I've gotten a good number of e-mail forwards this week about politics, most of them trying to sway my vote on way or another. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Some people have asked me why I am voting how I am, so I will spill it here. Ignore this post if you are all fired up over politics or sick of hearing about it. (I have been enjoying all the political banter between people, so I am going to milk it while I can.)
A few things to mention before I begin -
First, let me say I'm an independent. My presidential vote happens to land on the Democratic side this round, but my overall ballot swings both ways and generally always has. (By the way, there is a short political typology test here if anyone is interested in checking out how their views line up with different US parties.)
Second, let me say I am sincerely impressed with Obama (as if you hadn't figured that out yet), and yes, I'm biased. But at the same time, I'm not totally black and white, and I know Obama has faults and McCain isn't all bad. In fact, I don't have terribly much against McCain other than I just simply don't agree with many of his policies, and I don't feel his vp candidate is ready for office.
Third, if you wonder where I am getting my statistics and facts, I'll tell you. =) The source is either cited in text in the blog, and if it's not, then it means I am pulling the fact from various sociology textbooks - namely Crisis in American Institutions and Social Inequality: Forms, Causes and Consequences. Both are excellent reads and I would highly recommend them to anyone. (You don't have to say it, I know I'm a total geek for recommending textbooks for leisure reading.)
So now that you have my full disclaimers, here we go:
Morally, many people side with McCain for abortion/gay marriage issues. Regarding gay marriage, I honestly don't know if homosexuality is right/wrong or somewhere in between, and I really don't care if I never figure that out. What I do know, however, is that I firmly believe every US citizen should have the same legal rights. Currently, homosexuals do not have the same freedoms as heterosexuals. For example, things like hospital visitation rights, being added to a healthcare plan, or filing joint taxes. I don't feel a need to "protect" marriage. My marriage is holy and sacred all by itself and I don't need to dictate someone else's love life in order to keep it that way. (And secondly, if we really want to "protect" marriage, here's a novel idea - uphold your commitment and stop getting divorced.)
Regarding abortion, I think it's wrong, and especially during late term, I think it's cruel. But I also think it's complicated in most situations and I also think that having it be totally illegal would create major health risks because people would try to have abortions illegally and unsafely. I don't have the answer for abortion rights and I don't think Republicans or Democrats will ever have a good answer either. I think generally, women facing that decision will do the best they can with what they have and what they know.
Financially, I like Obama's plan and I really don't like hearing John McCain say that corporations are paying record high taxes. In reality, US corporations today have one of the lowest tax rates in the history of the nation. For example, if corporations paid the same tax rate today that they paid in the 50's, then tax payments to the US Treasury would be $380 billion higher than they are right now. There are insane amounts of loopholes that allow corporations to avoid paying taxes, and believe me, they take advantage of everyone of them.
Healthcare, I like the starts of Obama's plan. I like that you would be able to choose public or private. I like that everyone can be covered. I know in this area, some people are saying he's socialist or what not. But he has said that he knows America could not operate on a socialist health care plan. The other concern is that it would end up costing too much to offer this coverage to everyone. But, when the Canadian government converted to 100% socialized healthcare, their total healthcare costs actually declined, and beyond that Obama's plan isn't even socialist. He's simply providing an alternative to those who may be having trouble getting private insurance. And McCain's plan? I don't see it functioning for the long term. Taxing health benefits? A $5000 break? That's like putting a bandaid on a brain tumor. I've lived without health insurance and I know what it's like to pay for stuff out of pocket or to wait to go to the doctor until you feel really, really crappy because you don't know how you'll afford it. And trust me, from that standpoint, Obama's plan is looking a whole lot better.
Trade - I like Obama's caution and consideration of all factors. I feel like McCain really puts profits ahead of everything else. An example of this came about in the last debate. Columbia was McCain's example of choice regarding free trade. He spouted all the benefits of it and implied that Obama was a naive young pup who doesn't know a thing about trade because he has stated that he is not all for a free trade agreement with Columbia. On the surface, McCain's argument makes sense because trade seems to simply be about economics and world allies. But if you look deeper, it has really heavy human rights ramifications. There is so much screwed up stuff happening in Columbia with US corporations paying paramilitary groups to kill people (workers) who threaten the bottom line of profits by wanting to unionize, etc. (I'm looking at you Chiquita bananas!!!) If we just sign this free trade agreement, in many ways, we are telling the world "profit before humanity", "our own interests come before anything else", "money matters more than lives". And certainly, especially with America's current global reputation, we don't need more of that message sent. As such, I don't think it's a bad thing when Obama is cautious to sign a deal that has major human rights flaws. It's ironic really to me, because all along, Obama has been criticized for a lack of foreign policy experience, but when I listen to them, it seems that Obama has a more proper worldview as far as consideration of all aspects instead of just economic or military ramifications. Obama has also been active in support for Darfur, which obviously, hits close to my heart. I like that he seems eager to want to restore America's global identity through diplomacy, and I feel like we are in dire need of that, as most of the world hates us.
The rest of the issues regarding foreign policy and economics are probably too clouded in my mind. I have a very distinct world view about inequality and capitalism, and I know I'm very biased in that. So the rest of this is more my personal view than objectively looking at issues.
I don't believe there is a "free market" and I don't believe there is "equal opportunity". For example, over 80% of black people would have to move if we were to completely desegregate our neighborhoods in America. And how are school districts largely funded? Property tax. Which means, with large concentrations of blacks in poor urban areas, the schools located in those areas will also be poorly funded. Which means not all kids receive the same education. Which means their general life chances are different. One kid grows up having access to computers and up to date textbooks while the other is using outdated books and has no technology at his school. Which one do you think will get accepted into college? This is an example of what I mean when I say that America is not "equal opportunity" or that there is no "free market". The reality is, some people have better chances than others at making a good life. Hard work doesn't always pay off.
There is a huge myth in American that poor people are lazy and it's their own fault. Yet, empirical research shows that people on welfare largely prefer work to welfare, and the majority of those receiving welfare are indeed working. Welfare scams are the exception to the rule, not the norm. (This citation is both thanks to my text, plus numerous other places. One interesting article online is here.)
I by and large believe that inequality is a result of the structure of our social institutions, not the result of individual character or work ethic. And here's the thing, when you travel globally (outside of business), your life changes. Things aren't simple anymore. You see the poverty and the crap and you suddenly realize that you are a part of the cause and you realize that it's not about being a world power anymore, and it's not about being an economic leader anymore. And humanity is infinitely more connected than you ever realized.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about with different world views - our friend, Rex, in the Philippines, literally grew up on a trash dump called Smokey Mountain. A few years ago, the government there did some sort of land grant and built "condo" type places for the people who were living on the landfill. Now, Rex and his family live in a one room "condo", sleep on the cement floor at night with a few cardboard boxes, and just generally struggle with paying for food or other necessities. Recently, we received an e-mail from him. He wanted to write us to make sure that we were okay because he had heard about the economic crisis in the States and he was worried about us. Experiences like that make all these giant abstract ideas like "free trade" suddenly personal. It's people just like Rex who are affected by trade agreements or by what we as individuals buy when we go to the store. "Free trade" isn't always free to those on the other end.
In reality, our wealth means someone else's exploitation.
Which brings me to another point - many people criticize Obama for wanting to "spread the wealth" around or for wanting to "take from the rich and give to the poor". And, I'm sorry, but when I think about people like Rex, I can't help but think that that is exactly what this world needs. If me having a little less, or paying a little more for a t-shirt or for my groceries means someone like Rex has a fighting chance of decent living standards - things as basic as food, housing, and clean water, then give me less and charge me more. I don't see any issues with spreading wealth in order for basic human rights to be met - whether that be health care in America or food on the table in Africa. If those basic human needs are met globally, then by all means, deregulate, fight it out and let capitalism run its course. But if we are going to play that game, then let's at least make "free trade" truly free and ensure that people really do have equal opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
BRAVO!
PS When are you running for office?
I don't think she can run for office with an immigrant husband. Can you imagine how scandalous that would be? A foreigner living in the white house.
hahaha!! lol!! Jesse that's hilarious.
Anyway I just wanted to say that you said it all and said it well Natasha. I'm glad you expanded on this issue b/c I know so little about the US politics yet can relate to a deep desire for human equality globally. Good to know how some of those things tie in - and to read it in plain english;) Thanks!
If Rex lives in a concrete shack with a few cardboard boxes in a landfill how does Rex e-mail you? Does Rex have a computer or does Rex go to the landfill internet cafe? Just curious about Rex.
2nd anonymous - first, if you read the full blog, you'd see that Rex no longer lives on the landfill. The government built housing for these people in the form of concrete "condos". And of course Rex does not own a computer, but Manila as a city is full of internet cafes, which is how the majority of Filipinos access the internet. It is seldom that Rex has enough money to pay to use the internet, but the point of my blog was that he is a thoughtful and caring enough person to use some of his money to make sure that my husband and I are okay, despite the fact that we know for sure he sometimes has trouble paying for food and he lives in terrible conditions.
I'm sincerely trying not to be offended by your judgements, but I'm having a really hard time. If you disagree with my politics, that is fine and I am always up for a good, respectful conversation over that stuff. But don't you dare judge Rex. You have no idea what his life is like.
To clarify about Rex and his internet usage:
-No, he does not own a computer.
-Yes, the permanent housing that all of the garbage dump residents were moved to does have an internet cafe. When I went to visit Rex in 2006, I'm pretty sure there was only one internet cafe in the housing area, although it's possible there is more now. I believe that there were a total of 8-10 computers in the cafe.
-There's been a few times where it's been several weeks between emails from Rex, but usually it's many months between. Even though it costs less than $0.50 an hour to use, it adds up when you make very little to begin with. It made it interesting when I was trying to finalize plans to visit him awhile back.
-When I was walking around the permanent housing with Rex, he was asking me all about life over here. One thing he asked was how far I had to walk to use the internet. It seemed hard for him to comprehend that nearly all of us have internet access right in our homes.
If you'd leave your name next time you comment, I'd be more than happy to give you all the details you want. In my books, Rex is one of the most amazing people I know (or know of).
I wasn't making a judgement about Rex and wasn't making a negative comment. In fact I agree with a large part of your writings. I too have traveled to many countries including Africa, Europe, Asia and South America. One part I don't agree with you is about America as the only country who put's money before human rights. China is just the latest example, I'm sure you have read about their problems with milk product's. Africa has a long history of the Power's of a country taking all the money and aid at the expense of the people under their control. Same for most Latin American countries. Throwing money around is not the answer or Africa would be in better shape now rather than worse off. It has been given billions of dollars in aid and there is still unbelievable poverty, mainly because of corruption. There are no easy answer's and I don't believe I have the answer other than living by the the teachings of Jesus Christ. We can only help those around us or who we can directly touch. Capitalism is not the enemy, as what is the alternative. It work's but you are correct that it doesn't work for the best when secular pig's are only out for themselves at all cost's. There are thousand's of examples of big corporation's who have put profit ahead of human life, not just here in America. What you have to realize is there are human beings behind these action's of the corporation's and they are to blame. They are out to get ahead, advance in the company at all cost's no matter who it affects. There are also many corporations who run their business the right and the morally ethical way. They employ people who need jobs and truly care about their employee's and society as a whole. I am all for helping people who need a helping hand as long as they truly need it. If you want an extreme view of what human being's are capable of doing to each other read Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl. You'll get an indepth analysis of experiences in a concentration camp. More people have been killed because of one religion or another trying to force their will, exterminate a race or religion than all other war's combined. This is the main reason for war. It's currently happening in Africa, Afganistan, and Iraq as we speak. There was no reason we had to invade Iraq, it was not a threat to the United States. Now we have poured billions upon billions of dollars into a war for what? We could have fixed our Health Care, Social Security, and fed every needy person in the world for two years with all the money we've blown in Iraq. But that money is gone and I'll guarantee we will still be there in 50 years, just not to the extent we are now. Our largest oversea's troop bases are alway's in countries we have defeated. Japan and Germany, number one and two. Not Vietnam because we lost. We have decimated the infrastructure in Iraq so now we'll rebuild it and keep troop's there so we have a foothold in the region. Just in case we need to invade another country, like maybe Iran. The world is a very complicated place, no easy answer's. Lot's of human suffering so I say affect the one's you can touch, feel and pray for the one's you can't. The United States is not perfect but I can't think of another country on the planet I would rather live in.
Anonymous, sorry I mistook your "landfill internet cafe" comment to be sarcastic and judgmental. That is the bad thing about online communication - you only get the words and they can mean a million different things depending on how they are delivered. In regards to your last post, I never said that America is the only country who puts money before human rights. I in no way believe that. I was just talking about America because my original post was within the context of the elections here. And I agree with you that throwing money around is not the answer. I was just pointing out that if we are going to engage in "free trade" with another country, then we should ensure that it is done in a responsible manner, which would include not dealing with countries or corporations that have a history of violating human rights.
And yes, Africa has been given billions of dollars in aid, but they also owe billions in debt to developed nations. For instance, Mozambique's debt payments equal nearly 90% of export revenues. It's estimated that if countries in Africa were granted debt forgiveness, almost 7 million children would be saved from starvation and disease annually. [citing from Polack, 2004, Social Work 49(2)]. So, in many ways, yes they receive aid with one hand, yet they have it taken away on the other. And that money that is going into debt repayment is going to developed nations, in which most citizens are not lacking for basic human needs like food, shelter, or access to healthcare. Africa hardly even stands a chance with that set up. Especially when combined with corrupt individuals.
You are correct that it is individual humans doing these actions, but I think where we disagree is that I believe the very structure of many our major social institutions are perpetuating poverty and injustice. Capitalism isn't all bad, but the way it's operating right now is most definitely reinforcing inequality. The basic idea of capitalism is that people have equal opportunity to compete for business. The problem is, we are running capitalism without equal opportunity - both globally and internationally.
In regards to Iraq, I agree we have decimated the infrastructure, but I'm not sure I agree that we will rebuild it. We invaded under the pretense that it was related to 9/11 and terrorists - to this day, we obviously don't really have clear proof of that. However, what we do know is that a large part of the reason for the growth of terrorist groups within the Afghani region is because of how we have used war irresponsibly in the past, and basically "won" a war, but then never did anything to rebuild what was left behind. Our current situation today is largely impacted by our irresponsibility from the past. (See Charlie Wilson's War for an entertaining example of this.)
In any case, my post was not meant to say that America is the only country with corruption or that capitalism is the enemy, but rather to point out that many of our institutions are reinforcing inequality and making it much, much easier for individuals who wish to exploit and corrupt. I think that while yes, ultimately it is an individual's responsibility and choice of what they contribute to the world, we also need to take a good, hard look at our institutions and policies because they are functioning much more effectively "in theory and on paper" than they are in real life. But this may just be a matter of difference of opinion and worldview between us.
The refreshing thing is, regardless of which one of us is "right" about the causes of inequality, both of us recognize our individual responsibility to do something about it, and whether either of us chooses to work at a micro or macro level will be regardless, because our end goal is the exact same.
Read the below article published by the Boston Globe. We are already rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. Of course as you will read billions will be stolen by the corrupt. It just never end's, thieves, corruption, kickbacks, and we the american taxpayer are footing the bill. Hopefully Obama can get some accountibility, but it's most likely too big and infiltrated into the system. These people are like leaches sucking the blood of me and you and every one else who pays taxes.
Published on Saturday, October 16, 2004 by the Boston Globe
Iraq Audit Can't Find Billions
Gaps found in spending for reconstruction
by Bryan Bender
WASHINGTON -- About half of the roughly $5 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds disbursed by the US government in the first half of this year cannot be accounted for, according to an audit commissioned by the United Nations, which could not find records for numerous rebuilding projects and other payments.
The Bush administration cannot account for how billions of dollars of Iraqi oil proceeds were spent. The mismanagement, lack of transparency, and potential corruption will seriously undermine our efforts in Iraq.
US Rep Henry Waxman (CA)
Government Reform Committee
One chunk of the money -- $1.4 billion -- was deposited into a local bank by Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq but could be tracked no further: The auditors reported that they were shown a deposit slip but could find no additional records to explain how the money was used or to prove that it remains in the bank.
Auditors also said they could not track more than $1 billion in funds doled out by US authorities for hundreds of large and small reconstruction projects.
The audit, released yesterday, found serious gaps in how the Development Fund for Iraq -- a pool of money drawn from Iraqi oil revenues and international aid, including some from the United States -- was handled by American occupation officials responsible for funding reconstruction projects and the operations of Iraqi ministries and provincial governments. The development fund is separate from the $18.4 billion in US reconstruction funds set aside last year to rebuild the country.
All the funds -- more than $5 billion -- were spent between Jan. 1 and June 28, 2004, during the period when the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority ran the country.
The audit reported numerous instances of improper disbursement practices by the coalition authority. Among the findings:
Hundreds of projects worth more than $100 million covered by the Commander's Emergency Response Program, designed to allow US military officers to quickly fund small reconstruction projects around the country, had either no contracts on file, no evidence that bids were obtained through competition, no purchase invoices, or no payment vouchers.
Weapons were paid for under a buyback program with funds specifically prohibited for such use.
The coalition authority gave money to the Iraqi Ministry of Finance, which then maintained two different sets of records. The report said a ''reconciliation between these two sets of accounting records was not prepared and the difference was significant."
Checks were made payable to the coalition authority's senior adviser to the Ministry of Health, rather than to suppliers, raising questions about whether the money was spent for its intended purposes.
A number of projects were awarded without bids ''without justification" by treasury officials in one Iraqi province.
The coalition authority could not find an underlying contract or evidence of services rendered for a $2.6 million disbursement earmarked for the Ministry of Oil. The audit said the matter is under investigation by the State Department, which became the primary American presence in Iraq after the coalition authority dissolved.
The auditors said they were told by US officials that all discrepancies were ''under investigation."
The Bush administration did not respond late yesterday to the audit, which follows a sharply critical report in July from the inspector general of the coalition authority, which itself found ''insufficient controls" over at least $600 million spent on Iraqi reconstruction.
The more comprehensive UN audit -- released yesterday by Democrats on the House Government Reform Committee -- provided new fodder for the presidential campaign of Democrat John F. Kerry, which portrayed it as evidence that President Bush mishandled postwar Iraq. ''The audit report is yet more evidence of the Bush administration's mismanagement of Iraqi and US taxpayer resources in their failed effort to reconstruct Iraq," Susan Rice, a top national security adviser for Kerry, said in a statement. ''Unfortunately, waste, fraud, and abuse have become the hallmark of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq."
Democrats on the Government Reform Committee, which has responsibility for monitoring the reconstruction effort, said in a joint statement that ''serious problems" in the management of Iraq funds must be rectified.
''These problems involved hundreds of millions of dollars, numerous sole-source contracts, missing and nonexistent contracting files, and continuing investigations into major irregularities," the statement said.
Representative Henry Waxman of California, senior Democrat on the committee, said the audit indicates that Congress must immediately launch its own investigation.
''The Bush administration cannot account for how billions of dollars of Iraqi oil proceeds were spent," he said in a statement. ''The mismanagement, lack of transparency, and potential corruption will seriously undermine our efforts in Iraq."
Spokespersons for the Republican majority on the committee did not return phone calls.
Rice suggested the findings raise further questions about whether the US-led rebuilding effort is making a difference in the lives of Iraqis and bringing stability to the war-ravaged country.
Citing the former head of the coalition authority, L. Paul Bremer III, she said: ''Over a year ago, Paul Bremer hit the nail on the head when he said that 'early progress on reconstructing Iraq will give us an edge against the terrorists and save American lives.' A year later, it appears the administration is still not listening."
The audit was performed by the accounting firm of KPMG for the UN's International Advisory and Monitoring Board.
The Development Fund for Iraq was created under the aegis of the UN in May 2003 and set up by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the coalition authority's request. The UN's advisory board was established at the same time to ensure that the Iraqi oil money and international contributions were ''used in a transparent manner" during the occupation, according to UN Security Council Resolution 1483.
Uleck. So sad and disgusting. It will be really interesting to see how the Obama administration deals with the situation. He has stressed "ending the war responsibly", but what exactly that means we will soon find out.
Post a Comment