The Freak Theater of Aid

Recently, much has been written in the news about aid to the sluggish, destitute, and sinking economies – which constitute the so-called “developing” world; fortunately, these recent news have been positive in nature and shed a small gleam of light on this somber world. First, the announcement made by Warren Buffet that he would surrender his fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation –which foci include, but are not limited to aid to developing countries– reinforces the movement that sees the extremely wealthy giving away some, or all of their money. Another example, although quite different in nature, is the creation of Google.org, a for-profit philanthropic organization which also plans to reach to populations in developing countries among other activities. Both these efforts to improve the situation of our world could seem rather banal against the background of failed efforts up to now, but there is a difference. Though their approach is different, both the Gates foundation and Google organization, aside from the fact that their creators are computer maniacs, have a very important asset, business experience.

This might sound like an oxymoron, but business philanthropy is indeed a growing trend among non-traditional donors. William Easterly in his latest book, The White Man’s Burden, has advocated a kind of development led by searchers instead of planners ( To briefly summarize these two concepts, a searcher confronts a particular problem and gives incentives to solve it, a planner will impose a solution that he believes will solve everything at once). Searchers, that is exactly what Google and Gates are, some of the best of our time I might add. Despite the fact that Microsoft and Google’s business practices are not always the most ethical, it cannot be denied that both are some of the most successful contemporary business ventures. By applying their knowledge of business, and being searchers (of markets) in the developing world, they need both to be efficient, profitable (although not necessarily economically, has Google.org has stated) and most importantly to be accountable to the customer whose positive feedback should be the prime objective. Even if financial profits are not the main objective, a business venture still needs some profit, otherwise it becomes a waste of time and money, something a business cannot afford even if it has a budget of billions. Unfortunately, it is just the opposite approach that has been dominating development until now.

Big institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have virtually unlimited funds and a highly advantageous balance of power with their customers which in no way makes them accountable and responsible for the failure of their projects. However, there seems to be some change in this area as well. At the eve of the IMF/WB summit in Singapore some shifts in the mentality of these pachyderms could ostensibly change their course. The choice to give China and other fast growing economies a larger say in the IMF’s decisions was long overdue in a world where cooperation should be prioritized. Regrettably, this shift still takes the form of a conflict of interest between countries which merely vie for more power; yet, this nonetheless balances the distribution of power and makes conflicts less likely at the same time. Meanwhile, the ongoing controversy among World Bank officials and staff concerns their president’s, Paul Wolfowitz, stance on corruption. Of course his background as one of the architects of the Iraq war does not allow him much trust or even credibility, but still the move should not be dismissed even if, as of now (and perhaps as expected), his stance is too extreme and pernicious. There is a real need for change in the way these all powerful institutions manage their funds and use their influence to curb such detrimental practices as corruption. I see this inside conflict as a real opportunity and test for the World Bank, it will say a lot about its viability and ability to change and most importantly listen, think and find a compromise. I will stop here for today, and make this entry a two part episode. With all this recent news, I wanted to comment a little bit before going into my reflection which I will be turning to shortly.

Music: Envy - Insomniac Doze (2006)

As I said in my first entry I will try to dedicate some of my writing to my coup de coeurs in music, films and other forms of art. Fortunately a few days ago I received a new CD by Envy which had a profound effect on me. Rarely music had reached such depth in the emotions it conveys, especially non-classical music. Envy is a Japanese group that could be classified as hardcore punk rock, but I don’t like classifications especially when the group in question is completely unique; their last record is distributed in the U.S. through Temporary Residence. What makes it unique is that I found it so perfectly balanced between intense moments of fury and despair and lullaby-like passages of calm and meditation. The tracks have plenty of time to delve into each of these elements with lengths between 4:30 and 15:30, although I shouldn’t talk about tracks because the album in its entirety is an experience; I couldn’t single out one track.

Like the lyrics which make various references to natural landscape and elements, the music takes you to a vivid dreamlike location. My first impression was that of a lake, of being afloat the water while squalls of wind lacerated my skin, but then being submerged just below the surface of the water, to a calm place, where, outside, the glimmer of distant stars can be seen. As I forget about the violence of the wind and languish gives way to total peace, my body sinks slowly, to a dark, empty and silent place with only the sounds inside my soul to be heard, another element used in the lyrics. Finally, I realize where I am, and as if great anxiety had suddenly griped my heart I seek the energy to resurface. The heart beat accelerates, without being frantic, and I am jerked out of the water, emerging from the other side of the lake into intense light.

This may be a vain attempt to convey a personal experience of music, something that others would not feel, but I hope this can rouse your curiosity for this group that deserves recognition. They have five CD s to this day which can be hard to get, for earlier ones I recommend going to Relapse Records.

The Vegetarian Charlatan

It used to be that I thought being a vegetarian was ridiculous; it was just another manifestation of the hypocrisy of the post-industrial glutton. I hate to see animals suffer, and factory farming is one of the most disheartening and gruesome industries created by humans (here is a good example: Farm to Fridge), but it is an industry, and industries process raw materials into goods. Knowing what torture the animals had to go through to get to my plate never stopped me from eating my burger, because in that case animals are commodities, and should be treated as such. So I thought vegetarians were just people who humanize animals way too much (e.g give animals pain killers? As far as I know when an animal has its throat slashed and torn in nature, it’s not under pain killers).

Of course, this is all a gross generalization and easy stereotype, yet until recently I couldn’t help but dismiss the vegetarian movement. So, what made me change my mind? One of the most important things was stepping out of the “whatever I do, it is just a drop in the Pacific Ocean” mentality. This is probably one of the biggest issues in our present society. As the population grows everyday we have the impression that our individual lives and actions count less and less, but can we justify that? It is shameful that this apathy got to the point where the state of Arizona wants to give the chance to win a million dollars to people who vote; that’s what I call the zenith, or rather the nadir of a pathetic and hypocrite society. Yes, voting and being a vegetarian is the same. The incentives to become a vegetarian are actually much stronger than to vote. While we vote as individuals in order to have a voice in a democracy, it remains a personal matter, being a vegetarian is both for the betterment of the individual, and the greater good of the world.

I’ll start with the personal reasons. First it seems that being a vegetarian is as, if not healthier, than our traditional omnivore diet. Countless studies show that most people eat a surplus of proteins (biologically, the main reason we eat meat) and that these proteins can easily be replaced by vegetal proteins. More generally, it is not hard to be convinced that there is something intrinsically wrong with our modern diet; just look around in any public space for about half a minute… To add insult to injury, the number of overweighed people in the world has recently surpassed the number of undernourished! We eat way too much, that is a fact, even if you are not overweighed it is very likely that you still eat too much, I certainly do. That brings me to the greater good.

If we worry about the way animals are treated, maybe we should also start worrying about our fellow humans who don’t have a chance to live while we live in excess plentitude. Of course feeding the starving is not as easy as giving up some of what we eat, but there is still a number that struck me, “the U.S could feed 800 million people with the grain livestock eat”. That’s more than enough to feed the 600 million undernourished shadows of humans in the world, instead it goes to undead animals. In fact the Cornell University article from which this figure is taken makes it clear why we should cut back on the meat. To recapitulate, we are clogging our arteries with an animal based diet, we take away resources that could be used toward a much more beneficial end than having a piece of dead meat on our plate, we kill animal mindlessly and inhumanely, and ravage the earth a little bit more than we already do to assuage our every desires. Sorry, but I’d rather save some money, and a few years of my life. I cannot be totally biased though, so I will offer so objections. But first of all I need to make a confession: I am far from being a vegetarian, and it is likely I will never be one. Was I pointing my finger at the hypocrites a little bit earlier?

Objection I: Meat IS healthy and has been a part of our diet for millennia. Yes there probably has been as many articles written about the benefits of being a vegetarian as there are about the benefits of eating meat. So meat is not completely detrimental after all, that is if you are willing to contribute to the torture animals have to endure, or take the risk of consuming some mercury with your next fish. Or you could decide to buy less but better quality meat and fish. I decided to cut the number of times I eat meat to once a week, then I can buy some of this expensive chicken with a label that assures me that it has been running to its heart content and fed only with stuff it would normally eat, not its fellow cell mate mixed with its offspring while living with its head halfway in its neighbor’s ass. It is not raising and killing animals that is wrong, it’s the way it’s done.

Objection II: We do not have to eradicate meat and fish from our diet, and in fact should continue to consume it because it is part of the culinary tradition of almost every culture in the world. What would happen to French cuisine without the lamb, beef or rabbit? What about sushi without salmon or tuna? But on the other hand, tuna is contaminated with the defecation of our energy plants, and salmon is getting hard to get. There might not be a shortage of meat, but the quality has greatly diminished. This is tying back to the previous objection, consume less and better quality food. Instead of going to the fast food to gulp a bunch of processed, chemically enhanced, mass produced substandard hunger deceivers once a week (or more), support farmers who raise animals in a way that allows them to develop normally, and in a hurry, prepare some food in advance to eat on your way (it saves even more time, and believe it or not, it is possible, just a matter of volition)
Objection III: I am just a hypocritical, moralistic rich boy with ideals spewing out of his mouth. That’s probably true, but I try my best and am willing to make an effort to change my habits. We can’t give away all the surplus food we produce, not everybody is in a position to make sacrifices, and many people are more stubborn than a mule, but, hey, this is MY blog. I realize this is already a long entry (I’ve been preparing it for a while) so I’ll conclude with a few further, hopefully short remarks.

First, without asking people to become vegans, a practice that I find way too extreme, I think dairies should be dropped out of, or reduced in, our diet as well. Many studies show that milk’s health benefit is overrated and that in many cases it is actually detrimental. This article by Dr. Kradjian is a good summary of the evidence there is out there, although I wouldn’t vow for the overall credibility since the article does not come from a well-established medical journal or website. Nevertheless, the best argument does not require being an authority in the field: Do other mammals drink milk once their mother has thrown them in the dangerous outside world? I recently read this excellent quotation on a blog, "Those who deliver milk are healthier than those who drink it", that says it all.

Finally, here are some good resources to learn more:

Food and Agriculture Organization (stats)

Peter Singer: a philosopher who while being even worse than I am at times, still has some very interesting stuff to say on the subject

Ten ways to create a vegetarian world :)
ChooseVeg: Classic activism and good recipes

Thanks mom for the guidance and suggestions

What is a Globizen?

When I was thinking of a word that could describe my blogger identity, I came up with this word: Globizen. It's a simple combination of global and citizen, and after some reflection I decided it was good enough. I was proud and cheerful of having coined such an ingenious word, but of course that was short lived. Before creating the blog I decided I should check if the word was not already in use. To my dismay, my favorite tool displays 343 results, not that many actually, but still, I'm a little late. To make matters worse, the first first result is "who's a globalizen?" so much for my originality... Seems like the BBC had the edge.

So does it matter? not at all. I still like the word and unlike this short article about who qualifies as a globizen, I don't intend to fit any kind of etiquette. This article about a survey by the BBC describes a group of upper-class Indians. Furtermore, most of the results Google spat actually refer to the BBC survey so the term is not widly used yet (maybe it will never be because it's just another lame word connected to globalization, like glocalization...). Other cases include other bloggers, who also see themselves as globizens. What's the common point? The globalized world we live in and the new attitude that derives from it, "think global, act local", right?

But if I don't fit this image, in what way am I different? Well, I'm just me, hopefully a unique individual. My goal is to explore ideas that I’ve had and will have that pertain to the global world in some way or another, not solely talk about globalization or its consequences. That's right I will mostly be talking about myself; in the end, it is a good old self centered blog. But that’s not all, I will also try to share things I find important or enjoyable whether it is music, films or books. You can be sure of one thing there will be no borders. That is what incited me to choose this name, the fact that I feel affiliated to no physical location (or spiritual for this matter). I have preferences, but I do not think in terms of “I am French” or “I am American” (my two nationalities).

Before I conclude I would like to welcome anyone to comment... intelligently, as this is before all an attempt to explore and challenge my ideas. I hope I will find the perseverance and motivation to keep posting and that you will enjoy the posts.

Welcome!