Ban American Marriage

We have seen too much of this "American stuff!" if we keep allowing them to marry, the world as we know it will come to an end.

Time to act now!

Thank god New Zealand is here to show us the path of the righteous.

This is just too good!

20-year old American solves complex dilemma of Ecuadorian family

Asked “Are Ecuadorians less mature then Americans?” someone reopened (in my mind) the can of worms I have tried to duck-tape closed for several years (and therefore refrained from ever bringing it up in conversation with “mi amigos estadounidenses”): egocentric ignorance resulted from a sheltered life. She is a senior in college and studied a semester in Ecuador. The host family she had stayed with was from a poor suburban/rural area. When her host-family was debating weather their older daughter aged 19 should go to university they asked for her “American” take on this serious family debate. The answer was prompt: “you got some money? Go to university and you will make more in the long run. You don’t have the money? Get a job!” As the family showed their appreciation for this blunt yet, surprisingly simple, yet never-thought-of answer to their question, the brilliant exchange student is praising herself for her maturity in solving an entire Ecuadorian family’s most difficult dilemma. The implicit conclusion was (what else!) that Ecuadorians are much less mature than Americans. Of course, matters of emotional maturity are invisible to the average emotionally immature American.

Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention(4): Conclusion

Currently, in military interventions across the world such as the ones in Afghanistan and Iraq, the use of the positive image of humanitarianism has heightened the potential to damage, if not completely obliterate the genuinely humanitarian organizations[1]. Their raison d'être, easing suffering where it is needed, is possible via the reputation of impartiality for the cause and dedication to the effects of the conflict. While not always welcomed, NGOs such as MSF have been tolerated, if not by governments directly, at least by the locals they helped[2]. In 2002, in Afghanistan, independent aid workers have been targeted repeatedly for their perceived allegiance to the invading force.

Military intervention presented as humanitarian in nature, co-optation of NGO by the military, in order to help the post invasion reconstruction efforts, as well as the military use of civilian/humanitarian actions in order to rally local support have made it difficult to determine if the organizations on the ground were outsiders to the conflict or “the vanguard of expeditionary troops” of newly-defined-just wars[3]. “Whatever their legitimacy, armed interventions intended to assist and protect civilian populations put aid workers at risk from the moment they are deployed under the humanitarian banner”[4]. It is essential that neither the Security Council nor the international intervention force leader should include humanitarian actors in their camp. In case the western state or whatever international interveners claim a humanitarian role, or demand help from the aid organizations, the impartiality of such organizations is compromised, and they become not only unable to provide help where it is needed, but also become vulnerable targets through the nature of their work.

In order to be efficient and impartial, a “humanitarian intervention” should be made in a responsible way. The responsibility should emerge somewhat similarly to the legal ability to prosecute crimes against humanity under universal jurisdiction in the sense that, if states feel they have the ability to act upon the crisis and have the vast majority of the states endorsing the action, they should do it. With the UN taking a more impartial, yet consistent role, and having humanitarian aid and military intervention having as little ideological and practical overlap as possible, humanitarian intervention will take a new shape. This approach however, requires a rather dramatic change in the way humanitarian intervention is regarded, at least in the Western world.

---

[1] Woollacott, Martin. Humanitarians Must Avoid Becoming Tools of Power

[2] Weissman, Fabrice. Military Humanitarianism: A Deadly Confusion.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention(3): Guidelines for Intervention

Now that we have established when and where humanitarian intervention is necessary, it is important to outline the key guidelines such an intervention should follow, in order to remain consistent with its goals of alleviating greatest suffering. Post September 11 the term “humanitarian intervention” was exploited for rallying local and international support for military interventions. Since such intervention was deemed humanitarian in nature, without having a broad agreement among states that this was the case, the idea of military action for the protection of human rights has been seriously compromised. If it is to retain any legitimacy, humanitarian intervention needs to distance itself from what it is now. To facilitate this process, the UN needs to distance itself from taking the lead in humanitarian intervention and as the intervention progresses the military and civil aspects need to be kept separate, for the sake of the population on behalf the intervention is conducted. First, UN should refrain from conducting such operations itself and leave states, local organizations or groups of states handle the military intervention. While the states willingness not to abuse the right to intervene may be doubtful under the current conditions, under the normative framework presented above, states will not intervene in the absence of a broad international consensus approving their action. The key in regaining legitimacy for military action as a mean to reduce suffering is to depoliticize the humanitarian aspect by distancing it from the military one. The UN and the humanitarian NGO should not be compromised from their work to relief suffering even when a war takes place. It is intuitive that if the UN is regarded as one of the partakers in the war (as it is the case with the peacemaking missions) they will cease to be regarded as the impartial mediator. Both the UN and the NGOs need to maintain their equidistance and dedication to humanitarianism more than anything else.

Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention(2): Asking the wrong question

It is the case that the effects of military intervention hurt the very object that is trying to defend: human life. When humanitarian intervention results in a war it causes violence, destruction, human suffering, and lost resources by the society as a whole, even in the situations of jus ad bellum[1]. With respect to the humanitarian aspect, when grave violations of human rights occur, the states have developed the routine[2] to condemn the violations of human rights. From an ethical standpoint the universality of human rights has as much weight as the issue of human suffering[3]. However, from a purely practical perspective, the purpose of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is to create the necessary conditions for human well-being. In this case it is not the rights themselves that need to be protected but they are merely a tool for protecting humanity and humans against suffering[4].

The current international system of states functions in such a way that resources are not only unequally distributed among states, but they are also scarce. Concomitantly, a whole range of variables play into the reasons why not all humans can enjoy the full range of human rights as outlined by the 1948 Declaration of Human Righits. However, the complexity of reality should not prevent the human society from striving to better itself. In order to ameliorate the situation, the world needs “to fix” what works “the worst”. Since it is humans and humanity that we are attempting to protect, it so happens that “the worst” means human suffering at its highest: people dying. Therefore, what international actors need to ask themselves is how to make the worst situations better and when is it worth to use force for achieving the goals of improving such a situation.

The essence of humanitarianism is asking “who needs help in this conflict?” and not “who is right in this conflict?”[5] In a similar fashion, asking the proper question the debate on where to intervene also becomes clearer. Being consistent with the purpose of the Human Rights, “who needs help?” is more appropriate than asking “who has more human rights abused”, or “who is right in a conflict”[6]. It is not uncommon that the answers for these questions are hardly the same. The migration away from this basic concept of “who needs help?” has heightened the importance of politically important situations, argued on humanitarian (and human rights grounds) at the cost of the situations in which the suffering is the greatest. Crude mortality rates should be one of the most relevant indicators of human suffering[7]. States should support sustainable amelioration of the cases of such extreme suffering situations. For that purpose, they should become the priority, and while it can be the case that they are correlated to human rights abuses, the cases of extreme human suffering should not be mistaken cases of extreme human rights abuses.

However human suffering has different levels of intensity and the world has not the obligation to act every time. Under the moral framework described so far, however, the priority should be to alleviate the absolute worst of the situations. If it is a mass famine, a civil war, or a disease, the world has the obligation to act in order to stop it. It is essential to uproot the current humanitarian idea that sees its definition bent to unnatural curvatures in order to fit political and economic interests, and re-root it back as a dedication to address the highest degree of human suffering at each point in time. It is often the case that such dedication is deadlocked in the current system of managing humanitarian intervention. While states recognize humanitarian crises when they occur, breaking the deadlock, but that the deadlock is broken when normative ethical values, are able to rally enough political support in order to have the vast majority of the states committed to solve it. Once this political will exists, crisis management possibilities grow exponentially. When both consensus and commitment are present, the political pressures, diplomacy and the carrots become much more effective. Similarly sticks become thicker and heavier. It is only when such politically wide will to solve the most urgent problem for the victims when a military action, labeled “humanitarian intervention” should exist. Such intervention is needed solely where its purpose remains to significantly improve the situation of the suffering. It is essential to note that neither full respect for human rights nor democracy or capitalism is essential for this purpose.

---

[1] Judith Gail Gardam, Proportionality and Force in International Law

[2] Jack Donnelly, Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights

[3] Ibid

[4] M Ignatieff, Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry

Catherine Dumait-Harper, The Responsibility to protect

[5] Fabrice Weissman. Military Humanitarianism: A Deadly Confusion

[6] Martin Woollacott: Humanitarians must avoid becoming tools of power

[7] Ibid

Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention(1): Intro

The following 3-4 posts are an altered draft of my thoughts on humanitarian intervention. I should say that parts of this are results of research and therefore not my personal ideas, however, as a whole this is how the cookie should crumble, if I were god.

Developing a set of criteria for guiding decisions about humanitarian intervention is difficult without seeing everything in a broad context. Particularly, in the light of the post September 11 developments with respect to this matter, humanitarian intervention needs to be re-examined fundamentally before asking questions of where, when and why is it required. I propose escaping the limitations of the recent debate on the topic which involves definitions that are more or less precise, and their abundant interpretations. In essence the question should be “When, where and how is inter-state violence appropriate in order to alleviate human suffering?”

In order to address this, I will begin by explaining how the above question is more relevant that simply asking about humanitarian intervention. Then I will explain when and how alleviation of suffering is humanitarian, and under what circumstances it would require military action. In case such action takes place, I will outline the major guidelines it should follow, of which, the key is to prevent the overlap between the military and humanitarianism. The conclusion will delineate how this leads in one direction: completely rethinking, if not removing, humanitarian intervention as we currently know it.

Do Americans know "Underwear Goes Inside the Pants"

I am really curious to know how many Americans think this guy singing (well... speaking) is wrong or psychotic. I mean... the things he is saying are obvious... common sense, right?

Perhaps I am mistaking.

AK-47's coming out

My excitement reaches highest level in months as news about Iraq hits the media. Do not disregard the insignificance of this piece of news. The trial can be the first of many to reveal a practice that has been rooted in the routine of the American troops in Iraq. (It is unclear if soldiers of other states practice this, too.)

While the practical thing to do for the ones in charge of the soldiers on the ground is not to discourage the practice of drop weapons (in order to mentain control of the troops) it is immoral and dangerous for the Pentagon to continue ignoring it. One can only hope that the US judicial system will prove itself and do the right thing. It remains to be seen if it will go as far as it has to in order to stop the practice and hold the ones that have partaken accountable.

You can find the article in

NY Times

BBC News

2-D, 3-D and 4-D or Why is it that the US and Europe don’t click-clack?

The best explanation I have to why the U.S. and Europe and their proxies (people from and representatives of) often don’t agree is via a rather abstract, yet enlightening, analogy. Everyone knows we live our lives in a 3-dimensional space (system). We have length width and height for everything around us. We understand these dimensions and use this knowledge to correctly appreciate distances and put the environment around us to the best use. Now imagine a 2 dimensional world… a world your daughter has drawn on a piece of paper. This world has only 2 dimensions, and the people inside it will only be able to think and act in those 2 dimensions. Now think about what would happen when you, a 3dimensional person, would try interacting with the 2d world. If you put your hand on the piece of paper, the little people in the paper world would see the part of your hand coming in contact with their world, ie the parts of your hand coming in contact with the paper. Any movement of your hand will alter the shape and size they associate with you and their perception of you will change inexplicably. They cannot perceive a third dimension, so they cannot perceive you outside the surface of the hand that touches the paper. The same way we, humans, have great difficulty trying to imagine what would a 4^th dimension mean for our world. It is just something so enormously complex that we can’t even realize the extent to which our lack of knowledge goes.

This is how I see Americans and myself, here. Two entities that have 2 dimensions in common, but they can’t perceive each other’s third dimension. It is not the case that Americans just have other values than Europeans and South Americans. Their entire system of references and thinking is different, to such an extent that it makes it very difficult to explore, and understand.

Raping Bosnians Like an American

I am wondering if it is only me going nuts and becoming excessively sensitive, or these things I am seeing, actually happen and not so many acknowledge them. Unfortunately for me I have been studying (or learning about) international relations in more or less formal settings pretty much since I was 8-9. I say unfortunately because it messes up your mind and soul in a way chemistry or anthropology, or economics do not. I am not going to blame Americans for being ignorant, because anyone that did a fair amount of globetrotting knows that other countries are equally or even less knowledgeable about topics of international relations (I am talking about the educated top here, not the majority of the population.) But Americans have something very particular about the way they carry around their ignorance. It is something more than the stereotypical pride and lack of understanding of their limitations. It is an inability to put themselves in someone else’s shoes. I am sure there are good socio-economic-historical-anthro-geo-political reasons for that… but Americans are lacking the ability to not compare everything they see or hear with something they are disgustingly familiar with.

It can be a baked dish of Gruyere-shrimp orecchiette that is discharged as “just a casserole.” And it can be ranting about the rape as a war-crime in Rwanda and Bosnia by citing individual cases of rape in the US. How exactly can someone that has no understanding of culture different then theirs expect to be taken seriously when they think they figured out what the problem in Bosnia was? I am surprised that they manage to understand a difference DOES exist, but I am not far from hitting my head against a wall when I hear the tone, and the implications pointing in one direction:

“oh we understand how this is different: it is archaic! The problem in Bosnia is not that there was a war, wars happen, it’s normal! No-no! We know what the problem is: the problem is that people don’t speak up. They get raped and then they do not start running around yelling <<>> Because this is what WE DO HERE, and it is the fair, responsible and logical thing to do. We change the world with our activism.”

The problem is that when you are on the top of the mountain you can’t see the largest part of the mountain. Willingly or not the vast majority of the Americans have become inapt to understand cultural relativism from within this country. There is just too much information missing. Blame it on the news, the patriot act, Hollywood, the Midwest or whatever, but it exists. There is a certain US-centric train of thought that everyone employs despite their values and opinions. This is not to say that you can’t see this in other countries, but in US distinguishes itself by being the most blinding light that few manage to take out of their eyes. It impossible for them to perceive the complexities of another system… (see my 2-3-4 D explanations)

Back

Ahhh... I am back for the 4 or 5 people that check me out every now and then.

Well... not really for them but more for myself. There is just too much good stuff happening for me not to blog it. I am waiting for the improbable butterfly effect that will make the world perfect from my little flaps.

dry as a nut

I really don't feel like writting too much anymore... i had a shitload of ideas, but I never follow up with the writting. It is quite disconcerning that

1. besides work I bearly talk to anyone and certainly not someone that would push my noodle's buttons
   
2. I am in such a disposition that I am terrified of thinking... doing so would cause both immesurable pain and frustrating questions with answers I would prefere not to hear (again) or worse, without any answers that I know of... and since I really dont have too many dialogue partners... so there! I am going to be dead for a while.
   

No inspiration.. no life-energy. I need a haircut.

"Drop weapons"

Is anyone still thinking Iraq is on the right track? It depends on what "right" means. If it means safe democratic country, clearly not, if it means US troops out and country in chaos... indeed in that case we are on the right track, and closer to finish line.

You see news about Iraqis shooting each other and blowing their stuff up, and taking American troops with them as much as they can in the process. But why hate the liberators? Is it their religion, their skin color, their illegitimate invasion or the consequent illegitimate occupation?
Or is it d) all of the above?

I am thinking "drop weapons" are really not helping the American popularity in Iraq. But what are "drop weapons"? Let's say a civilian is shot down willingly, by mistake or b/c it is a potential "terrorists" (this is preventive strike at the micro-level... better shoot down civilians that may buy weapons in the next years if not months.) Well... human rights associations go berserk: not good (of course the process involves several steps in which other organizations or people are involved.) However, if the dead Iraqis are found by the ambulance workers with an ak47 lying next to them... there you have it: they are combatants. On top of their tens of pounds of compulsory gear, Americans (and perhaps the British too) often carry a few AK 47’s... you know... just in case "combatants" show up. So drop weapons are the weapons dropped by (US) soldiers next to dead (unarmed… civilians or not) Iraqis in order to smoothen the bureaucratic mechanism (and we know how much the US hates bureaucracy, including the UN one) that would be set in motion by killings of civilians.
I found out about the practice from a friend of a friend of a friend. He's been fighting in Iraq for a while, and told several stories about this ingenious practice. Indeed it takes care of a problem the Pentagon had at the beginning of the war... with defining combatants... as they were saying "since they are not wearing uniforms the terrorists can just throw their weapon in a ditch seconds before our soldiers get them and demand civilian treatment. We need to redefine combatants and civilians." There you have it: drop weapons solve the problem of terro-villians... by virtue of being Iraqi they are all combatants, they just don’t know it.

This also explains why situations such as Ishaqi will be probably more common and will stop making the front page.

muzik

Only a few moths ago I thought about this for the first time, and I was ashamed at my ignorance: music is one of the most important parts of one human's life, yet one that is not so much acknoledged. Just try to imagine life without music... I can imagine life without electricity, life without the weel, but i can't quite imagine life without music. Music has been with us for quite a few millenia. It has fulfilled a healthy variety of purposes, and it still does that. My fragile little mind is in awe every time I start thinking about this.

I doubt there is any sane person that would not like music PERIOD... music is like food for the mind almost... everyone needs and likes it... it's just a question of what exactly are you expecting out of your music. I apologize for repeating myself but I am still astonished at the various roles it fulfills for each individual. Besides the obvious religious/cultural purposes that are astonishing by default, even looking at the "western world" you still see HUGE differences. On on side of the Athlantic you have a very powerful rock culture, compeeting (or threatened, depending on your perspective) by hip-hop. On the other you have club music... which is mainly electronic and "dance"... this is not to say that hip hop and rock dont have a presence... but the word of the street is electronic. It is not just that people like different music. These preference show underlying essential cultural differences. What europeans get and expect out of their music is completely opposed to what americans do. (yada yada... this is a gross generalization OF COURSE... i am speaking in large numbers... percentages etc...)
I cannot understand the rock concert culture, and they cannot under any circumstances understand club/electronic culture... they are excited over listening in concert to a band that was "hot" 30 years ago, while I am excited about going to a club and listening to a known song that was unrecognizebilly mutilated in their opinion... I go in for the feeling.. they go in for the... words? that are meaningless in this country anyway.. but yeah... INTERESTING STUFF I SAY...

Are we not gay?

Homosexuality is unnatural. It can't be normal. Gay mating results in nothing but pleasure, but has no benefit for humans. The human race will vanish if the entire society would embrace this depravation. Indeed, as good humans, we should tolerate the unfortunate deviants but never join them... you owe this to your race.

Homosexuality is genetic, you are born with it. You can't escape it till death. Your life as a gay person will be completely different than the life of more than 90% of the population... This is the cross they have to carry…

“I find individuals of the opposite sex completely sexually repugnant.”

Gay people are smart, witty, have good taste in clothes, food, they are intelligent and artistic; sensitive and sensible. They have initiated gay fashion, that says a lot about their influence. How many western urban respectable women don’t have a GBF?

These are just several of the stands on homosexuality. I don't side with any of them (they are extremes anyway.) However I can see that most people (between themselves and the image of themselves that they have to paint in different circles) need to juggle with these 3 main poses... Everyone has them in very fluid "concentrations" that change depending on the environment they find themselves in... So much people think of “their stand” that the true opinions are rarely expressed and most often forgotten or pushed in dark corners of your mind.

The gay issue has reached an impasse. The dialogue has become close to inexistent. Discussion about (and with) "gay" is stuck between taboo, ridicule and cliché. I doubt that this is anyone's fault in particular... NOR it is the society's fault (sociology has good observations but it becomes trivial when it blames society for any societal malfunctions.) Talking about homosexuality has become one (maybe a few?) beaten path(s)... talking to homosexuals has so far resulted in a joyful presentation of the gay perspective and how misunderstood it was. Anger and frustration ensue. Any attempts to digress and explore other dimensions of homosexuality have materialized in abrupt ends of conversations. The defense mechanisms trigger, and people suddenly become offended at the ignorant straight person "questioning" their sincerity and their homosexuality.

We live in an environment conducive to this. It is what we do, what we think and what we are taught that maintain the social constructions in place (they are equally hurtful if they trigger either a repression of homosexuality or embracing it as the single most defining part of one's identity.)

What if all these would disappear... what if the build-up of what is socially acceptable masculine, feminine and right would all be erased from our minds? I would bet money and maybe a limb that homosexual sex will occur at similar levels (if not higher) as it does right now. The demographics would be very different. While a number of gay would probably embrace bisexuality, most certainly a number of people that call themselves straight right now will follow their natural impulses. Anyone has, at one point, thought about a same sex person “DAMN! They’re good looking!” but the thought stops there, because everything around you tells you to block it. People need affection and love from both men and women. Both straights and gays repress one of their needs…

The Romanian in the West ("Romanul in strainatate")

This is a personal translation of a very interesting article I read a couple of days ago. I believe it applies to vast number of people that travel/live in other countries than the ones they grow up in and still maintain strong connections to their departure country.

The original title is "Romanul in strainatate." Andrei Plesu is the author: a Romanian scholar who explored several fields, but is known more for his writings in cultural anthropology and philosophy. He was briefly involved in politics as Minister of Culture and Foreign Affairs Minister. The article may have acquired my personal bias in the translation process. Perhaps I will update an improved, more readable version soon.

He makes an enormous amount of claims (that are more or less obvious). So I will comment on it in several days.

"Any Romanian outside the country experiences, more or less willingly, both the intensity and the ridicule of the double identity (“dedublare”). From this perspective, to travel can be equated with spending some time in the chambers of schizophrenia. You are in two places at the same time: drawn by the prestige and astonishing unexpected of one and by the comfortable domestic routine of the other. You can’t hold back from completely plunging in the novelty of where you are without craving for the scents and sounds from home. Since the emergence of the internet, this experience of the bi-location is yet more perverted. You are confronted with two series of news papers and breaking news bulletins. A perfect exercise of relativism… is reducing things at their “real scale.” The Diaspora lives this situation with maximum intensity that often has destabilizing effects. Even a short stay outside the borders, can have a similarly devastating result.

I have met compatriots that are so essentially different “at home” and “in exile” that it becomes close to impossible for one to estimate their true identity, to distinguish between the authentic and disguised. At home, the exiled is a combination of agrarian sentimentalism and pedagogical delirium. He comes from “the West” from the “normal world.” Consequently, he knows better than you, the un-traveled and uncultured individual at home about democracy, science, and any other area of academics. He is irritated by what he sees, critical… frantic even. On the other hand, in his adoptive country he is the complete opposite. He is self-conscious, obsessed with being marginalized, careful not to jeopardizing his future. Insecure, compliant, hypocritical, a “foreigner” to the others and tormented by a “foreign” language (regardless of how well he speaks it) the individual prefers being passive rather than daring, submissive rather than defying. He winds up developing an interior aversion towards the hosts. In Romania he is the advocate of the West, while in the West he is the teacher of “Eastern-ness”. In Romania he is sick of the characteristic “balkanism,” yet in the west he is sickened by the “liberal fundamentalism,” and the excessive secularization and political fairness. The ideal is of course, to obtain the western retributions while being a super-star among his people. The common result is often a double dislocation. It is distressing to contemplate the spectacle of some decently gifted individuals that are too often disfigured by an odd arrogance emergent from defeat. The feeling of defeat grips them too often: even when they had proved their edge in their niche. They don’t want to be mediocre among the “high-end people of the west.” They would much rather like to shine solitarily at home, where all sorts of worthless people, instead of praising and appreciating them, take their rightful societal spots.

If they are religious they are faced with the hell itself: deep inside they need to comprise needed vanity and required submissiveness. They need to accommodate the necessary culture of love in a poisonous mindset of hate. Angry (alternatively or simultaneously) with both their co-nationals and with the Westerners, intoxicated with frustrations and untamed ambitions, switching from grand rides at home to muddy crawls at their new home, depressed, suborned… these people are the epithemy of misery. They are not comfortable anywhere anymore, they become connected to their places through nothing but pure resentment. Before 1989, the Iron Curtain and the “communists” were entirely to be blamed for such torn destinies. Today however, despite the disappointments and difficulties Romania provides its citizens with, the fault becomes individual. Its source: vanity, provincialism, elitism and egotism. [...]"

PS: I do apologize, as my translation fails to capture the entire subtlety of the article, but I believe I preserved the essence.

Romanians and "kinda sucky" Americans

I just noticed how I described myself and the blog... "I am Romanian" ... I am "another Romanian student"... I wish I had angry things to say about this, but I don't. I was educated by everything happening around me, to be and feel like this... since I was 2yo. I am glad when I see how this identity was created but at the same time, I am a lost cause... they completely corruped my soul... It is almost impossible to change my mind-set, values, etc... from the organic feeling of belonging to the nation I was born part of.

WTF... i don't know why I am rambling about this. I just saw one of my compatriots' online image (ie. profile) in which he was going on and on about how Romanians are better(I think the reason was that "romanians go clubbing") and Americans kinda suck... And I have met a few other people that explained to me what wrong of a perception americans have ab their country... asking if they have pizza and sponge bob, when in fact they go to a very good private school, and many(I am pretty sure they said "most," actually) people go to such schools.

They were all reminders of me the first year here... how easy it is not to see our own damn forests because of the trees around us. Just a flagdizzle for the ones that are tempted to do the same... bitching about someone else's forest without even knowing what's behind the first line of trees of your forest sounds just plain stupid for any mildly-intelligent person.

Humanitarian Aid (3rd hi5)

EPIPHANY 2: HUMANITARIAN AID IS VERSACE!

This is one of my better ones yet. UN, and many other NGOs bitch like no other about the aid that a healthy amount of times fails to reach the ones it was intended for. (Notice, I say the ones intended for, not the ones that need it.) Let's look a bit at WHY that happens.
Well... it's rather easy: b/c miserable people like western shit. IT's CANDY TO THEIR HEARTS.

So picture this: a Serbian brigade, besieging a Bosnian village... UN flips out... but b/c of the nice little bureaucratic system in place, they fail miserably to intervene... But in order for all the member states to look good in front of their constituencies, they decide to send "humanitarian aid" to the ones in need (the Bosnians in this case). They will most likely send a truck-full of blankets, dry food, bottled water, and other great useless things that people under siege may need... like toys for kids and flip flops. Now... the truck full of goodies has to go past the Serbian besieging brigade... Surprisingly enough the village has been holding for a 3 days now. Mr. Serb soldiers are a bit unhappy with the food they eat, b/c its boiled potatoes and some cheap canned beans that the Serb army provides them with. They also sleep in the nice welcoming before-ww2-tents the army provides, and they are using the chronologically similar (probably brown) blankets. But they get distracted from their misery by this nice white Volvo (maybe even Mercedes) truck stopping at their road block. The driver barely speaks one or 2 words in Serbian, and they don’t know any more English... they check the truck, and surprise... they see that BIG FAT BUNDLE OF WESTERN GOODNESS... the RAMEN NOODLES, the FUZZY WUZYY blankets still smelling new, b/c it was only last year that they came out of this wonderful new Chinese factory, and even some BOTTLED water, and soda... And here is when confusion strikes!...

The driver tries to explain to the soldiers that this is not their gov sending them a care-package, but this truck is for the people they are trying to kill. The serbs are confused with the driver too, as they don’t understand why he is not helping them unload the truck faster. They need to save all the strength to fight off the annoyingly resistive Albanians. Now... had the nice white Volvo truck been loaded with cheap Yugoslav blankets, had it had some cans of beans and sausage in sick sauce instead of colorful packages of ramen and other cool vitamins stuffed instant foods, I am almost convinced our Serbian friends wouldn't have been THAT eager to empty the truck.

The point behind my anecdote is: why spend the money on aid from the west, IF you can acquire it from that country. Aid doesn't need to be a treat, aid SHOULD BE AIMED at maintaining people alive... and that can be done with beans and potatoes, and a lighter. That can be done with blankets bought from the one blanket producer or importer in the area... the bigger point is...

Why not re-think aid: instead of "west helping the third world and developing states", why not think of it as the "NGO's facilitating transfers that would keep people alive"... (or how some others call it, south-south transfers)

It seems so damn easy:

1. Needy get a minimum to stay alive in more humane conditions, as opposed to not getting anything at all,
2. Instead of 80% of the aid going to the side that already has the upper hand, it will be more like 40% (pulled out of the ass estimate... the idea is that they will manifest less interest in boring daily beans then in ramen and new western-like blankets)
   
3. It will help the local economy a little
   
4. It will most likely be more cost efficient, if such providers would exist, since transportation/distribution costs will be considerably reduced...
   

GOD, I am smart.

Acceptable Econ Perspective

Hehe... This guy has some good points... almost doing what I am trying to... talk about freedom, just with more focus... on econ... econ that I kinda hate... decent articles though.



Global Economic Freedom

Failed States (2nd hi5)

Epiphany Set One - Apr. 07, 2006 at 12:50 AM



A while ago I realized I have epiphanies striking me quite often, and quite hard. Which is good. I usually incorporate them in my fragile little mind(-set) right away, and never really keep track of them, and I rarely share them with people... I sometimes share, when I see fit, but I am pretty bad with giving away my intellectual property. But maybe it's the time to change that... maybe i should start spreading my immense, and original knowledge and reservoir of ideas... I can only hope this will at one point trigger a butterfly effect that will in turn create a world of... me's.

(A side note w/ respect to the idea of a world of me's: As opposed to popular belief, that people wouldn't be able to, or wouldn't quite enjoy dating a "them self", just of the opposite sex... I think I could. Better yet, I believe I could live in a world of myselves. And there is a very simple reason for that. I am nothing in particular. Whatever defines me is incredibly relative and confined to my puny experience in this world. I have a set of general guidelines on which I build my "standards" but these guidelines can yield an infinite number of completely different people. They are simple things... like "don't lie" or "don't fuckin lie to YOURSELF!")

So... Back at epiphanies that make the world a better place. Speaking of peacekeeping. I am sure you all know wtf UN peacekeeping (PK) missions are, because you are not tards, and you have fricking internet to see this page. Straight away we need to clarify some basic stuff about PK. It is morally the right thing to do these days(I am not sure it was ethically right 100 years ago nor that it will be right in 5 years from now... but NOW, the vast majority thinks it is right... how you do it? that's where things get iffy). Even peacemaking is (that is making peace by force). However, it so happens that after a third of the population of mainland good ol' Europe died in what they call WW2, they made this institution called the UN. And UN works like shit when it comes to SOLVING CONFLICTS... mainly because... well let's just say times change (I'm not gonna talk ab this at all... I'm sure I'll have other opportunities to present my brilliant perspectives on UN, the states and the beloved Security Council) In case, I wasn't very clear in the previous sentence... UN is like an autistic kid when it comes to solving conflict... their ideas are really cool, smart, sometimes brilliant, and you wonder where they came up with them... HOWEVER, THEY ARE COMPLETELY SOCIALLY INAPT. (ie. UN, again WHEN DEALING WITH CONFLICTS, is waaay out of touch with reality.) While the philosophy behind PK is commendable, the way to implement it is lacking greatly! NEVERTHELESS... this is all we have right now, so we have to work with it. Just because I am tired I won't discuss all the issues related to WTF peacekeeing isn't doing what (working how) it should. That being said, you can just go to http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/index.asp to read several weeks, if not months worth of documentation, about PK. This way you will understand what I will be talking about in my next lines.


EPIPHANY 1: SEND EVERYONE OUT... DESERT THE COUNTRY!

Clearly, Haiti will never be pulled out of the black hole that sucked them in... At least not with the current methods and resources the international community is making available for their cause. Those people have ZERO trees left on that little half of island of theirs. The international community is in denial, and is enough literature out there about why this happens. I, in my eternal wisdom have found the solution that they will in several years if not decades... "If you can't save them, USE THEM". There is no way in HELL Haiti can become a functional state at a price anyone these days is willing to pay... What to do? What to do? Offer everyone a chance to emigrate. If all the money poured into Haiti in form of aid (humanitarian, structural, developmental), reconstruction, NGO action and development funding, etc would be used to buy plane tickets for everyone, we would've solved the problem by now... only PK is about $400 000/year.. for 10 years... that's 4 bil... and I am sure there were a lot more tards throwing money at the problem during this time... so we have about 5-6 billion of green George Washingtons, that went absolutely nowhere... because the country is in as big of a mess as it was 15 years ago. Minus the trees, and the few running businesses. For that money you can provide each of the 7 mil inhabitants with an $800 plane ticket.. shit you can even organize charter flights for 1/3 of that price... and send them where? EVERYWHERE... spread them around the world as thin as possible... about a million will go to china, another one to India... and of course Romania will get its proportional share of 23000 Haitians... and as you spread them inside the country... that will have an impact of 2000 Haitians in my wonderful Bucharest-city. I think I could live with it.

Some may argue, it is immoral for us to make this decision for them. The decision to break up a country like that... some may argue that you are ruining their culture... well! These are all valid arguments. How realistic are they? who's decision is it ultimately..? if these people would be offered a chance to leave their misery along with their culture... would they take it or leave it? I don't know... i think many will take it.. And perhaps many won't... but why not save the ones that would take this offer? why not offer the ones that truly believe they have a connection with that half of an island a chance to put all their passion and energy into creating something and getting it going, instead of having UN "implementing" "monitoring" and "relieving"... give them the support, BUT let the ones that CARE do it, and save the desperate ones.

I agree, Haiti is rather small, what do you do with places like Somalia? I don't know... but really this ideea of proportional dispertion through the world seems pretty good.