Which to feed - the chicken or the human?

Food is something we take for granted here in the United States. From letting it rot and tossing it out to not finishing everything on a plate, food is assumed to be limitless and always affordable.

Many countries are now facing rising food prices. This doesn't mean a shift from not-so-healthy Applebee's to notoriously-sickening McDonald's, but a choice between paying for food or utilities. Either eat in the dark or sit hungrily in the dark, unable to to get piped-water or flush your toilet. Does this sound a bit too extreme? It is reality.

This is not some small problem. Nigeria (the title is based on this article), Haiti, Mongolia, Sudan, South Africa, North Korea, Madagascar, Djibouti, Liberia, Egypt, Brazil, and even Israel are facing this disconcerting choice. Think this is a long list? This is just the tip of the iceberg, a sampling similar to the bit of the giant that sunk the Titanic.

While it may have been an iceberg that sunk the ship, it was the low-quality steel used to construct the hulls that failed, breaking apart due to the cold water temperature. What is our low-quality steel? WTO abuses, a declining global economy, and a generally apathetic stance. There are more issues, such as using food for bio-fuels, but these are subsumed within the WTO and apathy cases.

Under WTO agreements, the US has been able to grandfather in many domestic agricultural subsidies, which would otherwise be ruled illegal under the WTO. Yet, while the US and several other countries enjoy the benefits of cheap food, the rest of the world does not have such a subsidy exception. The result is low global food supplies, fewer people to grow the food, and rising food prices due to a decrease in the domestic and foreign food supplies.

Most Americans benefit greatly from free trade. There are always people who suffer because they have low-efficiency jobs, such as manufacturing, that are not guaranteed to remain in the US - we live in a capitalist society that, as my sociology professor stated, "treats people like condoms - you get fucked and thrown away". It is a vicious characterization, but I do not think it is inappropriate. The people who lose their jobs because of this system hate free trade, a hate that is unjust because they continue to buy large amounts of goods from China and Mexico at WalMart and CostCo.

The reasoning behind such dislike towards a concept that causes Americans to lose jobs appears simplistic. But, jobs that are being shipped to countries less fortunate than the US, and they can perform the same job better and cheaper. Simultaneously, domestic jobs increase in quality, and the GDP of the nation climbs because we are able to perform tasks at which we are better. The result, in theory, is that while one generation may suffer the loss of a job, the second generation has a chance for greater success in life. This chance is not restricted to the US, but applies to all countries involved.

The cost of our cheap goods does not result in food crises in other countries. It is the misuse of the WTO that causes a maintained suppression of food production across the world by allowing inequality under the guise of "grandfathering". Concern with issues such as monetization as opposed to human life often prove the irrational and harsh ideals of the WTO. Americans may currently lambaste free trade, but they stop whining as their food prices rise.

Transportation and supply costs are a large part of this problem too, due to rising oil prices and decreased economic strength. Food costs more to produce and distribute. Subsequently, food producers charge more to make up for these costs. The result? Starvation by millions of people since buyers can't buy and producers can't sell, causing businesses to collapse and food production at all levels to decrease once more.

Then, there is apathy. I hate apathy. It is a sign of willful ignorance and the utter failure of humanity, while members of these groups go on to pray in their churches, temples, or mosques for salvation and peace. I don't get angry often, but apathy is guaranteed to break through most of the control I have.

People are dying. Most people I know seem to ignore or forget that. We can fix it simply by changing US policy. In this day and age, we can feed the world if we had the desire to do so. So what if we don't like how these ideas make us feel? We should feel guilty every time we go to the grocery store and see food rotting. We should feel guilty every time we toss excess food in the trash. We should realize the cost of our actions.

This apathy climbs to the highest levels. This paragraph is from the International Herald Tribune - the EU spokeswoman's comment just sickens me:

The United Nations special rapporteur for the right to food, Jean Ziegler, has said biofuels are "a crime against humanity" because they raise global food prices. But Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman for the European Union environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, said, "You can't change a political objective without risking a debate on all the other objectives" of climate change and energy reform.

For a good summary on the situation, read the full version of the article.

Most people in America live in comfort. I have no problem with wanting to provide a materially rewarding life for oneself. I do have a problem with that life creating a forgetful layer of insulation from the suffering of the world. Our ability to drive a nice car to a restaurant, eat whatever we want, and then go home to sleep in an air-conditioned house does not allow the additional luxury of ignoring the death of millions.

Global World Order

I was discussing the concept of a global government in the context of a world without sovereignty last night, unfortunately with a stupid person. There are some ideals to which we can aspire to achieve, but such a government isn't really one of these.

First, there must be an assumption that we can reach a world without states or sovereignty. This relies on two things, human unity and all actors being rational actors; however, I can't think of any situations in which all actors have been rational. Rather, actors are irrational and petty - or 'human'.

Second, under the establishment of such an institution, sovereignty still exists, just compressed within the groups that control the government. There is always a controlling group. Problems across the world can be addressed, but how can we make the assumption that the entire world wants to respond in the same way? This removes the beneficial aspects of a universal government because much of a government's role reflects the society upon which it is based, minimizing the values of individuals in minority status in this government structure.

That leads to the third point - civil war. It will happen, because a global government means that there must be a global society. People's values and beliefs differ from area to area, and there will be conflict at a very fundamental level because of how people choose to identify themselves. Withstanding an extra-terrestrial attack that unifies all people on Earth as 'humans' or members of Earth, people will continue to identify by differentiation, about which Huntington talks.

I do think that a global secular body with state sovereignty that all people can participate within should be something to which we aspire. This is akin to the concept of a U.N. that actually enforces things, not just send peacekeeping troops that sit and watch people die.
The world isn't some atomic model, upon which everything will fall perfectly once we understand the ideal shape. It has a dark, deep soul - full of malice, depravity, indifference, suffering, and hope. The world can change and we have to appeal to our utopian ideals, but that doesn't mean we can achieve such perfection.

If we can't achieve the perfect, why not work simply in a pragmatic mindset? It appears to be a good idea - move to plan B and do the best we can. Does anyone like the results we have seen so far? We need to do better, because no matter how one views the outcomes of previous endeavors, it is usually agreed that they did not work out perfectly.

This Little Flame of Mine

Yesterday was one of those days in which several seemingly unrelated events occurred. Slowly, as the day progressed, a pattern started to emerge as new occurrences continued the thoughts of previous ones. Finally, by 11:30 PM everything clicked together in a shiny, colorfully wrapped package suitable for all audiences.

I decided to break with my nocturnal ways and woke up at the forsaken hour of 10 AM. My sociology professor required a chapter of reading before class, and I had been fairly distracted the night before, exploring the various solitary late-night joys of my town. The subject matter of the reading was post-Cold War sociological modeling - indicating how each of the former models failed and that a civilization-based model provided an excellent basis for analysis. None of this material was new, since this first chapter of reading was simply summarizing the material I had learned in an introductory class from the same professor.

However, right after my required reading, I decided to read the news. I happened across several prominent stories. From my last posting, you understand my lamentations over the failures of the press to correctly emphasize that which is important. Today they did a bit better, with The New York Times and The Washington Post both providing good coverage of the travels of the Olympic torch across France.

Apparently, the torch has already gone out several times, due to unprecedented protests along the elected path. Several people commented on the incredible organization and violence of these protests, unlike those of previous Games wherein a very small group of protesters deemed it necessary to act. The focus of these protests are to signify the dissatisfaction over China's human rights, especially those in the cases of Tibet and Darfur. I assume Darfur seeing as it has been a long term issue, while the articles I linked above specify only Tibet.

Protesters have been arrested after fairly aggressive actions. On the sinistro hand, I do laud the sentiment of protesting something which one finds to be morally repugnant. On the other hand, the violence of such actions is also repugnant. Either way, such actions are occurring and are a clear statement of ill will towards the Beijing Games.

At this point, I got ready for class and ate breakfast. I skipped eating my Patriot Flakes, substituting them for a hippie Cliff Bar. This may have been my problem, the results of my day rooted in a severe jingoistic deficiency.

The lecture hit a major point in discussing the classification of China in present day society. It could be considered as a semi-peripheral country, having a large workforce and developed industrial market, with a large natural resource market. This is partially at odds with China's political power, as it has a seat on the U.N. Security Council and greatly influences foreign policy domestically and abroad. China can maintain this structure since it is an economic dependency for many countries - exerting political control through the sheer breadth of its economy. The money appears! Of course, all we need to do is follow Detective Lester Freamon's suggestion and "follow the money".

The lecture eventually came to a halt, without any questions over two hours because I go to school with the willfully ignorant. Our tax dollars at waste. The insightful person that first observed that "the children are our future" must have also believed in conscious societal suicide. Case and point - SPQR. By this time, I'm guessing that most people have stopped reading or are just skimming for the keywords.

I rushed to catch the bus home and started up an episode of Boston Legal while I ate my lunch, an episode that happened to involve a major plot line about a man attempting to sue the U.S. government for its policy of positive inaction towards Sudan.

The Sudanese government, based in Khartoum, provides weapons and supplies to the Janjaweed, who are slaughtering the ethnic Africans of Darfur without any international hindrance. Khartoum, a Muslim government, simply restricted A.U. action to that of observation and rejected any and all U.N. action.

Where does Khartoum get the weapons and supplies given to the Janjaweed? From China, which provides Khartoum with money, weapons, and supplies in exchange for access to their natural resources, specifically oil. Follow the money.

The worst part about the genocide in Darfur is that everyone knows about it and doesn't act. The legal case in the Boston Legal episode was created to generate media exposure. Sadly, the writers of the show were blunt about the situation, explicitly stating that there had been much media coverage of the events in Darfur and the result was simple - the American public decided it didn't care about genocide in Africa.

China is using the 2008 Olympics to develop its positive image of globalization and good will. As a result, many people, seeing the disparity between the Olympic ideals and China's support of genocide in Darfur and continued human rights abuses in Tibet, refuse to idly and ignorantly support the Beijing Games. Even mainstream politicians are removing their support, such as Hillary Clinton who has called for Bush to boycott the Opening Ceremonies in line with her strong track record of acknowledging the genocide in Darfur.

With all of this in my head, I decided to go see Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who! While I don't want to give away the plot line, it resounds with any idealistic movement or unheard group battling against the pragmatism of, in the case of the film, the jungle. In short, although this post has been anything but, I saw the people of Whoville as the slaughtered of Darfur. Being partly geared towards children, the movie ends in song and dance. I hope to whatever deity that any of you believe in that the real situation does not meet a similar fate.

However, the pragmatist within me expects the U.S. to utter the ubiquitous "Denny Crane" and simply wash away the issue of Darfur as belonging to a remote other. We have to deal with our own urban genocides before we can solve problems abroad, because urban violence and decay are not deeply rooted, systemic problems. We can solve all of these problems by simply increasing the number of police on the streets. It is so easy - I can't imagine why no one thought of this before!

Yes, I agree, this is not an American problem at the moment. It is problem for the entire human race.

WHAT THE HELL AMERICA??

I like to consider myself a well-read individual, keeping up with a variety of events around the world. To accomplish this, I utilize several news sources, starting with The New York Times due to its US location and adherence to writing articles that don't make me think that I missed about 5 pages of text.

Today, The New York Times ran a story about their television associates at CBS. Now, I may be bad at math, but the Time has a story on the top of their front page online about approximately 12 people being fired. Apparently US readers must either be news deprived or they have become so stupid as to not realize the complete insignificance of this 'story'.

Either way, I can't understand why The New York Times would bother to even write about this. According to the article, these are local reporters being fired, not major news anchors. Does this mean that the quality of local news may decline because there are fewer members of the news staff? When was the last time anyone learned something that was true and useful from the local news? Is there some major economic impact from these people losing their precious jobs doing nothing but reading from prompts or recycling AP stories?

It irritates me that one of the few 'quality' news institutions in the US has lowered it's bar to such a level, even in this one occasion. When there are issues around the world that affect thousands or millions that simply require more press time to awaken the American populace, 1 percent of 1,200 local television news employees being sacked ranks in the upper echelons of what one should know happened today.

I understand the need to tap local markets to generate advertising revenue. I understand that many people watch local news and that when they don't see their favorite male or female 'news'-caster with her or his respective pectoral implants they may freak out and join a riot. I understand that people should be aware of who generates the news they observe.

On the other hand, we have so many other important issues to attend to. Why aren't there more articles on Darfur or Tibet? What about the coca trade in Central and South America? Or the millions of starving people in India or Africa? Or maybe the extreme violence and declining support structure of American inner cities? Why has all news about Afghanistan dropped out of sight, only to be replaced by news about Obama's re-tooled stump speech appealing to a group that he never paid attention to before? The world is in a constant state of decay, and all that holds collapse at bay is awareness and semi-informed action or inaction. The media possesses a great amount of power, but what does any of that mean when news about the news takes precedence over the news itself?

It is a sad state when we don't even have press-worthy news front and center to ignore. I think one of the soldiers who recently died in Iraq, Ryan Wood, had some of the clearest comments of all. I've re-posted his posting from The New York Times, but you really should read the entire article.

WHAT THE HELL AMERICA??
“What the hell happened?” any intelligent American might ask themselves throughout their day. While the ignorant, dragging themselves to thier closed off cubicle, contemplate the simple things in life such as “fast food tonight?” or “I wonder what motivated Brittany Spears to shave her unsightly, mishaped domepiece?”

To the simpleton, this news might appear “devastating.” I assume not everyone thinks this way, but from my little corner of the earth, Iraq, a spot in the world a majority of Americans could’nt point out on the map, it certainly appears so. This little piece of truly, heart-breaking news captured headlines and apparently American imaginations as FOX news did a two hour, truly enlightening piece of breaking news history. American veiwers watched intently, and impatiently as the pretty colors flashed and the media exposed the inner workings of Brittany’s obviously, deep character. I was amazed, truly dumbfounded wondering how we as Americans have sank so low. To all Americans I have but one phrase that helps me throughout my day of constant dangers and ever present death around the corner, “WHO THE [expletive] CARES!” Wow America, we have truly become a nation of self-absorbed retards. ... This world has serious problems and it’s time for America to start addressing them.
Ryan Wood, Myspace blog, May 26, 2007