Lucky White Girl

Bush explains the global food crisis

Isn't it reassuring to think we have someone so smart running the country?  Bush's comment over the weekend that the food crisis is due to countries like India raising their standard of living has really pissed off the developing world:

"When you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food.  And so demand is high, and that causes the price to go up.

What a moron!  The global food crisis is caused by people in poor countries eating more!  Sometimes I can't decide if he's an asshole or just stupid.  He could take some lessons from this columnist in the Hindustan Times:

"these comments are a brazen admission by the industrialised West that their levels of prosperity are mainly dependent upon the levels of impoverishment and malnutrition in the developing world.  Having plundered for centuries through colonialism, they seek to continue to fatten themselves by a similar plunder through current phase of imperialist globalisation, whose hallmark is the sharp escalation of inequalities"  full column here.

This is going to be excellent fodder for editorial cartoonists all over the world!  I can't wait to see pictures of the US as a bloated overweight giant looking at this average sized kid sitting next to him and telling him he's eating up all the food!  If you see any please leave a link here and I'll be sure to post the ones I find too!

ouch.

What's going on in Bolivia?

Does anyone know???  Four wealthy natural-gas-producing regions have declared themselves autonomous of Morales' government.... yikes!  Keeping a wary eye on the events down there..

No way to treat guests

Excellent video on guestworkers in North Carolina.

Unintended consequences

Excellent article on the unintended consequences of the failure of Congress to pass the DREAM Act.

More reason; less emotion

Awhile ago I was talking about how a lot of people's knee-jerk reactions might be conservative in nature but if you can get them past the gut-reactions of emotional arguments and move into a more rational space where it's possible to truly explore the pros and cons of an issue, I really think the vast majority of people are reasonable (read: progressive).  I think that's a huge plus that progressive movements have going for them.  People are not naturally hateful and bigoted.  They have to be trained to be that way, usually through fear-mongering.

Here's an example: driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. 

Knee-jerk reaction: Hell no!  These people broke the law to be here, why in the world would we want to reward them by giving them the right to drive?

More thoughtful, nuanced reaction: These people are desperately poor enough in their own countries that they risked everything to come here to find work.  Most places in this country one needs to drive to get to work.  Would not having a driver's license mean that they'd suddenly give up that fight and lie down and starve to death because they couldn't drive to get to the work they came here for?  No.  They're going to drive anyway.  Without a license and without insurance.  Denying them a license doesn't mean they will drive less.  Denying them a license means they will drive less *safely*.  According to a study by AAA:

"unlicensed drivers are almost five times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than drivers with valid licenses and that 20 percent of all fatal accidents involve at least one driver without a valid license".

Notice the difference between those two statements.  The emotional knee-jerk one is two sentences.  The though-out, nuanced one is eight.  Which one do you think would win out in a sound-byte oriented world?

So that's why I'm always glad to see stuff like this: people who by-pass the knee-jerk gut-reactions for more thought-out rational responses as demonstrated by this editorial which appeared in yesterday's Washington Post.  Yay for them!

Just say the magic word! Or swiss-cheese logic in our nation's capital

Washington DC is a very confusing city.  It's my first day here and I go out to find a cafe with internet access and read the Sunday paper.  In honor of my new city, I buy the Washington Post instead of the NYT and the first article that catches my eye is a piece by Fred Kaplan on Condoleeza Rice in the Outlook (Opinion) section (sorry that's behind a subscription wall for some of you).  The sub-heading reads "Rice's worldview flipped and her policy flopped".  The author calls for her to come back to her "reasonable roots".  But what caught my eye was the idea of an about-face by the Secretary of State.  Her worldview flipped?  You mean she used to think differently than she does now?  I didn't know that!  They don't mean-- nah.... it can't be!  Do they mean Rice used to be a liberal??? 

Interesting!  It was a good hook and I read on but instead of some enlightening revelation I found only what this city is famous for: murk.

No.  Rice didn't used to be a liberal.  They mean she used to be a realist.  Today she's a realist.  Where's the flip, you ask?  Good question.  I think I can explain. 

If you read between the lines of the article, you realize that what Kaplan means is that she used to be a realist who didn't talk about democracy much (because realists don't generally give a crap about democracy; it's all about power politics for them).  And now she's a realist who does talk about democracy.  What gives? 

Well, remember that saying about the simplest explanation being the most likely?  Something like that might apply here.  What does Rice mean by democracy?  Does she really mean she likes the idea of rule by the people or is she just paying lipservice to a popular ideal while still working the world around realist politics?  Unless someone can show me she's done something to suggest otherwise, I tend to give credence to the latter.  Rulers can't just make war in a democracy; they have to sell it.  Why wouldn't someone in Rice's position use the democractic ideal to sell her realist politics? 

There's no reversal here Mr. Kaplan.  It's purely strategical maneuvering on her part.  Geez, your 16 year old could probably teach you that lesson!

What is it about this word "democracy" that makes otherwise smart people so clueless?  It's magic, isn't it?  As soon as you say it, no one questions what the speaker means by it, or whether they might be using it hollowly or not.  Everyone is given a free pass for it.  If Hitler had talked about "democracy" while pursuing his final solution, would we not have fought him over it?  I wonder. 

It shouldn't be given on blind faith that everyone who utters the word absolutely means it.  That's naive and it leads to confusion in the public debate.   It would be nice if people always meant what they said but they don't.  We live in the real world.  A world of power politics.   Rice knows that.  We know that.  And that's exactly why the Secretary should be questioned every time she talks about "democracy".

This is a strange city.  Swiss cheese logic!

smirk :->

Ecuador approves US military base in their country on one condition.

Paul Krugman on The Diane Rehm Show

One of my favorite columnists is being interviewed today on the Diane Rehm Show.  Paul Krugman on race, class and universal health care: "I think we have the best chance now of getting universal health care than we have since Harry Truman."

Check it out if you get a chance.  He's a good man with a lot of good old fashioned common sense.  Also, he's got a new book out, The Conscience of a Liberal (buy it here at Powell's) which will probably be on my bookshelf before too long and if you don't buy the book or check out the interview, at least give a look at his blog, here.

Domincan Republic on strike

Workers in the Dominican Republic are on a 24 hour strike today and they have the backing of 2 of the 3 leading presidential candidates.  Organized by the Alternative Social Forum, a conglomeration of various unions and human rights groups, the protesters are demanding major changes in the government's economic policies.  This is the second national strike to come during the current President's tenure.  The first took place last July when the protesters succeeded in shutting down much of the capital.

While expected to be peaceful, "the Police said it will deploy the needed agents in the streets and test its recently-acquired water cannons".  Always good to have a bunch of protesters around for target practice.