In the Head of a Globizen

Let's go somewhere!

2008-10-31T05:16:00.000-07:00

This weblog is supposed to be in part about my travels and impressions of South Africa, which I have been neglecting. So, today I am going to Jo'burg. Well, not really, but I am bringing you along anyway. let's leave from the flat in Sunnyside, a place with a moribund reputation, repulsive high-rise residential buildings coiffed with barbed wire. Earlier this week the car I had been driving was spirited away in front of our lovely flat and so we won't be driving to Jo'burg. Let's walk to the taxi rank in Central Pretoria, it's not too far, but not the most beautiful walk.
The traffic is heavy and taxis hoot at everyone who is walking to say: "HEY! you are walking; could it be that you want a taxi, but just forgot to signal it to me?" It is November and the jacaranda trees are no longer in bloom and the carpet of purple flowers has rotten or been swept away. We are almost there, to our right is the department of home affairs where you could be struggling to get a visa to stay here.
We have arrived finally. The sun is hot and the idea of being stuffed in a taxi is dreadful, but we get our passes at the office and look for the taxi going to Jo'burg. It is easy to find it as there is a queu in front and we have to wait for a couple of taxis to leave before we can get a seat.
Taxis here usually sit between 15 and 22 people and fortunately much of the fleet has been upgraded to new Toyata or Mercedes combis, most likely to prepare for 2010. Unfortunately, when our turn comes we get one of the older ones; we are in for some rattling squeezed in between sits. We get into the front seats so I have enough room for my legs. If it were a inner-city taxi we would be handling the change for everyone in the back, so be prepared to use some serious mental calculation skills if you sit in the front.
The taxi is now leaving, and we are alost immediately on the freeway. On the way out of Pretoria we pass the mastodonic building of the University of South Africa and we can see the shape of the bland Voortreker monument against a beautiful sky populated by immense clouds giving life to all fantasies. We chose the right time to leave, traffic is not yet congealed and we are going full speed. About an hour and the traffic would have been thick and slowed down to snail pace.
We are now in Midrand, the suburb between Pretoria and Johannesburg. Here monotonous buildings spread the way American suburbs have revolutionized urban planning. The landscape is complemented with big billboards advertising various products whose makers are most likely close-by. After a short building-less space in the landscape, a series of business parks pop-up; let's call it Multi-National Corporation lane. The name is a little lackluster, but appropriate. L'Oreal, Toyota, Motorola, Samsung, Vodacom the names bordering MNCL are colorful enough, representing countries from all over the world. The stretch between the two cities is a concentrate of what capitalism has to deliver, sprawling suburbs, throngs of cars, big corporations and the bouquet final, a giant mall!
Then, suddenly we are in Jo'burg. Everybody in the taxi is hot and windows are opened. We are in the northern part where gargantuan mansions sit behind 30 feet high walls. It is in fact all there is to see, high walls and if the steet were silent we would be able to hear the ticking sound that characterizes electric fences. But soon, we are out from between the walls and reach Hillbrow.
Hillbrow is similar to Sunnyside, it is a neighborhood with a shady reputation. The decripate high rise buildings are here, dirty streets, peddlers and many people loitering and walking up and down the streets, a sad picture for one of the mythical neighborhoods of Jo'burg. Before too long we come to a stop, in front, the street is packed with other taxis inching toward the taxi rank. We are next to Joubert Park where I have heard it is not safe for people of my color to venture. Still, this is where we get off for it is faster to walk than to wait at this point. As soon as we step out of the taxi we have to be extremely attentive, the flow of people is unremitting and we have to slalom through the generally very slow pace of the mass.
But there we are, central Jo'burg...where should we go next?

The Realm of Animals

2008-10-31T03:26:00.000-07:00

Ineffable Beauty -- Blyde River Canyon, Very Nice Holes and Falls

2008-10-31T02:58:00.000-07:00

Kill the dogs and cockroaches

2008-10-24T01:18:00.000-07:00

I won't say anything about the inhumanity of killing dogs and cockroaches, though most will disagree about the latter, but when theses terms are applied to humans, there is a serious problem. The ANC youth league has been having issues of that sort. They have incited people in Namibia to kill political opposition members; likewise in South Africa about the politicians who are breaking away from the mother party. This after affirming that the youth league is ready to kill for Zuma on a automatic rifle shaped placard. These are just words; there is no evidence that any one has put them into action... yet. But this is far from being acceptable of a country that has fought for so many year for its freedom from oppression and want to set an example of good governance for the region.

One step closer

2008-10-23T03:00:00.000-07:00

Jacob Zuma drove another nail into the coffin of multi-party democracy. He visited the U.S. full of confidence concerning his future and the future of his party.

We, however, maintain that the ANC will govern South Africa for many decades to come. That is because no other organisation has put forward policies that convincingly counter those of our movement. Most opposition parties spend their time criticising the ANC instead of putting forward convincing policy alternatives. The dissident group has fallen into the same trap, exploiting anger at losing leadership positions.

Fortunately, he boasted about the qualities of democracy in South Africa before trampling its very principles. I want to believe he can be a good leader and that democracy really is strong in South Africa, but will people really react in time if the leadership goes astray?
Good thing he believes in the resilience of the people of South Africa, they will likely need it. I hope that like parliamentary member Tony Leon commented, the schism within the ANC will be good for democracy.

What would Jesus do?

2008-10-23T01:31:00.000-07:00

Maybe Jesus is not the best person to ask about investments; he could always confer with his pals. A recent article reported Zimbabwe as the best investment opportunity in Africa, surprising since Zimbabwe's economy has reached abysmal levels. While inflation continues to soar at exponential speed and unemployment is better than employment rates in the best economies, the Zimbabwe stock exchange rose 241%, enough to make the depressed people of Wall Street go through the rainbow colors with jealousy.
South African firms are considering investing large sums in Zimbabwe. They have an advantage in that their knowledge of the regional market is better than most and that they are right next door. The mining sector in Zimbabwe is starved for capital, the cell phone industry has gone into a shell, food retailing... well 5 million in need of food assistance says enough. All of these are sectors in which South Africa has major players, but Mugabe still maintains a stranglehold on the economy and the flow of assets which precludes investors from going in, or rather come back out with their profits.
That is where Jesus comes into play. As an omniscient and ethical investor, what would he do? There are potentially vast returns to be collected, and many jobs to be created, these are good things. South African (and others) investments could help jump start the Zimbabwean economy if it reaches the path to recovery. But the downside is that there is still no sign that the economy is even facing in the right direction and that Mugabe is relaxing his grip, which means the risks are still prohibitively high for most and that a fair amount of the money will probably bolster the Mugabe regime. South Africa has already been criticized for not pulling out completely of Zimbabwe; the question is do these investments do more harm than good?

Lucky shots and flowers

2008-10-23T01:07:00.001-07:00

South Africa slowly but surely sliding

2008-10-14T02:39:00.000-07:00

I don't think it would have a very long life span, I would be surprised," he said. "What kind of alternative policies could you put across alternate to the ANC, that would challenge the ANC?

The quote is from Jacob Zuma, in shining splendor, delineating his plan for a one party democracy. The ANC is a comprehensive party it includes both left wing and right wing ideologies and follows a relatively solid political agenda. But Zuma is arrogant to claim that there is no viable alternative when he has been shouting that he is an alternative. He has big plans for South Africa, he is going to change things and finally act on all the promises the ANC made. Mbeki was a stolid intellectual with training in economics from the UK. Zuma is a left-winger with a lot of rhetoric and muscle; this difference of leadership in itself is an alternative. If a solid party were to emerge from Mbeki's political demise, it would have strong grounds to contest Zuma’s politics, unless Zuma compromises pragmatically his policies. If Zuma adopts the best of the policies of the ANC of Mbeki and post Mbeki, then it’s true that alternatives become less obvious, because the ANC branch which retains the name, would still represent the myth of the liberation party with at its head a “freedom fighter,” this still has immense weight; a weight the party uses righteously to purge itself of dissenters. Three much needed cheers for democracy, please.

Let's blame!

2008-10-14T01:46:00.000-07:00

The apartheid system that ended in 1994 is to blame for the devastating effects of poverty and unemployment in South Africa. The result is increased crime, escalating HIV/AIDS cases and family disabilities, according to Rev. Faleni Mzukisi of the Presbyterian Church of Africa in Nyanga, Cape Town.

Speaking to participants of the WACC 2008 Congress who visited the Gugulethu Presbyterian Church 8 October, Mzukisi said that although apartheid was a terrible crime against humanity that left people with deep scars, poverty was an even worse crime.

The Church blames apartheid for the current state of South Africa and effectively makes most countries, if not all, guilty of an horrendous crime against humanity. If Poverty is a crime, then we need someone to blame. One Church in South Africa chose apartheid, Mugabe in neighboring Zimbabwe chose colonialism (funny how similar the two views are,incidently, not the only one on which Mugabe and the Church are in agreement). In fact, many people blame some form or other of colonialism for many of the woes crippling Africa to this day.
Recently, I have come across unconventional opinions about blaming in Africa. For some reason they tend to come from Ghana; perhaps, they have become more sagacious since it was the first county to gain independence on the continent. They claim that Africans have to stop blaming others and start blaming themselves for the civil wars, genocides, econocides, politicides, etc... Colonialism has had some terrible consequences and left much confusion and desperation in its wake, but it’s been almost 60 years for Ghana. On the other hand, South Africa has gained majority rule only 14 years ago, yet it is by far the most prosperous country in Africa and one of the most successful among the emerging economies. But, yes, many buts. There is no doubt the South African transition has not delivered on many of the promises (read entry below).
I decided to blame as well since we are playing a global blame game. I blame religions for one, they seem overly protected from criticism. I am aware that there is no lack of religion bashing, but is there too much yet? Religion was one of the biggest agents of colonialism, the religion that the reverend belongs to was brought by the very men he is blaming for the poverty of his country. Africa is relatively free of religious conflicts if we exclude all the countries on the border of Christianity and Islam, about a dozen. But let's not limit to Africa for once, religion is a source of conflict. One only needs to read the news daily to realize that.
AIDS is another issue that sullies religion's hands. Even if we ignore that God should be the creator of the disease as the Creator (and all others diseases for that matter), the Church is also responsible for refusing to promote condoms and comprehensive sexual education; in a world where millions are sexually abused, religion sure is doing a great job.
Apartheid was an inhumane system based on institutionalized discrimination against non-whites; the Church did not support that, although surprisingly many of the architects and supporters of that system were devout church-goers. How strange, same God, right? But, now, we are talking about now after all. Well, religions repeatedly spreads a homophobic creed, denying the right of homosexuals to enjoy the same rights as their heterosexual kin, there's a name for that I think… discrimination; I'm sure pious and virtuous people are against that. Yet, hate crimes against homosexuals is commonplace here and around the world, surely they cannot condone that, but after all homosexuals are sinners, as such they deserve to be stoned or something, so says the Book I believe.
On the other hand, religion-based organisations are some of the biggest contributors to humanitarian causes, probably the biggest after states. So they do some good after all, not withstanding all the strings attached to promote moral integrity. Last weekend superstar preacher from Dallas, Texas came to Johannesburg to spread the good word. It's fatastic to see that religions give back to the families that were killed for not believing in the right version of God, for the diseases God helped permeate societies, the millions abused in silence because God instated certain rules concerning molestation by its messengers, rape by its servants, honor killing by its pious families, genital cutting, empty promises of a better life all because... because it's God in all its benevolence.
They really give back, a little, a fraction of what they receive, benevolent and selfless indeed. Religion can still afford some of the most extravagant and ostentatious buildings, it still asks the believers for their money so that the messenger can drive a BMW, have several wives, just so that the messenger can live with dignity while the servants slave away to bring back something to donate. I am done being tolerant of such infamy, but one cannot generalize.
I am taking easy shots and chose to ignore all the complexities of religion, for it is very complex and being pious is one of the hardest things to accomplish. Many outstanding individuals who act in the name of God try to set an example: Desmond Tutu, Mother Theresa, the Pope. Well they certainly are outstanding messengers, but they are, more often than not, guilty of some of my reproaches. South Africa is a country beset by crime, AIDS and inequality; it is a heavy burden for a pious nation, but there is apartheid to blame.

Much information in parantheses

2008-10-14T00:33:00.000-07:00

Recently, I went to Johannesburg and Soweto; every excursion in the urban jungles of Gauteng Province is fascinating. On the way there you see giant billboards telling you how to invest in real estate with an SMS (you can do almost anything with SMS here, help prevent crime, find true love, get insurance…). Once I get off the taxi, I’m back in the unfamiliar feeling of having to navigate the crowds. In the middle of this permanent assault on senses, one sees shopping carts stacked with severed cow heads cutting through the throngs of hawker, shoppers and people. Still, I tried to look at my surroundings a little more this time even though the hustle and bustle of the streets requires all your attention.
Inner-cities in the Untied States are a collection of dilapidated buildings empty streets and drug dealers, at least that’s the image we are often presented with. Here, it is similar, dilapidated buildings rise high into the sky and the streets are full of activity, surely, the drug dealers are somewhere to be found. No matter how you look at it, however, the picture does not convey the same sense of despair that American inner-cities are known for. The reality is more complex of course, but that’s a snapshot.
Gauteng is by far the wealthiest province in South Africa (income is 82% above national average representing 36% of national income) so it offers a distorted vision of the country, but I found an interesting report that gives a general statistical point of view. Statistics implies a lot of distortion as well, but we like them so much that it’s hard to pass the opportunity.
South Africa has one of the highest inequality rates in the world (Gini index-a measure of inequality- of 58, by comparison Sweden has an index of 25), yet I’m going to argue that the present situation is not as bad as it is in the United States and many wealthy countries.
In 2005/2006 the richest 10% South African had an average income 94 times superior to the poorest 10%, the bottom decile represented 0.2% of all income, the top decile 51%; that’s some big disparity. Income of the 10% poorest, however, went up 79% between 2000 and 2005 in real terms (the biggest increase of all groups) which brought the average from around R2500 to R4500. In context, the average income of the poorest 10% went from below extreme poverty (as measure by international standards at $1.25 per day) to being safely above. The big percentage doesn’t correspond to much (less than one additional dollar a day), but it makes a significant difference (these measures do not take into account purchasing power parity). At the same time the average income of the richest 10% went up 37% which corresponds to a big increase when the income is already high. These figures, nevertheless, pale in comparison to the U.S. where the the richest have income 440 times higher than the poorest and income for the bottom 90% is not keeping up with inflation.
In South Africa you cannot ignore the different population groups. The black population represents 80% of the total, but only 41% of income. Blacks constitute more than 90% of the four poorest deciles while only 17% of the top decile. The white population (9% of the population) represents less than 5% in each of the first seven deciles, but 72.7% of the top decile. The smaller coloured and Asian/Indian populations occupy mostly the top half of the chart. You can look at this data in two ways. One is to say that the system of apartheid is still very much in place with the majority of black Africans facing abject poverty while the white population enjoys the bulk of the wealth of the country. The other way is to accept that it has been only 14 years and that now Black Africans are getting closer to represent a commensurate percentage of the top half of the board with the exception of the top two deciles (48% and 17% respectively). The black middle class grew 15% in just one year. Furthermore, income is increasing for everyone, fastest for the poorest, mostly through redistribution at this point. The road remains long and tumultuous, but is paved with high, though fragile, hopes. It is a matter of not stomping on them.

Didn't have much time to write on my blog or check my Blackberry, sorry,

2008-09-30T06:24:00.000-07:00

In between meetings with the VIP of development, Bono has been blogging with his mate Jeff Sachs. Bono, ever optimistic, demands that the encouraging stats concerning the progress towards achieving the MDGs be decimated. I guess I just did my good deed for the day.
The reason for the blogging is that this last week has been an important one for people who follow the trends of aid to developing countries closely. French president Nicholas Sarkozy is spearheading the movement this year and is pushing for a unilateral increase in aid to the pledged 0.7% of GDP.
There is a problem, uh, several in fact. As President Sarkozy has noted last week there is new competition coming from China. Chinese aid usually has no string attached and flows to countries that often have a long and ornate record of human rights violation. This paper gives an overview as to why trade with China affects the traders’ economy.
Bono, in his praise of Japanese PM and jovial interaction based on comic books, overlooked something rather important. Japanese aid can be traced to many of the success stories of development, but what role did Japanese aid play? I don’t want to be a cynical in the face of Bono’s optimism, but Japan’s approach to aid has been criticized for its heavy emphasis on infrastructural development and… that’s it. It’s nice, but doesn’t go very far to create the so desired ideal of sustainable development. Maybe I have a capacity for darkness like my new favorite fictional character Alan Shore, but when Bono double wows about talks to tackle Malaria by 2015, I say, wait for 2015 before getting excited, and second, what will happen to the millions saved from the deadly bite of mosquitoes? One often forgets, there is no one issue that stands alone in development (I can’t believe I’m tying in all the information I’ve read about into one entry inadvertently…)
This explains why many of the MDGs have seen so little progress in Africa; one of the most sordid cases is child mortality. So, Bono and consorts, thank you for the good news and the efforts, but to this day, I’m afraid we prefer to focus on the bad news and what remains to be done. As Chris Blattman (whom I am grateful to for providing me with much of the this information) wrote the MDG are purely humanitarian and do little to improve the the immediate needs of African countries to spur growth (Life is not all about economic growth, but it helps, no?).
I must say I am very biased, I find Bono’s attitude often repulsive (I truly hope it is only a façade), but to his credit he provides exactly what many, many people want to see and hear, so I am compelled to give him credit for what he does, as far as I know he still does more good than harm. It is good to know that we are making progress, but we would be fooling ourselves to think that the task is anything less than daunting, and aid alone will not solve much.

Can Obama and McCain save Africa?

2008-09-30T02:29:00.000-07:00

Two articles published by a republican and a democrat excerpted from remarks to the Constituency for Africa 2008 Ronald H. Brown African Affairs Series forum on "U.S.-Africa Policy Agenda and the Next Administration" at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

If we ignore everything else on the respective candidates agenda, I would say that the McCain camp has some pretty good ideas. However, the emphasis on hard power, no matter how mitigated, is still rather frightening. Not to mention that most of what is delineated in the program sounds highly unfeasible. There is a thing called lobbies in the U.S. and they tend to have their way with politicians. That's why when I read of cutting farming subsidies in the U.S. I am rather skeptical.
On the other hand, Obama's program looks less involved, more simple, more realistic. It focuses on initiatives that are well established and make a difference (such as the initiative to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria and other tropical diseases). Another good thing, Obama seems committed to maintaining and furthering the efforts made to have freer trade with Africa, both ways. This one of the major issues with democrats, trade, if Obama sees its value and acts on his words that is praise-worthy. Obama also deserves a "however," so, however, Obama's tendency to be anti-free trade with his "protect the American workers" agenda leaves me skeptical, too. One cannot have the best of both world...
Anyway, you can read for yourself.

Zimbabwe's economic ruin, any hope?

2008-09-30T00:30:00.000-07:00

According to Bernard Harborne, Lead Conflict Specialist at the World Bank, Zimbabwe’s military and its leaders have been “major beneficiaries” of government “quasi-fiscal excesses.”

“Substantial transfers and subsidies are made to keep them loyal and in check. This fiscal drain has reinforced the regime-focused nature of the military and cultivated a culture of entitlement,” Harborne says.

This excerpt from an article that gives good insight about the state of the economy of Zimbabwe and the prospects for improvement points at one of the big obstacles. In a nation where the military has developed a "culture of entitlement" the biggest danger would be to reform the system drastically and simply say to the branches of the military and paramilitary (the infamous wovits, war vets) especially close to the ZANU-PF, "we're cutting off your benefits, now you are a normal military," or worse "there is no need for you, go back home and find a job." The transition for the military is one of the touchiest ones for the country as a whole and will be, for me, a reference to measure progress. Tsvangirai has expressed the possibility of prosecution of some of the leaders, but it not the leaders alone that have ruined the country by seizing farms.
I can just imagine what happens in France whenever the government tries to rescind some social benefits, except in Zimbabwe they don't go to the street with placards, they go with pangas, knobkerries and AK-47s.
Furthermore, this situation is not unique to Zimbabwe, the case of (child) soldiers in Liberia and Sierra Leone unable to go back to a normal life and becoming mercenaries in other wars, the protracted war in DRC, etc. Control and regularization of the military seems to be a major problem in Africa, a problem that deserves more attention.

Good luck Morgan

Mbeki/Mugabe Conundrum

2008-09-29T05:23:00.000-07:00

A quick glance at op-ed columns will make you realize that there is no consensus on Mbeki’s legacy. As I have stated previously some admire him some hate him. A few months back Thomas Friedman assumed the moral authority to proclaim that “the only one who rivals [Mugabe] is his neighbor and chief enabler and protector, South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki.” Just recently a Zimbabwean columnist resuscitated the analogy. The problem is that there is ground to argue both sides. Some will say that Mbeki’s view on HIV/AIDS were delusional and caused too much unnecessary suffering to be forgiven. Similarly, his role in Zimbabwe could be seen as detrimental. It could be argued that by using “quiet diplomacy” and not cutting off completely the relationship between Zimbabwe and South Africa, he deliberately supported Mugabe and prolonged the Zimbabweans’ suffering. How can we forgive such a source of suffering for one man, perhaps he deserves to be on the list of worst dictators?
Well, first of all, he is not a dictator; he was elected and has respected the constitution within the boundaries of acceptable governance. In fact, many political leaders have caused much suffering and are still acclaimed (Think President Bush, who was not ousted, but re-elected). The issue of AIDS is troubling, it cannot be ignored, so is the issue of poverty and inequality, and crime. These are major issues that need to be addressed, but a single presidency will never suffice. The rest of the world cannot do much about it, they cannot even agree on the best way to go about it and in 15 years (the time South Africa will have been free after nest year’s election) the Millennium Development Goal that the richest nation in world have pledged to uphold will not be achieved in many African countries. Obviously, there is a difference between international level of action and governance, and national level; the national has more power, duties and legitimacy, but still, it says quite a bit about the tasks the government faces.
Concerning Zimbabwe, what we have to ask is what were the alternatives? Many detractors of Mbeki were proponent of a more direct and forceful approach. Go to war with Zimbabwe? Completely isolating Zimbabwe? Uncompromisingly criticize Mugabe? Would any of these have resulted in lesser suffering of the Zimbabweans? War? That’s a pretty easy one; war without casualties is hard, war against a demential dictator who does not hesitate to cut his citizens down, you can imagine. Isolation? Zimbabwe was quite isolated, no food aid allowed, no weapons from China, no funds, landlocked… yet, Mugabe did not budge. As long as Mugabe had supplies for his place and his private army he felt quite safe. Should we mention that it is a country where top leaders assume the pseudonyms Hitler and Stalin and pragmatically state that the country would be better off with six million fewer citizens, especially if they are from the opposition? Criticism? 28 years in power, of which between three and five were without strong criticism; we all know the power of speech when it comes to dictators. In conclusion, I don’t think any one is in a position to really criticize the outcome of the Zimbabwe chaos. Something happened that undermines Mugabe’s stranglehold, that’s an achievement that is concrete.
Finally, I think the new transient president of South Africa, Kgalema Motlanthe, did well to praise and thank Thabo Mbeki; he belongs in a category far removed from the likes of Comrade Bob.

What will rise from Mbeki's ashes?

2008-09-23T00:49:00.002-07:00

Mbeki's resignation ripple effect is starting to be apparent. Mbeki did not loose time in reigniting the controversy surrounding the prosecution of Jacob Zuma and is insisting on revising the conclusions of Judge Nicholson. How exactly his resignation and Zuma's dismissal of charges are related is very complex. It is possible, however, that Mbeki, by resigning, bit the bullet so as to give himself more leverage on the Zuma case. He took responsibility for his piecemeal alienation by the ANC that started when he lost the presidency of the party to Zuma, now, it is Zuma's turn to face his charges. I don't think Mbeki's departure was magnanimous; he was ousted for his belligerence towards Zuma. He denies being involved in the prosecution, but what his apparent is that the belligerence has not dissipated.
The bigger issue that this fight underlines is the widening division within the ANC. Nobel Peace prize Laureate Desmond Tutu expressed his discontentment noting that "The so-called recalling of the President of our land fits the pattern of settling of scores and the throwing about of weight." Mbeki has strong supporters, notably among the ministers, and his downfall will not be without repercussions for the government. It also implies that many within the party are against the rise of Zuma. Some have talked about the creation of a new party, but this is mere speculation at this point.
I think this is a turning point in South African politics and its de facto one party government. The now blatant feuds within the ANC exacerbate the divisions that already existed and even if it does not result in the fractionalization of the party, it has already bolstered the other parties' support. It might not be immediately visible, probably not for the next elections, but a political gear has beens set in motion. A development that could result in a healthier democratic system, or in a backlash and further concentration of power in the hands of the heavy weights of the ANC.

Pretoria in Picures

2008-09-22T07:06:00.001-07:00

Turbulent Weekend

2008-09-22T06:47:00.000-07:00

This weekend I went out for a drink, to be more precise several drinks with some friends. We decided to have a bite to eat first at the local pizza chain Roman’s. Well, their pizza is decent, but they could use a lesson from Wal-mart’s PR person. If you look at the little plastic folder in which they put the check you can read something along these lines: “PLEASE TIP OUR WAITERS WELL, we pay them very poorly” (I would have to check for exact wording). Who knows, that might be a tactic worth exploring.
On another note, during this exciting weekend I tried to rent a movie, a very novel experience it turned out to be. At the biggest video store in Africa, you are greeted by a rather creepy Afrikaner (first creepy Afrikaner encounter) who reluctantly invites you to put your finger on the finger print reader (first raised eyebrows). Then, he realizes that you are not a member and explains the formalities of this very exclusive club: One photo ID, one proof of address and two referrals by people you know (second raised eyebrows). Apparently loaning videos is quite a risky business around here. Sulking over this great disappointment I went home and flopped on the couch resigned to watch the TV feature of the night.
Pretty dull weekend you are thinking, but I have something to perk your attention (or definitively make you click on the red box with an X). Hardly a week after Mugabe’s humiliating power sharing deal, it is the turn of one of the deal’s superstars to be humiliated. Thabo Mbeki was forced to resign from the position of President of the Republic of South Africa. There are many points of views, some think humiliation, some say cowardice, others lament as he announced with dignity his decision. I walked by the camera crews preparing the news in front of the Union Buildings, how cool is that?
Undeniably, Mbeki has a mixed record. South Africa has experienced the longest uninterrupted economic growth in its history; AIDS has spread without much being done to prevent it; the black population is still facing socio-economic barriers, etc. It can also be said that if Mbeki so readily resigned after being pressured by the party he has been a member of for 52 years, that he must be guilty of something and he saw the opportunity to exit with the least damage to his reputation. Mbeki really is a mystery, at the same time an incredible intellectual and someone who resisted the reality of the HIV/AIDS pandemic for years. For people interested in the recent history of South Africa and Mbeki’s role, I recommend Gumede’s “Thabo Mbeki and the battle for the soul of the ANC.” In any case, his resignation speech was smooth and grandiloquent, as expected.
His speech was smooth, but the transition that is going to follow might not be so. Many see the resignation has untimely, especially with respect to Zimbabwe. An article from Financial Times points out that even if Mbeki retains his position as mediator, his leverage will be compromised by his lack of legitimate power; this, at a time when Mugabe is once again succumbing to pressure from his party’s leaders. It is what triggered the downfall of the ZANU-PF and Zimbabwe in the mid 1980 and it is most likely what will keep the country down and divided presently. One only needs to compare the speeches of Mugabe and Mbeki to see the vast gap in their ideas of democracy and statesmanship. Mugabe is a tired pit bull with a horde of supporting ones, who once they bite, are unlikely to let go. Mbeki’s choice is respectable, he decided to set an example by not protesting the constitutional choices of his party, but maybe it was justified to be a little more pit bullish. The precarious stability of Zimbabwe is at stake as well as South Africa’s.
Furthermore, we must keep in mind what comes next; it hasn’t changed with Mbeki’s departure. The name is still Zuma. This bigger-than-life man is charismatic, he is also a populist. Populist politicians scare me and I’m not the only one scared by Zuma. Yes, there is a need for someone who is closer to the South Africans; there is also a need for someone with a very good understanding of the complex situation South Africa is in. I don’t know enough about Zuma to say it cannot be good for South Africa, but there is enough ground for concern.

One week later

2008-09-18T00:01:00.001-07:00

People have started noticing my height! Often. I am officially the tallest person in the office and people call me Long in the streets. That means that my period of adaptation is over. I am still a little white, but back to being so visibly tall. Maybe Japan is the place for me if I want to avoid the remarks. A country where people are too reserved and polite to say anything... or maybe it just requires more time there.
まあね

Whistling Parking Helpers (WPH)

2008-09-18T00:01:00.000-07:00

I have mentioned before that people value their cars here. I have noticed things very similar to what you would see in the states or Europe: big stereos, abundant car washing and the plethora of car related obsessions, enough to satisfy my car passionate molecule.
There is one thing, however, that is a little unusual and connected to cars. Men standing by the side of the road, let's call them parking helpers, that, well, help drivers park. They wave at drivers from free spots on busy streets then direct them in their parallel parking or stop traffic to let them get out, all thanks to their incredibly communicative whistles (I must say I wouldn't say no to such service sometimes). People can be truly imaginative and opportunistic here. There are many cars, not very many parking spot, there is a demand, here is the supply.
The other thing that strikes me, is the cars that the WPH direct, BMW, Mercedes, Audi... very nice, often brand new cars (with a bias for German makers). No wonder BMW invested in SA and other car manufacturer are following. The car is king in S.A. (maybe queen, a car is a woman in French). Not having a car here is a pain; it is a little like L.A.. Yes, the Pretoria, Jo'burg megalopolis is turning into a L.A. type of urban monster. The smog is here, the restaurants, probably some stars and many rich people. Wait! Rich people? Africa? Rich people?? That doesn't seem right. Usually you here Africa, rich despots, rich kleptomaniacs, but not reach people. Believe it or not, it is a reality here.
There is, as always, another side to this reality. The BRIC is the acronym regrouping what is often referred to as emerging economies, or economies who have embraced market liberalization and have had a record of high growth and attract billions in the form of investments; namely Brazil, Russia, India and China. South Africa deserves a spot in there, so, perhaps BRISAC? South Africa as the highest GDP per capita of the group when adjusted for purchasing power, a high growth rate, a respectable literacy rate and primary school enrollment, and yet the GDP minus HDI is -65. This probably doesn't mean much to most. It means that for the level of wealth of South Africa, the level of human standard of living is dismal.
There is a simple explanation as far as statistics go. S.A. has the lowest life expectancy culminating at 50 years. HIV/AIDS may have played a role there, president M'beki? Ah, among the BRISAC, S.A. also has a very impressive murder statistic. S.A. is also trailing close behind Brazil for highest inequality. Indeed, just today the news cast announced that since 2003 the black population has made very little headway in management positions. SA shouldn't be considered a beacon of hope at the tip of Africa then? Certainly not, I am convinced S.A. retains a potential that few countries can boast about, but the obstacles are proportional. This means the weight on the shoulders of the leaders of this country is incredible, maybe balanced, but incredibly heavy. With an incumbent playing the (quite welcomed) role of a regional mediator and the most likely successor facing a myriad of charges, again, how long can this fragile balance remain?

The end of a top ten dictator?

2008-09-16T00:05:00.000-07:00

After the signing of a power sharing agreement in Zimbabwe, is there hope for change?
I must say I am very skeptical, but there is hope. First, we cannot understate the watershed that this agreement represents. Mugabe is a well established member of the top ten worst dictators in the world who has ruled single handedly (at least in appearance) for 28 years.
The story of a fellow dictator with a pristine reputation is analogous. Mobutu Sese Seko from the early 1990s was pressurized in similar ways both at home and internationally. He eventually agreed to share his power with a a few reasonable conditions. He was to remain in power above all criticism as an “arbitrator” or “last resort," he could not be “subject to criticism or the supervision of parliament because he is the guarantor of national unity, the pacifier.” This coming from a leader who once had said "So long as I live there will never be a bi-party or multi-party system in Zaire…” was immeasurable step. Can you guess what the result was? Only when an army of rebels from the east raided the capital and mollified the already enervated army, did Mobutu flee the country with his $5 billion for Morocco where he died two years later.
Is Zim facing a similar situation? Is Mugabe really forfeiting is power (or the appearance of his power) or making sure that the people who have been the masterminds of his reign and most likely successor still have a solid foot in the doors of state control.
There is certainly evidence to show that Mugabe has changed his approach to politics. When talking about the future of his country in this moment of hope he did not mention his nemesis prime minister or the party he represents, instead he said "African problems must be solved by Africans," before adding a touch of reality "The problem we have had is a problem that has been created by former colonial power. Why, why, why the hand of the British? Why, why, why the hand of the Americans here? Let us ask that." He then musically antagonized the president of neighboring Botswana, who was a lone voice against Mugabe's dealing with the last elections.
Can we draw any conclusions? The general opinion is a clear no. The Zimbabweans are hopeful, they deserve that speck of hope, but the rest of the world is watching. M'beki, president of South Africa, seems satisfied, his policy of quiet diplomacy did result in a significantly better situation than what could have followed unabashed election fraud and repression. Wiseness or luck? Who knows, nonetheless, his perseverance paid off, though at a high price for his country at a time when it needs a strong leader.
Just as democracy is the best of the worst, maybe this outcome is the best that could be achieved. Zimbabwe is a country with an unfathomable inflation rate of 11 million%, over 80% unemployment rate, 5 out of 12 million in need of food assistance and a fourth of the country living abroad. Indeed, the Zimbabweans need all the hope they can garner.

PS: To conclude this rather bleak post, let's not forget that to this day the region of the East of Congo is stage for some of the worst atrocities perpetrated in Africa in a country that has already suffered the loss of 4 million of its people in a most silent civil strife.

Jo'burg

2008-09-14T06:25:00.000-07:00

Today, I spent some time in the biggest city in SA, commonly known as Jo'burg. I got to interact a little more with people. I found a most honest taxi driver. I also went out at night alone in the center of the crime ridden city and returned safe... from across the street. It's a start, right? Finding a taxi back to chilled Pretoria was another issue. I have never seen so many people in such a concentrated place. I had read that places in poor countries were considered overcrowded because it is full of poverty not so much as people, but I beg to disagree, at least in that instance. I have been to Tokyo a city six times the size of Jo'burg and walked many of its streets, only one street could be comparable in terms of density, the busiest street in Tokyo I have read. I was fortunate to be waved at by two guys who made the second remark about my height and also about how strange it was for a handsome white man to be without car. Faced with such flattery I couldn't refuse buying them a beer in exchange for them walking me to the taxi station and protecting me from the tsotsi. The taxi station happened to be right around the corner...
The concentration reached a second apex when it went from just people to taxis. Imagine the Japanese subway full to the bream, replace the train with a parking structure and the people with taxis and more people, it might give you an idea. It is just as amazing to witness how people in Japan manage to gush out of the trains without any collisions, as it is to see taxis here getting on the road without collisions with other taxis or people.

PS so far, I haven't felt threatened, I have been chary by any mean but never felt threatened. Acknowledging that I haven't been to a poor area per say, it is still remarkable that even with a density probably in the hundreds of thousands per square kilometer I have been asked for money only twice, half what I would usually expect in a relatively affluent city in the richest country in the world (not counting the ones who asks you twice or more within the hour). That might be a cultural shock?

Miracle Doctors

2008-09-14T06:24:00.000-07:00

The cherry on the cake so far is that I think I might have discovered the source of all that spam so many of you get in your email. There is a doctor here that not only offers to make your penis larger, but also to enable you to have children, not to forget that he can make your wife love you and many other miracle remedies to your (men) woes. Not to go on a tangent, but people here listen to quality music with titles as “my wife loves me.” Whoever was concerned to promoting fidelity in that part of the world seems to have strong allies. End of the circumlocution. Any one who has been to a major city has seen these falsely inconspicuous posters with a mysteriously attractive name accompanied by a phone number. Here also they have those, that's how I learned about the internationally renowned miracle doctor. For women, they have something a little bit short of a miracle cure, they advertise one day abortion, fast, affordable and painless, just rip the little dangling piece of paper with the magical phone number, could sound like a miracle.
There seems to be an issue regarding sexual behavior in South Africa. Either that or people tend to be reluctant to talk about it in more righteous societies? When there are two possibilities like that I usually go for the combination. Still, South Africa is the highest rape rate in the world, a HIV positive prevalence in the vicinity of 30%, the second highest in the world, a presidential candidate that has raped a HIV positive teenager before showering to "wash off the virus" and refusal on the part of members of that society to change even when faced with the risk of... suffering a horrible death and inflict the same fate on others.
It is an issue that I will come back to more than once I am sure, but today I read something so encouraging. After years of hearing about the evilness of female genital cutting, I read once again that male circumcision is being promoted as a way to prevent AIDS... What kind of message is that likely to send? As the author of the article rightly pointed out, cut the tip of your possibly aggrandized penis thanks to the services of mysterious spamming doctor and no more risk of HIV? To my knowledge there is no studies that proves that male circumcision prevents HIV transmission unless coupled with other modes of prevention, it merely decreases the likelyhood for the man to get infected by up to 50%. In other words it is far, very far, from a viable solution. The men are less at risk, good. The women? Not at all. The men that do have AIDS, circumcised or not, and sleep with mutliple partners, consenting or not, will still spread the virus exponentially. Furthermore, it is likely to send a distorted message unless there is a highly efficient campaign of education to go with it. Am I understanding that it is easier and cheaper to circumcise and educate than to educate and use condoms (which are necessary anyway and do not require taking the risk of transmission when people take the initiative to chain circumcise with the same knife). There is simply no justification. It is not easier, cheaper or more efficient than the other means of prevention. Finally, wait! Female cutting is wrong, but not male cutting? somebody explain that to me. Isn't it ironic that some encourage male cutting in cultures that do not practice it and others (though, possibly the same) are advocating the banning of female cutting in cultures that have practiced it for eons?

I am so shocked!

2008-09-14T06:07:00.000-07:00

Africa is unique; it is a most unique place on earth, one would expect the cultural shock to kick in almost immediately. Nope. The last time I truly felt culturally shocked (if you give the word shock all of its weight) was in my home country, in my home town actually. Here, I have not been truly surprised or “shocked” by what I have encountered. Indeed, I believe it takes years to attain cultural shock, simply because it takes years to get to know a culture well enough. There is so much you can learn about in books, there is so much that is just a consequence of being in a foreign environment. To me cultural shock implies discovering something about a culture that is completely beyond your comprehension, that challenges your preconceptions.
Still, South Africa, I have read numerous books about the country, read about the latest socio-economico-politico developments, but none of that prepares you for the reality of a country. What I have seen so far is throngs of busy, relaxed, joyous, angry people. People who value their cars and like to display them. Businesses that come closer to perfect competition than most text book examples in the form of hair salons and internet cafes, which, apparently, go well together. Fast foods plenty enough to satiate the best of us as long as chicken is a favorite and a little money is in the wallet.
Did any of that shock me? No, I haven't been paralyzed with awe or fear and the urge to return to something more familiar. Of course not, this is what you find in almost any large city in the world. Pretoria is not an exception. There is the barbed wire, the hawkers selling candies, vegetables and phone calls at every street corner and other oddities that I had never encountered in my travels before, but that's the way this city is.
So why go to South Africa if I find nothing really different? Have I mentioned that these are my first impressions? I am here because I hope to meet South Africans, the people that make this land called South Africa what it is. Before you get to know people and their culture, nothing really differs between countries, just different messages from the senses to brain and memory and good material for photographs sometimes.

Am I whiter or taller?

2008-09-14T06:06:00.000-07:00

I'm unconventionally tall; consequently, I am fairly accustomed to people staring at me. Still, there have been times when my tallness has made me more self-conscious, one instance being Japan, for reasons that I probably do not need to state. Another one of my first impressions is not as much about my height as it is with the way people look at me. In fact, there as been only one person so far who has made a remark about my height.
In the streets I feel the gaze of many people, which is not unusual, but as far as I feel, it is no longer my being aware that I am quite a bit taller than all the people around me, it is also the simple fact that my pigmentation is several hues lighter than all the people around me. Surely, I haven't spent enough time in this environment to really tell if it feels any different than just being taller. Maybe if people were to ask me randomly how tall I was, I would revert to thinking primarily about my height, but, most disappointingly, all I've heard so far is “oh, he is tall!” I would almost miss the odd comments about my remarkable height and that other thing I'm supposed to be doing. My last of memory of Europe being the condemning look I endured when I told the security guard I don't play basketball. Wait, though, I'm ignoring something primordial. I am in the exact same situation as I was in Japan, except...
The difference is not in how I stand out. Japan is much worse than here, not only people are rarely above the average height, they also constitute the second most homogeneous country in the world. The difference resides in the realization that I will be standing out for six months, not two weeks as a mere tourist. I face a situation where I am part of a society and yet so visibly foreign inside and out. Moreover, I am in a country where the old white lady hastily going down a crowded street addresses you out of thousands with the nicest “ah!” (as in ah! finally a white person) “would you have the time please?” Well, I didn't have the time but the Indian person selling me my telephone (but really more a watch) told her, I wonder if she was even listening.
Maybe more time will allow me to ascertain which of the traits makes me feel more self-conscious. Will it be being the same pigmentation as the people who dropped two A-bombs and orchestrated a system of institutionalized discrimination and racism, or my earning a percent more wage for every additional inch I am above the average? Well, I am not responsible for the former and I work for free at this moment, so I am guessing the issue will be a hard one.

Barbed wire

2008-09-14T06:04:00.000-07:00

“here we are, this is the place.” I get out of the car and look up at the tall buildings, yes, fortunately I tend to look up since I am already pretty high (literally). The sight is not unfamiliar, tall apartment buildings, actually relatively nice compared to what I have had occasion to see in some neighborhoods in Europe, East and West. But inevitably my gaze slowly descends to the ground and stops at eye level. Barbed wire. Right... left... behind. Was I supposed to stay in a military base, a zone of war? These are the only places I've seen this kind barbed wire, in pictures courtesy of CNN and company, that is. It is not the kind of barbed wire you see in fields to prevent cows ruminating on the neighbor's grass. It is not the wire on which I cut my hear lobe as a child who was a little to tall for his own good. Yet, the fear resurfaced, my face is leveled with this time razor sharp edges in the tens of thousands lining the streets, I'll have to watch out not only above, but also to the sides now. More importantly, shouldn't I be worried about the reason all this barbed wire is here?

Reflection on Capitalism

2007-05-05T01:10:00.002-07:00

Capitalism is a relatively recent system, it hasn't had much time to evolve and adapt to the frantic pace at which technological and societal changes have been taking place. I do not advocate a capitalist kind of development, as I hope I have made clear so far, but I instead advocate a reflection on what capitalism has to offer and the ways in which we can make it evolve to allow for more diversity and freedom.

The question of development and capitalism is almost a philosophical one, it involves ethics and human nature. Capitalism is not natural, it is not something within us that we cannot escape. It is now part of culture and is very deeply ingrained in our way of life but it is also in a state of perpetual change. The domination of some humans over the rest might be something in our nature, it seems this has happened throughout our history. It boils down to the perpetual question of are we born evil or is it society that make us that way? It's Rousseau Vs. Original Sin or Hobbes' “war of all against all” all over again and by now we know that there is probably no truth concerning this question. However there are indications that we are able to move away from this tendency, we are able to think in terms other than I against you. Still, should we assume that it is something we should work with and assume will always occur periodically?
This, indeed, is troubling, especially when we know how naïve and exploitable humans can be. A glance at post independence Africa is enough to convince us of that. Otherwise how could we explain the quick rise to power of dictators that plunged their country in the depth of despair, often under the approving eyes of the former colonial powers? This poses yet another grave problem, is it possible to have equality and freedom at the same time? If we assume that someone will inherently rise above others and exploit them, wouldn't it take sever restrictions of freedoms to keep everyone equal, hence creating a vicious circle of exploitation? I have no answer to this dilemma but I think it does exist and that many chose to ignore it.

Going back in time is not an option. Tribal affiliation that were created by the colonial era now exist and will not easily be got rid of. The massive urban migration cannot be simply reversed, the contact to capitalism cannot be erased from the population. the cultural aspect of family is no longer viable in a different context. If a certain culture was conductive to large families it also was effective in controlling population growth, which was stable before 1945. Now what is the point of preserving traditional natalist policies in urban settings where it is simply impossible to maintain a large family and a large number of children has no advantages? Capitalism and development are interwoven, now the two cannot go without the other. This also means that the two need to influence each other and learn from each other, not try to dominate the other. As Amartya Sen rightly said economic development is not an end in itself but a means to achieve greater freedom. It is this freedom that is key to defining development because there is not such a thing as universal development. In conclusion, I think everyone can benefit from capitalism by reshaping it to serve one's goals and and values. however, that requires a massive amount of humility on the part of the western intellectual forces and an equal amount of open-mindedness on the part of the people who need to accept changes and sacrifices. Needless to say, the amount of optimism that is required to believe this can be achieved is still beyond anything I can reckon by.

Buddhadarma

2007-05-05T01:10:00.001-07:00

Buddhadharma

-What is the essential meaning of buddhadharma?
Shitou replied, “No gaining, no knowing”
Daowu asked again, “Can you say anything further?”
Shitou answered, “The expansive sky does not obstruct the floating white clouds”
Dialogue between Chinese master Shitou Xiqian and disciple Tianhuang Daowu

Because our society is so focused around the individual we are led to believe that individual lives have no impact on society. As a consequence we do not worry about our impact, both positive and negative, and instead concentrate our efforts on satiating our endless desires and on our direct surroundings. But is that the reality of life? Kosho Uchiyama, I think, makes a very truthful observation, he wrote, “we are still children who want to play with toys, but are we willing to face the reality of life, live the true self, that is not compare ourselves to others.” This is tantamount to our way of life, so many things are geared toward the accumulation of new toys, that is, new cars, new phones, computers fashionable clothes the list is endless. The result is a society of over-consumption and of waste. what has come of the invaluable things, the have been relegated to a position of futility, or integrated to our pursuit of ever lasting play.
An indication of that is the commodification of an ever increasing number of things, we try to integrate the immaterial into worldly material. There is a saying that states the following, “gaining is delusion, losing is enlightenment.” This implies a lot, but it is fairly clear, we are not better off by accumulating things, we only build up our ego and boost our desires for more, instead when we lose we relieve this pressure, feel more liberated and in the end it does not feel like we've lost anything. When we lose something we become aware of something else that is ever present, by not focusing so much on the self we become more aware of the whole, we become closer to our true self represented by the enigmatic expression coined by Sawaki Roshi, “Self making the self out of the self.” No matter what your belief are, I believe this is something anyone can strive to come closer to.

When the quarrel over water
Reaches its peak
–a sudden rain

Now, this having been said there is a strong connection between this notion of the self and the issue I am concerned with here. “For us as bodhisattvas” wrote Uchiyama Roshi “all aspects of life, including the fate of humanity itself, live within us.” This can sound obvious or preposterous, but in the end it doesn't matter because we cannot deny that it is the aggregation of all our lives that shape our individual lives, so in other words my future is shaped by you and I shape yours. With respect to the poem above this uncovers an incredible potential that is found withing every one of us. We tend to fight over a lot of things, we want to appropriate them for ourselves, to satisfy our egocentric desires. This arises from our thinking in dichotomous terms, there is an “I” and a “you” that are fundamentally different, but as soon as we think in other terms, there is no “I” or “you” for we are one and the same then the problem solves itself immediately. Hence, people fight to get water for their plantation to secure their own good, but when the fight is at its peak with no possible reconciliation in view, rain pours and the problem disappears of itself, this means coming to the realization that there is not enough for everybody, but that everybody will be better off if we work together instead of working against each other. Isn't there some relevancy to the what we presently witness in our world?

Armchair Activist

2007-05-05T00:59:00.000-07:00

Our world is in bad shape right now and though the prospects for improvements exist, they come at a high price and may not offset the deterioration of our future lives. There is simply no justification for not getting involved; everyone has a share of responsibility in our future and the future of the next generations, if they are to have one at all. I'm sure you've heard that numerous times, but has anything changed? Some things have changed, yes, because some people have heard the plight and taken action, but unfortunately it is slow moving. My question is “what does it take?” What does it take for us to take action, to make the necessary sacrifices, to change our values? We can examine the question under a different light. Is change exogenous or endogenous? By that I mean does the change come from within, and are triggered by our own volition or do they result from outside stimuli that force us to change? I'm sure this question has been asked since antiquity and that numerous answers, far more elaborate have been reached but it doesn't take the question away. Indeed, the current situation is alarming and forces the question. We are aware of what our future might be, we know about global warming and the worsening environment, we know about the anger and despair building up among the poorest of the poor around the world, in fact we are already experiencing many of the consequences of these problems. So what does it take for us to change? Do we need to have our freedom to change severely restrained before we do anything or can we actually look at future restrictions and act in a preventive manner? Of course it is unreasonable to think that we could act to prevent problems we are not yet aware of but is it that unreasonable to act to prevent problems that might arise? This poses a grave problem, it would imply in a certain sense that our progress has been dependent on our ability to create problems and solve them, and this would seem to hold true for many aspects of our history. But this also means that at some point we will create a problem that is beyond our resourcefulness; that is that humans are self-destructive by nature. But there are so many examples to refute that hypothesis as well. Anytime I step in an art museum and admire the capacity of humans to create art of such beauty, the capacity to create something that as no value because it is so intrinsically valuable. Whenever I read about the compassionate and selfless act of some fellow humans and the changes that have been implemented. This is what gives me hope.

Whether one can look no further than their own feet or one is as altruistic as Buddha there is a reason to do something. The scale does not matter, if everyone in the rich world gave $10 A YEAR, much could be achieved. I'm not here to make people feel guilty, I'm not going to talk about starving children and dying mothers that you can save by giving up two cups of coffee or two packets of cigarettes (I know I just did anyway). Instead look at the opportunity cost of not doing anything, how much better off do you think you would be if more people had access to the global market. Isn't the social structure, cultural uniqueness that is quickly being eroded by poverty worth preserving? Why do we hear about global warming every week in the news but scarcely hear about Botswana or Bangladesh when they will be the primary victims? Why when we hear about these places bereft by seemingly unsolvable problems do we focus our attention on how we need to change them when the change needs to start right here in the U.S. and the affluent countries of the world? I think there are three basic conditions for people to change: information, incentives and ease of change. As long as these conditions are neglected it is very unlikely that anything will change. There is a dire need for more information about the situation of the world but this alone will not be enough, if people do not have strong incentives to act on these problems it is more likely than not that they will go on with their lives. Finally if the required change is too hard to achieve then people will cower. I think that with the tools at our disposition today these three conditions can be met with much more ease than ever before but it will take a fourth condition, that is strong leadership to get people to work together. Today we see too many people doing their own thing, with the best intention certainly but how much more efficient could we be if we gathered our effort to make a better world for everyone. Yes that sounds idealistic but it is the best incentive as well in my opinion, every single one of us as something to gain from helping others. On the other hand I will leave to your imagination the task of depicting a future where the issues we see today accumulate on top of those we might see shortly, this is another incentive. We are good at solving problems but not very good at preventing problem, as Einstein said, it takes genius to prevent problems; well I believe there is a genius within everyone.

Champions of Justice

2007-03-21T16:29:00.000-07:00

"The fair price is a solution. It has given us the chance to pay a good price to our farmers. Those who are not in Fair Trade want to participate. For us it is a great opportunity. It gives us hope."
— Benjamin Cholotío

Fair Trade (FT) is a growing movement that advocates a new system of trade that is based on more equitable terms of trade as its name indicate but also more sustainable modes of production as well as improvements in local communities. This movement is spearheaded by Alternative Trade Organization which usually certify the product and commercialize them as well as deal with the producer. FINE which is a conglomerate of the largest ATO gives the following definition of FT:

Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers especially in the South. Fair Trade organisations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising, and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade.
This definition makes the goals of the movement clear yet remain broad in their scope and scale. Some see it as a third alternative in trade standing between free trade and protectionism, though here again the borders are unclear. However, the movement is not without controversy despite its apparent goodwill.

Fair Trade is dependent on the consumers' willingness to buy products at a higher prices. These goods often represent a non negligible share of domestic markets and account for a total sales volume of approximately $500 million. Coffee, which in the U.S represents 66% of all Fair Trade sales, customarily weigh between .5% and 4% of domestic market shares in Europe and North America. Fair Trade goods are unique in that they offer non-pecuniary motivation for the buyers. The higher prices are dependent on differentiations and in this case the consumers pays for their social preferences. Globalization has had a major impact on these preferences as consumers become more aware of inequalities in the world and become more intimately linked to the production process. Some have tried to take advantage of the differentiation provided by the FT labelling but only ATO are supposedly legitimate and genuine. In the end it is up to the consumers discretion but at this point only a small minority are willing to pay the price premium associated with these products.

One of the most widespread criticism of of FT products is that it encourages overproduction by instituting a price floor which makes the real price of the good even lower than it already is. However, this is unfounded since FT products do not come from new plantations, instead a part of production corresponding to the current demand is sold at FT prices therefore the bulk of the products are still sold at world prices. This allows the farmers to invest in better infrastructure and diversify their sources of income, thus avoiding a dependency on the higher FT prices.
However, FT can have some inadvertent consequences. In addition to the possible dependency it can also depress demand for the good by stigmatizing products that do not adhere to their standards. Moreover, the standards set by FT whether social or environmental can act as a barrier to certain producers that cannot meet these standards. This would be especially true if governments were to impose these standards on a grand scale. Regulations leading to inefficiencies does not only apply to government, ATO can also fall victim of their rhetoric in wanting to impose social reforms on the producers they work with. However, the approach adopted by ATOs seem to have adapted to this shortcoming and promote self development as the best way to improve social issues such as child labor. It is therefore relatively safe to assert that FT will generally benefit producers, yet can it be considered a viable alternative to free trade?

One of the most outstanding issues FT tries to tackle is the low prices squeezed out of producers on the margin. This issue is correctly assumed to come mostly from over-production in which case where does FT stand with regard to closing the gap between demand and supply? The evidence shows that FT trade is not part of the problem because it is based on the willingness of consumers to buy the products and allows producers to step in or out of the system. It does help to some extent in resolving the problem by providing producers with better access to information and tools to use this information. Fair Trade might be too young a movement to be conclusively evaluated but on the small scale at which it operates it seems to be doing more good than harm and provides an important and interesting alternative to us consumers which merits to be encouraged.

Want the Free Lunch? Make the Sacrifice

2007-02-16T18:49:00.000-08:00

All the water that will ever be is, right now.

National Geographic, October 1993

It used to be that most people believed the bounty of the Earth was limitless and put at our disposition by one or more divine entity(ies), some people still believe that; however, it is crystal clear in the present that this is not the case. The resources I use in my confortable everyday life, are resources other won't be able to use. This has always been true since a lot of things we use are not renewable or regenerate at paces infinitely slower than that at which we consume it (prime example: minerals), but until recently these resources were so plentiful that we just saw them as infinite. We have reached a point where opportunity cost is rising much faster than in the past and will continue to rise if productivity does not catch up while the population continues to grow. I'm sure not many people worried about the amount of water they used just a couple of decades ago... now the water I let run while doing my dishes is water I take away from someone else. Therefore we cannot afford an idiosyncratic approach to development, and here I do not refer to development of poor countries but to global development. We cannot see cultures as sacrosanct anymore and as a source of division, we have to see them as an element of our greater community. Just like in a small community each individual has something in common that ties him or her to the community, he/she still retains the unique traits that differentiates humans. Similarly in a global community each culture should be seen as an differentiating element, not a dividing one. we need this commonness among humans in order to work efficiently for our global and long term well being.

Until recently international financial institutions have used an approach that ignores completely individual factors. They ignored cultural backgrounds, ethnic divisions, physical context etc... Jeffrey Sachs argues against that and advocates for a “clinical” approach to development economics where problems are addressed after an in depth diagnosis of all the circumstances that characterizes a particular country (In his book “The End of Poverty”). This is definitely taking a step forward but the package is not complete. Countries should be treated individually, but, at the same time should be seen in the gloval context. I believe it is necessary to create institutions that create international and transborder norms that override unique aspects of a community if it is detrimental to the global community and th ehumans comprising it. This might sound extreme but are we not one people, the humans, before we are Americans or Amajors? This, I think, actually benefits small communities and cultures; because common norms are imposed does not mean that cultures are eradicated to be replaced by a phantasmal culture.

Can this really work? Isn't it yet another form of central planning reminiscent of communism or the present IFI? Not at all, or at least, it does not need to be. National governments have basic functions that even Adam Smith did not deny. They provide security, financial stability, education and infrastructures to name the most obvious. Now are there people who would not benefit from these or does everyone need these basic amenities? I believe it is the latter and that these functions can be provided at a global level. Then who decides what, is there a universal education, language, money, etc? Maybe not quite, but if we divide the governance into three layers, global, national and regional, each over-riding the following and with an increasing particularity with the decreasing size. What I mean is that the global institutions can set basic rules and programs arrived at by consensus among national leaders (preferably independent of their government and devoid of religious affiliation though), these rules would have to be followed by national states and built upon to fit their unique circumstances. Likewise national states have their basic rules, much like present states, but leave enough leeway for regions to work with a fair level of sovereignty and autonomy. Wouldn't that exacerbate divisions? People are different, we can witness that everywhere, in Iraq to point at a very actual and sad example, and it is therefore crucial to leave room for these distinct cells to strive and develop as they see fit as long as people inside of it are aware of the alternatives outside of it and free to leave at any time.

My first paragraph might have seemed a little alarmist, but I do not believe the world is headed towards a catastrophe, I have faith in the capacity of humans to adapt to adverse situations (though I do not rule our some very dreadful and bleak occurrences in the future). I just wish that we would realize how much of these foreseeable disasters could be avoided with a little sacrifice and tolerance.

Art: The Transcendence of Calligraphy

2006-12-30T03:34:00.000-08:00

Not too long ago I had the chance to go to an exhibition by Korean calligraphist Jung Do Jun whose art I found to be of the utmost quality. I took the time to wonder pensively into each of his pieces of art but I could never have guessed what most of them meant. At the same time every single one of them expressed something so clear that no knowledge of Korean was necessary to understand. Reading the translations gave the paintings a completely different meaning as well as a different way of looking at them. One does not see the brush strokes any more, one sees words and meaning, often a very beautiful and powerful meaning. Yet it is the first impression that lingered and gave me such a feeling of understanding. The words had transcended their own meaning.
Every major style of writing and language has its unique form of calligraphy. I shouldn't say that, because in fact each artist has a unique calligraphy within his or her language. Of course there are different "schools", each with their own guide lines, standards and backgrounds but I believe no two calligraphist write the same.
Writing is one of the most important aspects of our modes of communication and one that sets us apart from other species. Yes, writing is above all a means of communication, so what is the point of looking at writing you do not understand? Even if we see the calligraphy merely as an image is there that much to see?

I believe so. First of all the image formed by the letters or characters can be truly beautiful and expressive to the point of making the sense of the word obvious. That is especially true of writing that allow a large degree of freedom in strokes of a brush or pen such as Arabic and Asian calligraphy. Furthermore the general shape can also inspire the reader such as in shape poetry. But even if the composition seems completely abstract there is still a difference between calligraphy and a painting which make them similar at the same time.
This implies getting to the root of words, to the reason why word can transcend their meaning. As I said above words are a powerful means of communication and thus when we see one we usually try to understand what it means. The likes of Champollion have spent decades trying to understand and decipher each others language. In a more recent and popular example the protagonist's life in the movie, "Citizen Dog" revolves completely around a book she does not understand. Words can become this massive black hole that sucks us in because he are searching for something that does not exist. The representation of the words do not have intrinsic meaning, we need the key to using them. When I look at calligraphy I forget about the meaning assigned to the words, and I try to become one with the words, strip away the layers of sense we paint on them, make the strokes disappear, focus on the harmony, the directions and the fascination. Words can bring such a different experience, a universal experience, through their mystery and their place in our human society that paintings do not have. Painting do share the universality and the mystery surrounding them. We often search a meaning in gazing at a picture but the approach,I believe will be fundamentally different.

When Marmelade Goes Sour

2006-12-03T23:38:00.000-08:00

“Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one”

John Lennon – Imagine

There is a certain irony about being a conservative and fighting to preserve the status quo. Conservative in the broad meaning of the word is a completely unsustainable ideological approach. Time flows, time flows freely and constantly. It cannot be stopped. Conservatives nonetheless try to achieve that, freeze time; they want to capture something ephemeral like a photograph.

What are some of the most ridiculous attributes of conservatives? Nationalism is one that always puts a cynical smile on my face. Nationalism is a pure synthetic and transient human construct. It is not based on anything tangible and is not rooted in any historical characteristic of a people. Nations come and go, just like civilizations; they are not immune to time like some would like to think. Likewise the people who constitute such nations are not immortal and are in fact specs of dust on top of a museum piece, one that is regularly cleaned. What is there to protect in a nation? Sovereignty, culture, commonness, all these things will disappear over time, but that does not mean that nations should go unprotected. It is not the nation that should be protected however it is the balance that reigns within and without, in other words, peace inside and between nations is crucial not because it allows a nation to prosper but it allows the people who are part of it to thrive. However in recent times a lot of these concepts have been challenged as the world shrinks to the size of one big nation. People are no longer limited to prospering within their nation, they can now extend worldwide and rake profits manifold. Likewise nations are not closed entity to outsiders but have become a maze with magnets, funnels, barriers and traps. Why is that? Because we want to cling to what we know, we want to be conservative, quite the irrational choice.

To better illustrate that let us look at the O so controversial subject of migration. I love these rare coincidences when you think about something and happen to read or hear something about it shortly after. Today I happened to read an article by Keith Griffin, Economic Globalization and Institutions of Global Governance, which completely agreed with what I wrote in this entry, so I felt a little bit less delusional Migration is a phenomenon that has been going on for as long as humans have existed, and for almost as long humans have also tried to resist it. Migration simply means leaving one place for another, usually the rationale behind this choice is to leave one place for a better one. In today’s world this tradition of moving has become one of the hottest issues. The vast and crippling imbalance between nations has created incentives that are equally out of balance. Some have riches that even the most fantasist myths could not imagine and some are so poor that even the most pessimistic could not imagine (they probably would have predicted the end of humanity before such a point would be reached). Therefore migration in our time consists in large part in people leaving decrepit nations for ones that have considerable levels of wealth, although migration between wealthy countries is also common especially the known as brain drain. Of course the wealthy nations fear that these people will only munch away the share of the pie that would otherwise go to their people. Not only that, they will also spoil the purity of a nation. In the end it becomes a power struggle for domination.

The best way to establish a balance is not by bringing everyone to the lowest common denominator; it is by bringing those who are furthest away from the top closer. Most nations are far from running at full potential and are not trying to; in fact they often bridle themselves. So much more could be achieved by extending the reach of such basic amenities as education to the full spectrum of a population, and one of these would be to produce surpluses of skilled labor and intellectual. But doesn’t that create unemployment and drive wages down? Not if we balance the supply of labor. The global market for labor is painfully out of balance. We have mostly free trade, and free movement of capital, this should be extended to free movement of labor. We are so afraid of foreigners coming to our nations to work because we do not provide them with the necessary means to integrate for one, but even more importantly because we do not give them any incentive to return to their nation or stay there. One way of doing that is by truly welcoming them and offering real opportunities. A less common action would be for people to go the other way. Rich countries have relatively scarce low skill labor whereas poor countries usually have scarce skilled labor therefore the free movement of labor in BOTH ways is a win-win situation. But people are so stuck up with their conservative ways, everywhere, so unwilling to change in an impermanent world where nothing will remain the same. For those who think it is wrong to intervene so directly in the economy of developing countries, is it really that wrong? Does it mean taking anything away from them, or in the long run does it ultimately mean giving them more freedom.

What about traditions? They don’t mix so well together. There is an inevitable mixing and homogenization going on in the world, but we cannot expect it to go smoothly. There are flagrant differences in traditions religions and cultures, however we co no bridge the gap by exacerbating these differences. We create tolerance by uniting not by discriminating, humiliating, and force-feeding ideologies. Moreover, this process does not equate a disappearance of cultures. Well it might be in a way, cultures that are alive today are likely to disappear, but they do not vanish from the surface of the world. We are fortunate to live in a world where thousands have the resources to record many aspects of the lives of humans all over the world. Of course this task dwarfs Hercules’ and probably will never be completed. It is simply the fate of everything human; none of it is permanent, because we live in an impermanent world. Has Ancient Greece, Egypt, China, survived? Have the Vikings, Samurai, Incas, and thousands of small tribes all over the world survived? No!

In conclusion is it viable to try to close our borders? I strongly believe the opposite; immigrants will pour in as long as they have the incentives, that is as long as “the distribution of world income is grotesquely unequal” to borrow Griffin’s words. Is there the slightest possibility of that happening? Not in the foreseeable future at least. As long as niches with vested interest that are dependent on the status quo for preserving their legacy of world dominancy exist it is very unlikely to happen. As Griffin justly noted we need better global, democratic institutions which represent not only the wealthy, but before that we need to give up some things. We need to give up our privilege of having been born in the right place, give up the hypocrisy of wanting to keep people equal but separate, give up our egoistic notion of nationality, and finally accept that humans can live together.

Spiritual Economics

2006-11-10T20:55:00.000-08:00

You see things; and you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?"
George Bernard Shaw

Finally after nearly two months of inactivity I find the time and motivation to pick up where I left, that is in the middle of my musing about aid and development. On this new grey day contrasting the golden and fiery colored leaves, floating in the air only to be swept away by the torrent of waters from unceasing rain, I am glad I waited. It allowed me to spend more time to think and further expand my reflection on the subject. However, the text that follows remains very immature in its reflection, but as I mentioned, this is the purpose of this blog, to let my thoughts mature.

One of the most influential things I read during this period was not a book on economics, but a book on Buddhism. By integrating Buddhist thought into my understanding of development economics I could develop a very broad and general idea of how development could be conducted, mostly at the individual level. The debate about aid is one of many controversies and never ending disagreement; economists argue about where aid should come from under what form, from whom etc. Books by Joseph Stiglitz (Globalization and its discontent) and Easterly (The White man’s Burden) are good example of criticism of aid and the institutions which provide it (IMF, World Bank…). But should all these aspects of aid really matter? Sure, we (those who pay for the donations and loans and those who manage them) have no right to impose aid under our terms to countries with their own tradition and sovereignty, especially when we’re not sure it will benefit them, we should pay attention to the results of disbursing billions in loans and donations. However, the primordial aspect is that a lot of countries can use this help, and some depend on it for survival, so stopping aid is not the solution. In other words, we should be striving to improve, but should not stop what we started. We are humans and no matter what we do, we will be exposed to failures, corruption, but also successes. Fortunately, we have a tendency to learn even if it’s often too slowly.

So what does Buddhist thought have to do with all that? It pertains to the way we see our actions and the world. Many see the world in terms of dichotomies and try to fit things in categories, we base our understanding on observations. That’s important, but there is more, as humans we are part of a whole, the universe, we are one and the same entity and therefore are not divisible. Do I mean there are no differences between us? No I mean that we are on the same level, the man sitting in his office in the Washington D.C. World Bank headquarters is the same as the starving child in Burkina Faso. That also means that there should be balance between humans. That goes back to what I said about not being able to get rid of corruption and trickery. It also applies to the nature of the world. It is impermanent meaning that nothing stays the same, but at the same time it obeys the laws of causality, our actions will be followed by results. This is very important because we often ignore the first part. We take the things we have learned from previous observation and apply them to similar situations, expecting the same result. However, the situation is never the same and the result will always vary, which explains the vast discrepancies in programs that were similar but held in different contexts. Is there something we can do better? Easterly’s argument for the searchers points in that direction. People who work with a lot of flexibility and who have very narrow goals set in the moment, is a great advancement. But as Sen criticized in his review of Easterly’s book, it doesn’t mean everything else is wrong. To be able to apply such principles on the huge scale of the developing world is a true challenge with no easy answer and at this point the trial and error approach seems the best we can do until more cohesive, leaner and flexible institutions take over.

There is also much that can be done at the individual level. I believe I can make a difference by involving myself wholeheartedly and not worrying about what others are doing. If I cannot afford a multi million program, there is still much I can do. A great example of that is the website globalgiving.com that allows individuals to participate directly in programs around the world by making donations, no matter how small, you can then follow the progress being made on projects that become a personal achievement by the community as a whole. No one’s action remains without consequences.

What Easterly criticizes are people who believe in scientific planning. Those are people who believe the solution to everything comes from science, the universal language. Science can explain everything they claim. I believe in science, too, but I don’t believe it will solve everything. When trying to solve problems such as the development of the world we tend to forget the main factor, humans. Humans are part of a whole, humans are one and the same in nature and that, I think discredits science as the solution. Not all humans understand the language of science, and not every human obey the laws of science (I’m not saying some can defy the law of gravity, but that some people don’t act according to scientific forethought). Spirituality on the other hand is a more universal medium, and it is compatible with science. I do not mean religion, religion will not solve much because it causes as many problems as it solves (if not more), spirituality is what connects us as humans. I’ll try to illustrate the best I can. Say you talk to members of a village in Niger where the fertility rate is above 10 children per woman, what will work the best to make them understand the various trade-offs and alternatives they have? One approach would be to tell them about fertility, something that always helps, but in the long run will telling them about overpopulation, economic cost, the importance of education or the use of contraceptive make a difference? It will to some extent but it won’t necessarily change their way of thinking, it will remain a foreign idea they don’t fully comprehend. If in addition to these things the issue is related in their spiritual context, I think there would be a stronger incentive to truly, and lastingly change customs. Amartya Sen introduced humanity in development economics; I would like to see spirituality introduced in economics. Human development consists of giving people the means to achieve a fulfilling life, according to their definition. Spiritual economics would focus on the way theses means are provided.

The Freak Theater of Aid

2006-09-19T16:48:00.000-07:00

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)

2006-09-13T10:53:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-09T22:13:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-09-02T14:53:00.000-07:00

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!