How do we place blame?

NBA star Antoine Walker is a multimillionaire, though he came from much more humble roots.  He went to Mount Carmel High School, on Chicago's south side.

Recently, a series of buildings that his company owns were called 'slum housing' by the city.  I came across this story while fingering through the Chicago Tribune (which is something that I rarely do as I prefer internet news).  It seemed odd that we would blame Walker, a mere figurehead for a company which he is a hands-off investor.

It got me to thinking.  Most liberals will claim that the current economic downturn is Bush's fault.  Most conservatives will blame Obama's stimulus and Clinton's involvement in credit default swaps on the current economic downturn.  It seems odd that we can take a complex issue like an intricate modern economy and make it one or two man's fault.

I think that we do this because as  humans we love to blame.  Blaming a faceless mass like 'the system' is not personal enough we need a figure head.  Its a shame that we are so obtuse to true issues and choose to indiscriminately blame figure heads.  Its not only a shame for the politicians who want to make their county better, but also for us, the public that would benefit from a better country.

The same goes for Walker.  The Title of the article was that the "City Targets" Walker.  He may not actually have had any say over how his property was handled, but we wanted to find a face that we all could recognize, then run out to our sheds to sharpen our pitchforks and light our torches.... I have to go and get mine now.

The Cost of Wartime

On Meet the Press this morning a multitude of senators and representatives were talking about the expected decision of deploying more troops in Afghanistan.

In class we talked about the loss of human rights for civilians during wartime. What struck me about the talk of the war had nothing to do with the rights of civilians, but the rights of the soldiers. We assume that soldiers are human tools who have signed their life away for a country that they love.

In fact, there is a disproportionate number of minorities and impoverished Americans serving in the military. This is because those without a choice in their lives see recruiting tables, hear of a group that offers steady jobs and college tuitions, they see a great way to escape their life. It seems ironic that these people who have been disenfranchised by this country are the ones fighting for it.

The soldiers, of course, was not the topic of discussion. The one subject that continued to come up was the cost of each new soldier. The figure that was thrown around was that each soldier came with a price tag of about one million dollar, including the needed tanks guns and of course the salaries.

The pundits argued back and forth about how raising taxes on the upper class to fund the deployment would cost these recession-wrought families so much. Now there is the epitome of irony!

A Stolen Nobel Prize?

The other day, while listening to NPR, I heard a story about Nobel Peace Prize Winner (from Iran) Dr. Ebadi.  She claimed that the Iranian government had seized her bank accounts as well as her husband’s accounts.  She said that Iran had claimed tax evasion on her Noble Prize, but that Iranian law stipulates that there is no tax on Nobel Prizes.  She claimed that her work as a human rights lawyer threatened the Iranian government and that this was a part of their retaliation against her.

I decided that I would write a blog post about this, but I wasn’t exactly sure what to write.  I thought maybe I would do something on ethics, but I did some research anyway.

I found this article from the Tehran Times which gave a very different perspective of the story.  I found the differences in the story fascinating.  It is amazing that two different news bureaus from paradoxically different cultures could have such different views on the same story.  I find this as a prime example of the way we can tell our stories of history the way we want to.  It reminded me of the Supernews clip below, which is a show on Current TV.  Ignore the mildly immature jokes and focus on the story it tells of the American Revolution. 

American Gluttons or just American Idiots?

Michael Dresser (a radio talk show host) once said that " Thanksgiving is America's national chow-down feast, the one occasion each year when gluttony becomes a patriotic duty."

I couldn't agree with him less.  I think that Thanksgiving is not the only day when we are gluttons, everyday is.  I just ate a cup of ice cream, but that's not why I think that we are all gluttons.  Eating ridiculous amounts of food is just the tip of the iceberg.  As Americans, we have always looked for more.  Most of our families came here with the prospect of "gold paved streets" and "oppertunities for everyone."

Look at the differences in American culture and European culture.  While the Europeans have been driving small efficient cars for years, we have been driving cheaply built V8 gas guzzlers.  Its not just recent models, look at cars fifty or sixty years ago, the Giant Cadillacs of the 50s compared with the petite Mini Coopers, BMW Isettas or Citroen DSs.

We don't just drive big, we live big.  Mcmansions are a rare American trend as well.  This idea of more is always better runs through our entire culture.  Americans have always believed that the more you can buy, the happier you will be.  We borrowed money we couldn't afford to buy things we didn't necessarily need, look online for repossessed boats or other expensive "toys."

Our gluttony is not only bad for our economy, but also bad for our earth.  Think of all the energy our Mcmansions take to heat, think of how much gas is used  in our V8 SUVs.  I cant help but wonder what percentage of the time my family's two SUVs have one or two passengers (probably 70%-90% of the time).

Obama in China

   Barak Hussein Obama (you may have heard of him) is visiting China.  Mostly he'll be kissing the toes of our majority debt holders. This seems like a sensible enough action to take with the people who hold the strings to your proverbial purse.
   It is, however, a break with the foreign policy of his predecessors.  Bush and Clinton before him both picked over bones with China.  Clinton famously challenged China's questionable human rights policies and Bush accused the Chinese government of manipulating their currency to devalue American currency while strengthening their's.
   Some people see what Obama is doing as conceding power of one superpower to another; many have compared it the Europeans handing power to the USA.  I wonder why Americans are so obsessed with being the best.  I understand that our capitolist society creates a cutthroat mentality that those who aren't finishing first, are inferior, but we can certainly accomplish just as much good in the world, probably more, if we stop caring about being powerful. 
   I think that our largest concern with this visit shouldn't be power plays, it should be about getting human rights for the Chinese Citizens, isn't the reason we love our power because we love to spread freedom.  I think we should use the power that we have left to convince the Chinese to adapt to the world that they are about to takeover as a superpower.  They need to update human policy and environmental policy. 
   Obama may have said that a free internet strengthens a  country rather than weakening it, to me, it seems that the first well received American President in a long time, should use his influence to help the over one billion exploited citizens of China.

Abort The Health Care Plan?

   As many of you may know, the House of Representatives has passed a bill on health care reform.  Yeah, the pinko liberals are shouting.  Wait, there's a catch.  Funding for an abortion cannot be provided by a government subsidized insurance plan or government provided insurance plan, except in cases of rape, incest, or death to the mother.
   Nancy Pelosi called it the biggest infringement on Women's Rights of her career.  I happen to think that this is not an infringement on women's rights.  Don't get me wrong, I am hugely prochoice, obviously I don't relish in aborted fetuses, but I believe in a woman's right to choose over her body, at least before the baby has a heart beat. I simply think that this law doesn't really change anything.  If you want an abortion, pay for it yourself, buy private insurance, or buy insurance to accompany your government provided insurance. 
   There is nothing that I hate more than non-issues getting in the way of things that will help our country.  A single payer option will reduce waste in our medicare system, though I don't want to go down that path.  Nancy got a majority to agree with her and only had to give up a small concession, abortions that are done for convenince sake (ie when there was no rape, incest or possible harm to the woman).
   All this partisanship makes me wish Ted Kennedy were still alive.  It also makes me sad that both sides of the party would laugh at a great bipartisan leader like him by making something that will help ALL Americans about petty party lines.

A US Involvement...?

    My last post talked about US involvement in morals. What about US involvement in countries that we already have a large presence in and are already in the middler of instating a government (like... say... Afghanistan)
   Hamid Karzai finally (officially) won the 2009 election for president of Afghanistan.  Usually I would support a decision to allow a new democracy to try to come to its own conclusions.  What about a rigged election in a questionably stable country... I wish we would have done more.
   Karzai's main opponent, Abdullah Abdullah (yes his name is the same thing twice) made accusations of "ballot stuffing" and voter fraud.  The US urged Afghan officials to hold a recount (and they planned to), but I'm not sure if it was really enough.  Abdullah, sure they would come to the same conclusion withdrew from the race, as he said it would discredit Karzai's victory (I'm not exactly sure how that works or if it matters).
   Karzai's last term was wrought with scandal (including pacts with poppy growers and war lords).  Most Afghans believed he would win again because he was the US endorsed candidate in 2004 and, though we didn't officially endorse anyone, we would still have the power to rig the election.
   I'm not going to accuse my government of rigging a third-world election, but if it was rigged (and evidence makes that quite probable) then as the force keeping Afghanistan out of anarchy, we should use our power to make sure that democracy is truly being practiced.
   Karzai and his morally questionably "friends" used intimidation to keep political opposition from the voting booths, I think the best thing would have been for America to bust in and have a real election (god, I can't believe I'm saying this).

Disclaimer: Karzai is controversial and although I am not a fan he has done a series of good things for Afghanistan, helping the economy and he has (tried to be) a firm hand against terrorism, including criticizing US involvement with the taliban of the late 90's before it was "in vogue."  He was also at one point a member of the Taliban group, but later withdrew as it became to extremist for him.