Hello, sorry for the long delay in posting. Unfortunately that delay will continue into the next few weeks as I simply do not have enough time to work, study and blog everyday. So, I very much do want to find more time for blogging but for the moment I'm going to only try to blog ever few days or so and make it of some degree of quality if possible.
The only thing on my mind that is vaguely relevant that is not to do with Thai health care or HIV coverage (or about my grade 1, 2 and 3 students) is international monetary organizations such as the WTO, IMF, the World Bank and others. Question came up in my class last Sunday about whether or not these organizations are used to keep the developing world under the thumbs of the developed world. As the name of this blog came from a song written on the IMF, I thought it appropriate that I do comment on it, at least once.
It is my opinion...my belief that these organizations are aware of the role that they play in keeping the poor poor. It is my opinion that these organizations and the world leaders who support them do so out of a power politics, realist desire to ensure the dominance of the Washington Consensus and to prevent other, dangerous systems or a change in the domination/sub ordinance world structure. China presents a real danger to the Washington consensus hegemoney because normally countries are too afraid of sanctions and having cash lines frozen to ignore the IMF and friends, but China doesn't rely upon western capital.
Okay, brief, rambling and full of errors, but that's all the time I've got now.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
President Obama's First Day
President (it's so nice to say that without putting "elect" in front of it) Barack Obama certainly waisted no time in changing the direction of the U.S federal administration. In contrast to the former president, President Obama today instructed the Washington bureaucracy to be more open to requests for information. He also included himself by stating that any requests for information that the President does not wish to release will be referred to the attorney-general and to the White House legal counsel who will determine whether or not the President is permitted to keep the requested information private.
President Bush and Vice-President Cheney (can we please use the prenomial ex, just this one time?) routinely invoked executive privilege when faced with requests from Congress, from the media or from agencies. Not so under President Obama (at least not today). In one of the many memoranda to come out of his office today, one stated "The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails"(Time). The President (I can't believe how much I suddenly like that word, I'm not even American) stated that "“Let me say it as simply as I can. Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency..." (The Globe and Mail). Contrast this to when Dick (Vader) Cheney once said that he "alone may determine what constitutes vice-presidential records or personal records" (Ibid.)
Well, hold my coat and give me a rock. The President is going to follow the law! Not as some loophole allows him to, but as it was actually intended to be! Imagine if Barack Obama actually lives up to what he set out today just on that matter alone. So, less secretive, that's one thing that President Obama got up to today.
The President's office was "was flooded" with calls from world leaders offering "best wishes" (L.A Times). The President also made a number of calls around the world. One of which, the very first call to come from the new president "stunned Palestinians and Israelis alike". '“We were not expecting such a quick call from President Obama, but we knew how serious he is about the Palestinian problem,' said a very excited Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior adviser to Mr. Abbas." (Globe and Mail, in a different article).
According to that article there is a great deal of excitement among Muslim nations that the U.S will begin moving in a new direction. Also excitement from the Christian world as Pope Benedict XVI told Obama to be "the promoter of peace and cooperation between nations"(IranVNC).
It's also expected that the President will close Guantanamo Bay prison soon. Some news sources are reporting that the order has already come, others are saying it is expected in a week or so.
So, I'd say that this day marks a promising beginning. That call to Palestine was exactly the right thing for him to do at that moment and his executive orders instantly signal a change in direction without actually having to do anything. The more substantive matters will certainly have to follow, but for a first day I give him an A+.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Polygamy is a very different matter
An article appearing in the online version of The Globe and Mail talks about gay marriage being used as a legal defence in the BC polygamy trial.
The basics are that a religious cult person by the name of Winston Blackmore is accused of having 19 wives. None of them are minors, but the point is more about whether or not these women really made a choice to be with him in marriage or not. So, in terms of law he broke the Parliament's current version of marriage which is a union between two people whether they be one man and one man, one man and one woman, or between two women, or even between two people with alternative genders. Gender doesn't matter so much now, but the number of people does matter.
Anyway, the Globe article states that experts on both sides of the "gay marriage" debate have anticipated that this could be used as a defence of polygamy. The article cites a political scientist who says that he doesn't think the argument will work as the legal view is that there is a restriction on the number of people who can be married to each other.
I don't really want to defend polygamy but I would like to separate this kind of polygamy from other sorts, just to be fair. Some time ago I watched some program (I think on Oprah) that had several polygamous families speaking about their lives (couldn't find the link, but did find this) The woman and men that Oprah brought on gave a very different impression of what polygamy can be. One of the women said that the current laws were written (in the U.S in this case) to prevent abuse of woman. She argued that the laws are not relevant to the happy union that she has with her husband and with his other wife. She claims it makes all sorts of personal and financial sense as they can share expenses and raise the children together. Also, she said that when she is tired, it's nice to be able to get the other wife to cook and look after their husband.
I don't want to come across as someone trying to push the marriage debate to extremes, but I can see the validity of the argument that these people are making. I can also see that this case in BC is nothing of the sort. What is happening among these extreme religious groups is, in my opinion abusive and I don't think that it should necessarily be put into the same category as what some of the guests on the Oprah show were talking about.
That leaves open the question of how to stop polygamy that is abusive if polygamy itself is legalized. That would be difficult, I think. Perhaps it is better to just leave it illegal but focus police efforts on cases that are believed to be abusive while ignoring situations that show no signs of abuse. Also, there is really nothing stopping three or more people from living together outside of legal marriage.
That argument could also be used against "equal marriage". One could say that "there is nothing stopping two men from living together and living like they are married without actually getting married". My answer to that would be that as a society we give men and women equal legal standing. As such, we have created a legal system where gender does not have much relevance. Therefore, if gender does not have legal relevance than there is no justification for not allowing two people of the same sex to enjoy all of the same legal protections, benefits and duties as those of opposite genders. Society does not view men and woman as being the same, and biologically speaking men and women are clearly different in many ways (not only anatomy), though most of these differences could likely be attributed to environment, some appear to be deeply ingrained (perhaps at the chromosomal level). Those factors though are not very relevant to law, and marriage is a legal matter. Of course there is a religious aspect to marriage, and marriage began as a religious matter (as did science and education), but marriage has long since entered into the world of legal contracts and as such, in our system, it should not be based on gender.
In conclusion, I think we shouldn't adjust polygamy laws unless we can find a way to ensure that we have the tools to deal with abusive religious cults. Also, I think that the "slippery slope" argument is flawed because our legal system doesn't recognize gender differences as being valid reason for discrimination, but does allow discrimination based on other factors. For example, I cannot practice medicine, not because of my sexual preferences, race, religion, language et cetera, but because I am not a medical doctor. I did not go to medical school therefore the state discriminates between myself and someone who is a doctor. The quantity and quality of education is a factor in employment and is entirely legal. I know this sounds so elementary, but I'm trying to get to my point which is that quantity and quality (that is to say the nature of something) are legally relevant. Who a person is is not as relevant as what a person can do. Likewise, contracts between two entities to the exclusion of others are a basic legal concept. Contracts between parties that I am not associated with, by necessity exclude me.
Two put it more simply; two is not one. Two people cannot be re-interpreted as three people. There is no slippery slope toward polygamy. To allow polygamy would be an entirely separate discussion from the one that already occurred (in Canada) regarding "gay/equal marriage". Perhaps that debate will happen at some point, but that in and of itself would require many years of a very different social and legal paradigm from the one that we have now. In our current paradigm, the differences between numbers of parties to a contract are significant...certainly more significant. Not that we do not allow for some personal discrimination based on some matters (such as legal age). I hope that some of this is making sense and that the careful reader can distill (through this very unorganized blog entry) what it is that I'm trying to say.
The basics are that a religious cult person by the name of Winston Blackmore is accused of having 19 wives. None of them are minors, but the point is more about whether or not these women really made a choice to be with him in marriage or not. So, in terms of law he broke the Parliament's current version of marriage which is a union between two people whether they be one man and one man, one man and one woman, or between two women, or even between two people with alternative genders. Gender doesn't matter so much now, but the number of people does matter.
Anyway, the Globe article states that experts on both sides of the "gay marriage" debate have anticipated that this could be used as a defence of polygamy. The article cites a political scientist who says that he doesn't think the argument will work as the legal view is that there is a restriction on the number of people who can be married to each other.
I don't really want to defend polygamy but I would like to separate this kind of polygamy from other sorts, just to be fair. Some time ago I watched some program (I think on Oprah) that had several polygamous families speaking about their lives (couldn't find the link, but did find this) The woman and men that Oprah brought on gave a very different impression of what polygamy can be. One of the women said that the current laws were written (in the U.S in this case) to prevent abuse of woman. She argued that the laws are not relevant to the happy union that she has with her husband and with his other wife. She claims it makes all sorts of personal and financial sense as they can share expenses and raise the children together. Also, she said that when she is tired, it's nice to be able to get the other wife to cook and look after their husband.
I don't want to come across as someone trying to push the marriage debate to extremes, but I can see the validity of the argument that these people are making. I can also see that this case in BC is nothing of the sort. What is happening among these extreme religious groups is, in my opinion abusive and I don't think that it should necessarily be put into the same category as what some of the guests on the Oprah show were talking about.
That leaves open the question of how to stop polygamy that is abusive if polygamy itself is legalized. That would be difficult, I think. Perhaps it is better to just leave it illegal but focus police efforts on cases that are believed to be abusive while ignoring situations that show no signs of abuse. Also, there is really nothing stopping three or more people from living together outside of legal marriage.
That argument could also be used against "equal marriage". One could say that "there is nothing stopping two men from living together and living like they are married without actually getting married". My answer to that would be that as a society we give men and women equal legal standing. As such, we have created a legal system where gender does not have much relevance. Therefore, if gender does not have legal relevance than there is no justification for not allowing two people of the same sex to enjoy all of the same legal protections, benefits and duties as those of opposite genders. Society does not view men and woman as being the same, and biologically speaking men and women are clearly different in many ways (not only anatomy), though most of these differences could likely be attributed to environment, some appear to be deeply ingrained (perhaps at the chromosomal level). Those factors though are not very relevant to law, and marriage is a legal matter. Of course there is a religious aspect to marriage, and marriage began as a religious matter (as did science and education), but marriage has long since entered into the world of legal contracts and as such, in our system, it should not be based on gender.
In conclusion, I think we shouldn't adjust polygamy laws unless we can find a way to ensure that we have the tools to deal with abusive religious cults. Also, I think that the "slippery slope" argument is flawed because our legal system doesn't recognize gender differences as being valid reason for discrimination, but does allow discrimination based on other factors. For example, I cannot practice medicine, not because of my sexual preferences, race, religion, language et cetera, but because I am not a medical doctor. I did not go to medical school therefore the state discriminates between myself and someone who is a doctor. The quantity and quality of education is a factor in employment and is entirely legal. I know this sounds so elementary, but I'm trying to get to my point which is that quantity and quality (that is to say the nature of something) are legally relevant. Who a person is is not as relevant as what a person can do. Likewise, contracts between two entities to the exclusion of others are a basic legal concept. Contracts between parties that I am not associated with, by necessity exclude me.
Two put it more simply; two is not one. Two people cannot be re-interpreted as three people. There is no slippery slope toward polygamy. To allow polygamy would be an entirely separate discussion from the one that already occurred (in Canada) regarding "gay/equal marriage". Perhaps that debate will happen at some point, but that in and of itself would require many years of a very different social and legal paradigm from the one that we have now. In our current paradigm, the differences between numbers of parties to a contract are significant...certainly more significant. Not that we do not allow for some personal discrimination based on some matters (such as legal age). I hope that some of this is making sense and that the careful reader can distill (through this very unorganized blog entry) what it is that I'm trying to say.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
How much change can Obama really bring?
It's been well noted that one of the biggest problems soon to be (in only a matter of hours now) President Barack Obama will face is the incredibly high expectations that people have for him. That being said, I think it is also easy to go the other way and to think that nothing will really change. Personally, I'm optimistic that he'll be able to get some good things done but I also realize that some of the expectations that people have are not entirely realistic.
The United States certainly has some very big problems that are not soon to go away. The U.S federal debt is one of those factors and in the current economic problems, it is not likely that major spending cuts or tax increases will happen anytime soon.
Another problem is that the President just doesn't have the power to do some of the things that need to be done. Congress needs to do what it is responsible for and many other problems occur within various agencies and within states. An example of that would be the problems in California. Years and years of ballot measures have tied the hands of the state's legislature and the governator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) himself has been struggling to get action to take on that state's approaching bankruptcy.
The U.S has not been well governed for some time time. I don't think it was really well governed during the Clinton years (though again some of the blame should be placed on Congress and State governments) and under Bush it was much worse.
The one area (and a very important area at that) where we are likely to see significant change is in the U.S foreign policy. The President has much more control over that and a new U.S approach will go a long way in winning over the hearts and minds of the world's people. Under Clinton, the U.S disengaged from much of the world (clearly evident here in Asia) and when the U.S did reengage under Bush, it was through invasion and coercion.
China has benefited greatly from what Joshua Kurlantzick refers to as a decline in U.S soft power in the region. China's system of government and corporatism allows it to make rapid decisions and take rapid actions that the U.S system simply doesn't allow for. Everyone knows that the U.S moves much more slowly than China, but many in Asia also fear a Chinese hegemony. A think a lot of people would start to warm back up to the U.S if the U.S actually dropped the "war on terror" bit. Think of it, if you are a government official in Cambodia and every meeting that you have with the U.S results in a request for your country to participate in some way, in some 'war on terror" that is nearly irrelevant to your country's problems, meanwhile there is a professional Chinese diplomat just down the hall who is ready to make trade deals and offer aid, who do you think you'd rather talk to? Add on top of that the fact that Chinese officials seem to know their jobs more than their American counterparts, and it's no mystery why China's image is far more positive than the U.S image in so many Asian countries.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that the U.S has become irrelevant. It most certainly has not, but it really has fallen far in just a decade and a half. Lots of Pew research that backs that up, but I'm too lazy to dig it up right now.
So, in the foreign policy realm I think we should expect a major change with Barack Obama. But, on the domestic side there will be a great deal of resistance from some quarters and we should think more of this being the beginning of a long road rather than the destination.
Monday, January 19, 2009
So, this is what deflation feels like.
I thought it was just my imagination, but I really think it's true. No one has any money! All of my friends are poorer now than they used to be. Some have lost jobs due to cutbacks resulting from the airports being seized by the PAD mobs, others have lost savings and investments on the stock markets. Than there are those, like this writer who have simply picked a bad time to change jobs. The feeling seems to be there on the street though. Everyone seems reluctant to buy. Prices seem to be dropping. Actually, some have dropped. The price of public transportation has recently gone back down to where it was a year ago or so. My university tuition has dropped considerably (and it's retroactive) and the going rate for private tuition also seems to be much lower than what it was a year ago.
So, this is what it is like to live in a period of deflation. I save on transportation costs, and tuition so in that way it's good for me. Also, a while back I bought some clothes...real name-brand stuff from a department store for cheaper than the fake stuff on the street! They were unsold items from the U.S. I don't think I've ever seen that before. Yes, the sales can be good at times but name brand stuff in obvious U.S sizes are not that easy to find at such a huge discount. I'm not a fan of American Eagle particularly, but I'm fairly sure that $5 for on of their shirts is a good deal And, the material is better than the usual $5 shirt so it will probably last me more than a month. I think I might be benefiting from the breakdown in the financial system.
So, this is what it is like to live in a period of deflation. I save on transportation costs, and tuition so in that way it's good for me. Also, a while back I bought some clothes...real name-brand stuff from a department store for cheaper than the fake stuff on the street! They were unsold items from the U.S. I don't think I've ever seen that before. Yes, the sales can be good at times but name brand stuff in obvious U.S sizes are not that easy to find at such a huge discount. I'm not a fan of American Eagle particularly, but I'm fairly sure that $5 for on of their shirts is a good deal And, the material is better than the usual $5 shirt so it will probably last me more than a month. I think I might be benefiting from the breakdown in the financial system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
