frustration with the pace of integration and black advancement socially, economically and politically. Patience is one thing that Americans could probably use a lot more of, even today.

But back to France and the seemingly racially motivated violence happening there right now. I’m trying to see a parallel, but it is not working for me. For one, it seems to be more of an immigration issue, while the issue underlying the riots in the U.S. in the late 1960s had more to do with left-over injustices and prejudices relating to slavery which had been abolished one hundred years prior, and by a demand for equal rights for all Americans. I don’t think that the riots in France are pro-France, and though social, economic and political disparity do seem to be motivating factors to some extent, this does not appear to be anything like the relatively peaceful civil rights movement we had in the U.S. Certainly, the intention of the rioters is not to do away with what's left over from slavery. They are legal immigrants but anti-France, while the hostility of the 1960s was rooted in the very pro-American ideal that “all men [and women] are created equal.” I feel like I'm missing some key piece to a puzzle -- perhaps if I knew more about French history and/or colonization it might make more sense to me. I do want to learn about it - this article seemed enlightening in that it paints a historical background for the riots. An excerpt:

Aubervilliers, Clichy, Vitry were and are ghettoes, and are now aflame. France must confront the reality of its bad history with minorities of various kinds, but especially with North African Arabs, who have never been forgiven for the beating the Algerians inflicted on France in the late 1950s, as evoked in the dramatic film The Battle of Algiers.

I haven't seen that movie, but just now ordered it; here is its description from Netflix.

I sincerely doubt that these riots will cause the average French citizen to sympathize with the rioters or change their attitudes towards them in a positive way. Do the rioters even want to integrate with the rest of French society? I don’t know what they want. Se-Se la Tulipe says that they are saying, loudly, that "they exist." Well, they have everyone's attention, that's for sure. But if they are motivated by discrimination against them, then how is setting buildings and cars on fire going to do anything other than create hatred and more discrimination? If they have given up hope, then why haven't they moved elsewhere?

If there is a parallel with the American experience of the 1960s, perhaps it is in that those who feel that opportunities for success in life are out of reach, particularly the young (blacks in the U.S., Middle Eastern and North African immigrants in France), were/are impatient for change. Perhaps the reason that the violence in France and other parts of Europe is more severe than what happened in the U.S. in the 1960s is because, whereas things were changing for the better in terms of civil rights in the U.S. in the '60s, things are not changing in Europe. Or maybe I'm way off-base. Like I said at the beginning of this post, I don't really know much about French society.

UPDATE: Ok, I just watched that movie, The Battle of Algiers, and I have to say I was disappointed. I was expecting more of a documentary, but it was clear that the film producers and director had an agenda. What I got was a movie, or rather a story. I do not know how accurate it is, so I can’t say that I feel like I’ve learned much about French history. I do not think it was an objective look at that conflict.

Some of the scenes in Algiers were actual footage of the violence of that time, like the footage of injured and dying people being pulled from the rubble of a bombed restaurant, but most of it was not real footage. The acting was poor by today’s standards (providing a little comic relief), and some of the lines were just not believable, like when a French commander tells his troops (or are they police?), “In our situation, humane considerations can only lead to despair and confusion.” I know this was the fifties, but the way I’ve seen our own military portrayed by Hollywood leaves me with great doubt about the accuracy of any western military’s portrayal by moviemakers or by the TV media. The modern day moral equivalence for example between humiliating prisoners, all caught either shooting at people or making bombs, on the one hand while the other side is kidnapping innocent civilians and chopping off their heads on a regular basis … let’s just say that I am distrustful about claims of torture, ok? Humiliation and intimidation, though sad and repulsive, are not the same as torture in my book. Besides, what happened at Abu Grahib was not policy but a couple of sickos on the night-shift getting off on a power trip (though I do think that the American commander of the division in charge of Abu Grahib at that time should have been prosecuted instead of being let off with a reprimand and a discharge). The media has so overblown that issue as well as many other issues relating to the military that I am to the point where I have a hard time believing any such reports. I know the movie is set in the 1950s, but making interrogation seem evil while making the assassination of police officers look valiant, even if it was a subtle effect, seems wrong to me.

One thing that made me think though, was a scene where an Algerian went into a dance club with a bomb in a bag, put the bag under his chair, and then just watched the clock. Here I thought that Yasser Arafat was the inventor of the suicide bomber, but according to this movie I was wrong about that. I guess I learned something new today. Or not. Like I said, I doubt the accuracy of The Battle of Algiers movie.

Overall, I give the movie a C.

PREVIOUS:

Anger Deeply Anchored
Tout l'enfer se casse lâchement
Riots in France
Is this an immigration issue?

Unemployment

2005-11-06T22:38:00.000-08:00

This has been a topic for discussion for years now. How can a country reduce its unemployment rate? Should they increase minimum wage, reduce employee hours?

In a comparison of countries France and the United States of America (USA) have used similar yet different approaches to attack this situation.

The idea of connecting the great waves of immigration to the USA and lower unemployment rates have caused the ability to increase the number of jobs yet keeps wages steady. This increase in jobs due to immigrant workers results in a lower unemployment rate. On the other hand in France, their active population for employment has seen a slow increase therefore, limiting their increase in the number of jobs available but, increase in the minimum wage. Even with the increase in minimum wage, the unemployment rate is higher than the USA.

Is this to say that people will not work at all unless the minimum wage is increased? Have we reached a point where we are "too good" to do some jobs and would rather be unemployed and let others do the jobs we would never think of doing?

Should we reduce the hours that employees work a week? One can argue reducing hours will create more jobs to fill the remaining hours. At the same time increase the wages paid to employees, so the cut in hours will not affect their income level. Does this not leave us in the same position? Does it keep employees from increasing their income because they are unable to get more hours?

What is the incentive to have more people eager to find work even if the compensation is only minimum wage?

On Socialized Medicine

2005-11-06T13:01:00.000-08:00

[The following post was assembled from emails I've received.]

Socialized medicine is defined as a system for providing medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health services and subsidies derived by taxation.

Other countries such as Canada, France and Australia have adopted this sort of health care system. Is it in the best interest of the United States, which already has supplemental health care systems such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Health Administration, to adopt this method?

Many say no. It is a fact that the USA spends more on health care than Canada and France, but it is also arguable that the health care provided in the States is more advanced and that not having socialized medicine allows you to have more options regarding alternative treatment, getting second opinions, and choosing who administers their health care services to you.

There is a lot of evidence that suggests longer waiting periods for treatment in countries that have socialized medicine -- long waiting periods for critical treatment can be life-threatening. Also, socialized medicine can cause a shortage of health care providers.

Would that mean that health care is more efficient in the USA without socialized medicine although expensive, than in those countries that use the more inexpensive approach of socialized medicine? (Actually, the assertion that socialized medicine is 'cheaper' is itself quite debatable - much of the cost of medical care in the US is paid to lawyers due to the high litigation risk faced by doctors.) Again some would argue yes, because a health care system that reduces costs will be more attractive to people who could not in the past afford it. It is a concern that more people will seek medical attention for minor problems which in turn will occupy physicians when more urgent medical issues may arise.

An issue some Americans have is letting someone else choose what is right for them. They are never eager to let one of their rights be taken over by others, especially the government. With socialized medicine the right to choose a physician and a hospital is nearly non-existent. Most, would be willing to pay more to choose. Health insurance allows this choice to be made while trying to keep health care affordable. But, the choice again is up to the insured. Which type of insurance is good enough in the case of an emergency?

Another question arises: if socialized medicine were implemented in the USA, do you think that outsourcing of health care would become an issue? Would people find other ways to get their treatments without the long waiting periods by traveling across the world for them?

Anger Deeply Anchored

2005-11-05T14:20:00.000-08:00

From my point of view, what happen today in [the] suburbs around Paris is an anger deeply anchored in people from these areas which expresses itself, as well as the desire to show to the society that even if they live beside Paris [but outside ‘French’ society], they exist. What [has an] effect on the young people of [the] suburbs, is the permanent presence of the police and the arrogance of the forces of intervention, not to help them but to pursue them.

Cities have to mobilize intermediaries [i.e., peacekeepers or police] who are able to defuse conflicts. However, such attempts don’t [get to] the heart of the problem if there are no true offers made for the young people, which allow them to become integrated into the society by working. These people [young immigrants or descendsnts of immigrants?] must be a part of the solution which authorities are seeking and not only regarded as the problem to solve.

The massive unemployment, the uncertainty, the discrimination, the racism and the police violence [in] every day life [cause] everywhere explosive situations.

More interested in his presidential ambition than worried [about] the problems of the French, since 2002 Nicolas Sarkozy [has] only [been] speaking and gesturing [about] security without [responding to] the [lack of security]. Neither the violence, nor the crime, really [decreased;] the verbal provocations of this minister eventually fired [up the people living in the] suburbs. Three and a half years after his arrival, Nicolas Sarkozy's defeat is total today.

The reality is, as soon as the suburban [violence] calm[s] down nobody will talk about their issues [anymore,] and until French authorities and even French people [stop being hypocritical and] double-tongued, the problem with the minorities will [not] be solved.

PREVIOUS:

Tout l'enfer se casse lâchement
Riots in France
Is this an immigration issue?

Riots in San Francisco?

2005-11-04T23:27:00.000-08:00

Um, well, actually yes. See here and here. But we're kind of used to that, particularly since the Iraq invasion. Without San Francisco and Berkeley and all their protesting, life would be just a little bit duller.

Tout l'enfer se casse lâchement

2005-11-04T22:59:00.000-08:00

Pardon my French. Merci beaucoup to adaveine for helping us to understand what is going on in France right now. It is amazing how something like this can quietly build up over generations and then suddenly erupt. I did a little digging and found more reports and commentary here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Est-il grave?

I did try to come up with a suitable/witty quote for this issue, but all I could come up with was

"When you consider how hard it is to get people to treat each other justly when they are face to face, seeking to produce justice between social abstractions stretching back over the centuries is a truly ambitious undertaking. "

- Thomas Sowell

UPDATE: It's not just a problem in France I don't think, but all across Europe. For example, there have also been riots in Denmark. I suppose one could argue that the riots in Denmark have nothing to do with those in France, but you'd have a hard time convincing me of that.

PREVIOUS: Riots in France, and Is this an immigration issue?

Riots in France

2005-11-04T13:25:00.000-08:00

Two teenagers died on October, 27th in Clichy-sous-Bois, a city close to Paris in the projects suburbs. In the afternoon of that day, 10 teenagers tried to break in a site hut in Livry-Gargan, a city near Clichy-sous-Bois. The police caught 6 of them and were still looking for the other 4 as they saw 3 teenagers climbing the wall of a power station. Because they knew it is very dangerous to go in there and becausqe they are legally not allowed to get in, they decided not to follow the kids. After a while, they arrested two young people in a cemetery, which they thought were the same kids. Two out of the three teenagers who penetrate the power station have been electrocuted after hiding in the site.
Now some people argue that they had to hide there because they were chased by the police, like they always are in these cities. They also say that the police should have rescued them because they knew it was very dangerous for the the kids to be in this power station (not assisting somedody who is in danger).
Since then, riots take place every nights in the projetcs outside Paris but particularly around Clichy-sous-Bois. Cars and trashes are burnt and the police became a target for the rebels. On October 30th, a police type teargas grenade was found in a muslum mosque in Clichy-sous-bois which made the situation even worse, even if the police say they did not do it.
As far as I am concerned, I don’t think we can blame the police for chasing teenagers who were trying to break in a private site. What happened is just an excuse for this teenagers to show the country and the government they are not happy with the way things go in their lives.
The situation in France about having everybody living together in a peaceful environment has always been very complex. It all started right after World War II when France asked people from its colonies to come over and work in France. The country needed to be rebuilt and it needed work force. People from North Africa arrived by the 50’s with their families. The people who left their country to come and work in France didn’t have much education that is why they saw this as an opportunity.
The french government built projects around Paris to provide housing to these people. This is the first mistake the government made. If it wanted to make these people part of the country, made them become french citizens, why would a government would put all of them together, in poor neighboorhoods, outside the City? This was the best way to start the process of differentiation.
Then as France entered the 90’s, the third generation of these people were born, and their families were still living in the projects. What is happening in France right now is the result of fifty years of racism against these people and ignorance from the french government. The third generation is french as any other kid in the country. But they have a background (such as their name) that is not accepted by a lot of french citizens. The french minister Sarkozy keeps on sending police buses to the projects. He takes the problem in the wrong way. He does repression, we need prevention. Let the police do what they have to do and focus and prevention. There are so much to do to improve the situation I can’t believe they still send the police to fight with the kids.
Even though I don’t think the police should be blamed for what happened on Ocotber 27th, the people who are in the streets every nights are french citizens. I don’t consider them as a minority anymore. The french government should take them into account instead of dreaming to get rid of them as minister Sarkozy said on TV on October 30th.

Source: Lemonde.fr
Chronology

PREVIOUS: Is this an immigration issue?

Government should be small in the interest of its citizens

2005-11-01T22:28:00.000-08:00

"The president cannot make the needed change in our national direction without your help. The answers won't come from the White House. They will have to come from your house".
"Let us [...] rely on the old idea of self-government, which means exactly what it says: restrain yourself, take responsability for your actions, and look inward rather than stateward for the real solutions to your problems."1 In fact, it is true that most of us when facing a problem automatically turn to somebody else. It can be relatives, the community but most of the time, we would ask the government for help. Why? Because it is part of the human nature to rely on others. Humans find it easier to rely on others than taking their own responsability. It is easier to blame the government or a supranatural force for what happens to you. Because what is really hard is to accept that whatever happens to you is the result of your own actions and choices.2 If every adult in this country was really responsible and assuming their choices, the government role would be restricted to its first role. This is taking care of police and justice. It includes making laws and enforcing them. A government should not assist its citizens, a government's role is to protect its people. This way, in case of an emergency such as natural disasters, government is the one in charge of dealing with the security of the people.
As a consequence, "education for citizenship"3 is the only part government should manage. This is because a democracy needs its citizens to be able to read, to count and to have a minimum of general knowledge. But concerning getting education to learn professionnal skills, these are individuals choices. So, if a citizen decides to study further than what the government has to provide, this person should be responsible for its choice and make what it takes to reach this education. Young citizens would probably study in a more efficient way if education wasn't taken as granted.
Moreover, wouldn't it be better if anyone could decide on their own how they want to help those in need? Big governments tax its citizens and redistribute these funds to those in need. Woulnd't be better if you could decide on the amount of money and time you want to spend on helping people who need your support? When looking at the non profit organizations, we can notice that their work is more efficient with less ressources than the agencies because they are closer to the people they help, they have small budgets so there are no unjustified spendings and it is the community's budget they deal with. When a federal agency tries to solve a problem, managers have to be hired and the money they spend to help those in need is "nobody's" money. How different would you manage a budget if the money is yours vs. somebody else's?

Sources
1. Your Government Is Not Responsible For YouThe Fountain of Truth ^ January 12, 2002 Doug Newman
Posted on 01/12/2002 10:54:56 AM PST by hellonewman
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/606982/posts
2. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey
3. Milton Friedman

PREVIOUS: Regarding the role of government: A quote from Rand

Is this an immigration issue?

2005-11-01T16:52:00.000-08:00

The current American debate about immigration seems to be mostly about illegal immigration - there do not seem to be any problems with legal immigration or legal immigrants, at least not that I've heard of. In a way, all Americans are immigrants or descended from immigrants. People crossing the US northern and southern borders illegally, often with criminal intent, is of concern to a lot of Americans though. Well, this post isn't about that, but rather about immigration in Europe, which I know almost nothing about and so, being a cat, I'm curious...

I came across this article just a minute ago, and would like someone to explain what's going on in these French suburbs. Is this an immigration-related problem? Am I missing something? It certainly looks like a major problem to me. Let me quote from the article just a little:

[France's Interior Minister] Sarkozy says that violence in French suburbs is a daily fact of life.

Since the start of the year, 9,000 police cars have been stoned and, each night, 20 to 40 cars are torched, Sarkozy said in an interview last week with the newspaper Le Monde.

9,000 police cars stoned? Why?

In other news reports, I hear these suburbs referred to as, "social pressure cookers." I think this is an immigration issue, and the problem seems different in Europe than in the US. Though it is dated, I found this article to be interesting in that it contrasts the economic success of immigrants from middle eastern countries coming to the US and Europe.

Both the US and Europe seem to have an "immigration problem," but the nature of the problem is very different in the US than it is in Europe. Actually, I'm having trouble understanding the reason for the violence in France. Basically, I don't get it. Somebody fill me in here.

On Energy Dependence and the Role of Government

2005-10-31T10:19:00.000-08:00

An interesting observation from TaxProf Blog:

"Since 1977, governments collected more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for inflation, in gasoline tax revenues—more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major U.S. oil companies during the same period."

Also, I think I remember saying something during the discussion on energy dependence about "oil shale" in Colorado. You probably had no idea what I was talking about, so here's an article about it.

UPDATE: Here's more evidence: Checking SEC 10-Q filings, one can see that "oil companies make 10 cents per gallon on gasoline while Federal, State and Local Government make a combined total of 45 cents."

Why can't the U.S. economy get any respect from the mainstream press?

2005-10-30T15:56:00.000-08:00

GDP has grown at more than 3% for ten straight quarters now. That hasn't happened in twenty years. BizzyBlog has more on this. Polls show that Americans still think our economy is in bad shape. Which is the illusion? Is it the economic numbers as reported by the Department of Labor, or is it the picture painted by the talking heads on our TV sets?

UPDATE (10/31/05): There is a timely article in today's WSJ on this very issue titled, Hurricane Strength. Here's a quote from the article:

"Figure in the blow from Katrina, and growth would have been in the neighborhood of 5%. Not bad for an economy that much of our financial media keep saying is mediocre, or subpar, or overburdened with debt, or can't compete with the Chinese, or all the other predictions of doom you've heard in recent years."

The Iranian cure for volatile stock markets

2005-10-30T14:43:00.000-08:00

Iran's President Ahmadinejad has an interesting solution to the "rapidly deteriorating situation at the Tehran Stock Exchange:"

Frustrated with the inability of his economic advisers and experts to come up with any solution, Ahmadinejad told them that the only way out of the current stock exchange and financial market problems was to “frighten” speculators by hanging two or three of them.

I had to laugh when I read this article. I guess Ahmadinejad thinks taking risk is bad, but if he starts killing people for taking risk (i.e., taking speculative positions in the stock market), investment will dry up fast. Sounds like a sure-fire recipe for a market-crash to me. If I were a floor-trader at the Tehran Stock Exchange, I'd resign. Fast.

People might not revolt when their rights and freedoms are restricted, but they will revolt when they cannot feed their families due to self inflicted economic collapse.

On Poverty and World Hunger: About those farm subsidies

2005-10-19T20:31:00.000-07:00

This UPI report seems to indicate that efforts to reduce or eliminate US and EU farm subsidies are producing results. This seemed to be a major sticking point in yesterday's discussion about starvation and poverty in the world - one cause of a lack of self-sufficiency in Africa and other third-world nations is these farm subsidies, but as Anaïs said Tuesday, "That's just the way things are," indicating that the farm subsidy situation is very unlikely to change. I am not as pessimistic however; I believe that there is hope for the (nonsubsidized) African farmer - things can change.

Corruption in developing (particularly African) nations also came up during Tuesday's discussion and it was suggested that this be pursued in future discussion. Let me further the debate:

Despite the fact that Africa has more natural resources than the rest of the world put together: Corruption.

"The failure of democracy and economic development in Africa are due to a large part to the scramble for wealth by predator elites who have dominated African politics..."

It seems to me that the question here is not how to provide more aid to poor nations, but rather how can we make it easier for poor people to climb out of poverty? Would any amount of financial aid actually eliminate poverty permanently? Haven't we learned yet that just throwing money at a problem doesn't make it go away? Aid can feed the starving for a period of time, but the problem will return unless people are able and willing to support themselves. Moreover, and as Valentino noted on Tuesday, providing aid to poor nations frequently causes dependencies to develop, causing increasing demand for handouts. Free trade agreements worked extremely well in reducing poverty by more than 50% in places like Chile, while fifty years and more than half a trillion dollars of aid has done nothing for Africa but add to their misery. They say that a sign of insanity is when people keep doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result. Well, we as a global community must be completely out of our collective gourd then.

What makes the whole poverty issue seem truly sick to me is the fact that we already know what works, yet the politicians insist on rejecting win-win deals like CAFTA and just keep on doing the same thing, fostering dependencies, killing off any hope for self-sufficiency for the African farmer by dumping food through their corrupt governments, and on top of that giving billions of dollars to corrupt thug-politicians like Mugabe thereby aiding and abetting genocide.

The United States is by far the world's largest source of humanitarian aid, yet I keep hearing people saying that Americans are not being generous enough. Before political pundits and ambassadors in the UN lecture us Americans about how we're not paying our fair share in aid, they should add in the donations from private citizens; It turns out that Americans give more than any European country per capita, and more than all of the EU nations put together.

In my opinion, aid is a good thing during a crisis situation BUT some countries are continuously in a state of crisis to the point where people in many places have become dependent on humanitarian aid from foreign countries and would not survive without it. Such dependencies need to be broken - most of the people in such countries would be better off if they didn't have to rely on handouts but could support themselves. One shouldn't have to rely on the government, foreign or domestic, for sustenance. (See the thread on the role of government.)

On a related issue, can anyone reasonably argue that the aid that goes to North Korea, where starvation is rampant, does anything to solve the problem? There's no way of knowing for sure since that country is so opaque, but many Americans, myself included, believe that that aid just goes to feed NK's army. Well, that's another can or worms, so let's just save North Korea for a future discussion.

Hey, I spent time on this. Make a comment, or email me. Satisfactory counterarguments will get posted in an update.

Regarding the role of government: A quote from Rand

2005-10-18T21:24:00.000-07:00

This post is regarding the discussion earlier today about the role of government. This debate had been about the size of government and federal versus local government. (Here is a link to a .pdf file used by Navjot and Sandrine in their argument for smaller, more localized government. As I receive more references, I will update this post.) I lean more toward the smaller role for government side myself. To me, the issue is about a balance between the rights of individuals and the powers given to the government so that it can protect those rights. I don't believe it is the proper role of government to take care of everybody. I believe that I should have a right to be left alone, and I would rather become successful and prosperous due to my own effort and merit rather than have things handed to me based on a perceived need. I think it's dangerous to give a massive, bureaucratic government decision making authority and control over people's lives.

This article from Peggy Noonan of the WSJ (subscription required) relates to this topic and expresses my position well. Basically, she points out how large, bureaucratic governments (and I would add large corporations as well) often seem to have habit of separating authority from responsibility - politicians typically want more authority, but spend much of their time avoiding responsibility. In short, when it comes to separating actions from consequences, size does matter and smaller is better in terms of the accountability of a government to its citizens (or stockholders in the case of a corporation). Of course transparency matters a great deal too, but I would like to save that discussion (about transparency and how it is achieved) for a later date and deal with that separately.

This "role of government" issue is a social and cultural issue by the way, not just a political one.

I would like to redirect this discussion in the future to focus on the role of government in terms of what it should and should not be doing. Perhaps the following quote will be relevant when the debate is taken up again:

Remember that rights are moral principles which define and protect a man’s freedom of action, but impose no obligations on other men. Private citizens are not a threat to one another’s rights or freedom. A private citizen who resorts to physical force and violates the rights of others is a criminal – and men have legal protection [via government institutions] against him.

Criminals are a small minority in any age or country. And the harm they have done to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the horrors – the bloodshed, the wars, the persecutions, the confiscations, the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destructions – perpetrated by mankind’s governments. Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is man’s deadliest enemy. It is not as protection against private actions, but against government actions that the Bill of Rights was written.

That quote is from Ayn Rand in "Man’s Rights."

And here's another relevant quote:

"Giving government money and power is like giving car keys and whiskey to a teenage boy"

-- P.J. O'Rourke

And another:

"Government is like fire -- at best an uncertain servant; at worst a fearful master."

-- George Washington