For those people who are unmarried, or perhaps recently divorced, this issue must come up frequently. Its one of those recurring questions of international culture that men (and to a lesser extent, women) must confront regularly.

Currently I’m living in a country where relations between men and women are more heavily scripted, more traditional, and men are expected to pay for everything on a date.

It also happens that recently, for various reasons, I have been having a cash flow problem, and really had to stretch my budget to survive until the next paycheck. All sorts of money saving techniques had to be implemented.

At the same time, I also wanted to meet and go out with different women. Of course, in that process, I should meet at least a few different women and get to know them in order to find out if we are compatible.

A friend of mine was leaving the country and had a going away party. At the party I met one of her friends, we talked, exchanged numbers etc. My friend was enthusiastic and encouraged me to meet her and get to know her. Ironically this same friend (who was leaving the country) had also lent me money so I could survive until my paycheck.

About a week later, I talked with this new acquaintance of mine, and we arranged to meet at a restaurant for our first meeting/ date. During the date, I explained my financial predicament to this woman, so she knew about my situation. The date went on, we talked, and finally it was time to go home. The bill came and it was a lot more than I had been expecting. My new friend had ordered more food than I. So I asked her to help me pay for the bill. I paid more than her, because I knew that her salary is less than mine, but I did not want to pay all, as it would jeopardize my chances of making it to my paycheck. Plus I don’t really believe that I should have to pay for her stuff anyway (although I know that women in this country commonly expect it.)

Later that night when I got home, my friend (who was now overseas already) contacted me by chat. When I told her that I went out with her friend, she immediately asked me if I paid the bill. She replied that her friend must have felt sad because I did not pay for her. And that her friend would take this as a sign that I have no money and I “will not be able to pay for her in the future.” I responded critically and said women should get over this notion that men should always pay for them. After all, they can get a job and work just like I can.

My friend responded that “it means a man really loves a woman cause they can pay everything to get the girl.” This also seemed wrong to me. What kind of man will love a woman after he has just met her and spoken with her at a going away party, talked together maybe one hour? How likely is it to love a woman after such a short time as this? And maybe I would like to be the one who is loved? Maybe I would like that woman to show me that she loves me on the first date? : ) It has been a long time since I met a woman and “fell in love” with her after the first meeting. My friend ended the conversation by stubbornly insisting “man has to pay”.

Again this is the same woman who had lent me money, and here she was advocating that I spend that same money on my date’s food and drink. I was shocked that such a woman, one who had met many foreigners, had foreign boyfriends, is well-educated and lives in the capitol city could be so conservative and traditional.

Yet I’m sure when it comes to women’s rights, her ideas are much more modern, less traditional, and at least somewhat up to step with the most current ideas related to women’s rights.

Personally, I don’t see any compelling reason why a man should have to pay for a woman on any dates that they go on, if its pretty clear that both of them wanted to go.  The expectation that they will is a continuing burden on men, and leads to numerous uncomfortable situations, when the man knows that he is expected to do so, but perhaps does not want to. Its difficult to discuss such a thing when you hardly know someone, and are going out with them for the first time.

Sometimes it seems that women are using controlling words and ideas to try to manipulate men into paying for them. For example, a woman I know recently came to meet me, then called and invited her friend to meet us.  The two of them proceeded to order dinner. In the middle of their dinner, they started to talk about “stinginess” and asked me if I am “stingy”. Was it just pure conversation, or an attempt to manipulate me into paying for their dinner? (This is an even more annoying habit- not only must the man pay for the woman he is dating, but he also must pay for any friends that she invites to go out together with them!) Other than that seeming attempt at manipulation, it was fun though.

Women in this country seem to think that its important to get men to pay for them. But their criteria in judging men seems to be warped. They focus so much on getting the man’s money, while disregarding other factors, such as the person’s character or intelligence, even appearance. In the end will they choose an unattractive, boring, man who may sleep around with other women (who he also paid for), simply because he was willing to go along with this tradition?

Personally I think cultures should encourage men to be more fiscally responsible, and not waste money. Women are often credited (in developing countries at least) with being more responsible with their money, saving it for their family, while men are accused of being irresponsible and wasteful. In Grameen Bank’s microfinance projects, they claim that they loan money only to women, because women are responsible with the money, while men waste the money on “wine, women, and song.” Yet I wonder if, among the women who received loans from Grameen Bank, some of them are single women, who had various things paid for by men, while they saved their money and successfully paid back the micro- loan to Grameen?

Another objection I have comes from the underlying meaning of the event: it basically implies that a man is not worth meeting or spending time with, unless he pays the woman to be there. It is debasing to men’s dignity, since the implication is that the woman would not go out if he didn’t pay- what does this say about the value of that man, if he is not worth meeting without him putting up some money? What an abject and debasing condition!

Personally, I think that this tradition should at the very least, be reduced.  Women should pay for themselves at least part of the time.   I don’t claim that men face more disadvantages than women, but this is one area where women fare better than men, in terms of gender roles. Women seem to have little problem accepting women’s rights, International Women’s Day, etc., and celebrate these things enthusiastically- after all it’s in their benefit. But when it comes to changing their attitudes about something which benefits them- such as traditions of men paying for or buying things for women- well, those attitudes die harder (at least for some women).

Men should think critically about this and question it. When necessary they should just bring this issue out in the open and explain that they think costs should be shared- perhaps in proportion to the relative wealth of the two individuals. Not discussing it favors the conservative, old, stodgy traditions.

Of course, there will always be some man who will willfully pay up everything, buy endless gifts, etc., because he thinks somehow he will get something out of it. And some women will be impressed by this. But then those women will get a man who perhaps has little else to offer, and those men will get a woman who perhaps cares more about his money than she does about him.

Anyway, perhaps I am taking this too seriously. Perhaps I am totally wrong. I’d like to invite anyone reading this to comment- I’m curious what other people think about it!

Well, if the news as reported today holds true, there may have been a breakthrough in negotiations which will lead to the resolution in the crisis between the de facto Honduran government and Manuel Zelaya.

I think this is good news because this has been a very difficult, tense, and stressful period for Honduras.  Some kind of resolution to the crisis will help bring things back to normal, with elections coming up rather soon, even too soon (29 November, this year).  (See BBC article)

The media has commonly referred to a “coup”, which took place in late June, in which the military, with the explicit order of both the Congress and Courts, removed Zelaya as President and removed him from the country.  While he was abroad a political crisis emerged, with most of the regional community demanding that Zelaya be reurned to power.  The interim government, led by Micheletti, meanwhile steadfastly refused to reinstate Zelaya.

According to the news, a power sharing government will be formed, to implement the elections in November.  Zelaya could return as President temporarily, if approved by first the Supreme Court, then the Congress.

As before I had urged readers to consider whether the events in late June were in fact a coup, now I would like to explicitly criticize the human rights violations after those events, when the current de facto government in Honduras was in power.  Civil and political rights were sometimes severely restricted, with authorities not allowing displays of support for Zelaya.  Also, sections of the media were restricted or taken over by the authorities.  All of these actions were wrong according to human rights standards.

We can only hope that a political agreement and successful elections will restore normalcy and stability in the near future.

In other commentary on the subject:

It seems like the foreign media have somehow focused on Zelaya, and made him into a victim in this scenario.  His is the name which people will remember from the news casts, to the detriment of his opponent in this scenario, Micheletti, the interim President.  But in fact, it seems that the media, in craving simplicity, made it into a “coup”, glossing over some of the facts.

For example, the Honduran Constitution limits the term of a President to one, an unusual but powerful idea, to prevent the installation of dictocrats, who stay on 15+ years.  One may criticize the Constitution as one likes, and say that the one term limit is flawed, but as I understand, that is what it currently says.  (See this link, spec. see Article 239) Further, both the courts and the Congress voted Zelaya out of power before the military did anything.  Now, one may say, these institutions just represent a certain segment of power, for example the capitalist classes opposed to Zelaya’s shift towards alliance with Chavez and his buddies.  But the fact that both organs of government, and apparently in large majority in the Honduran Congress, wanted Zelaya removed, should indicate something (such as that Zelaya was actually wrong?).

The strongest criticism that can be made is that removing Zelaya from the country, and by force, was akin to a coup, or like a coup.  But the way the events proceeded up to that point appear to be legal.

It is true some of the actions by the Honduran government after Zelaya’s removal were harmful, and blatant violations of people’s human rights.  This does not however, make the events a coup.

The media, again, can not handle complexity or ambiguity, and out and out labeled it as a “coup”.  This term has been bandied about and repeated so often in the media that hardly anyone even questions it.

In general I am in favor of limiting the term of heads of the Executive branch of any country’s government.  Long periods of rule by one person almost always leads to an imbalance of power favoring the executive branch, limiting the role of the Legislature and Courts.  This in turn ends up having negative effects for the people of the country, as criticism becomes muted, the courts are no longer fair, the elected organs of government, the Assembly, becomes sidelined and less consequential.  When the body (Assembly, Legislature, Parliament, Congress) people voted for is diminished in relation to the overpowering executive, then the people’s vote itself is devalued as well.  With elections for the Executive a near shoe-in for the incumbent, the people of a country really have little choice.

This kind of situation is undemocratic, which means it doesn’t give enough power to the people.  And the people, arguably are the ones that matter and should count, especially when poor people’s livelihoods are at stake.  Let’s face it, government decisions and policies can have a powerful effect on people’s lives.  And if they have little say in who makes up their government, they are at a further disadvantage.

For this reason, limits on the number of terms of Presidents, Prime Ministers in general, is a good policy and one that in general benefits the population of a country.

Which is reason to understand the Honduran government’s hostility to Zelaya when he was making moves to make it possible for him to run again for office, even though the Constitution states that he cannot.

But maybe I’m missing the point in focusing on this technical definition of a coup d’etat.  Maybe the real issue is the massive human rights violations committed under the interim Honduran regime.

Just to broaden the debate, I will give links to two articles taking a view different than my own:

Term Limits When Governments Benefit People

Coup D’Etat Murder, Mayhem and Lost Civil Liberties

Anyway, won’t ramble on longer about term limits, let’s just hope that the crisis in Honduras is fruitfully resolved, and people’s lives can go back to normal!

Article 239 of the 1982 Honduras Constitution

Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.

Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

This is one more appeal to the people of the United States to really think about the situation that we are in, and make sure your representative, or any polling agencies, know that you support health care reform!

The United States really needs healthcare reform!  People, the U.S. healthcare system is more costly per capita than virtually all other developed countries, yet basic health indicators in the US are still dragging behind those of other similarly wealthy countries.  Approximately 1/6 of the US population has no insurance, and being uninsured in the US system is dangerous, because costs are so astronomically high.

You know, I look at the United States from afar, and I see it from a somewhat different view, because I have lived outside it, in different countries, for so long.  And I can see it more the way foreigners see the US.

One thing I have difficulty understanding about the US is why there are so many people who are OPPOSED to changing our health care system.  Most people in the countries I visit would probably LIKE to have their government help them in terms of healthcare.  In contrast, in these poor countries, the misfortune of having a serious medical problem can cause virtual bankruptcy, having to sell off land, which makes people landless (a very severe situation).

Why are so many American people opposed to health care reform?  I can see if just a small minorty, less than 20%, the people who really benefit from the current system, were against it.  But there seems to be more than that in the US.

Have they been totally brainwashed by a certain political group who serve the powerful corporate interests behind the current system?   They have been tricked into thinking that avoiding “Big Government” is the most important political issue in this?  They are pro-life and they think that the bill will somehow support abortion?  Do they harbor conspiratorial ideas about the intention of the US government, and therefore fear any increase in government role?

Please someone, if you understand this phenomenon, please explain it to me.  Or, if you are one of the people who is against it, tell me why.  Maybe you can help me understand.

Come on US people, this system needs to be changed.  Now is the time, the chance to move the United States into the same league with other developed nations.

To U.S. citizens reading this, I must tell you, almost all the Europeans I meet cannot understand how the US can have a system like ours, which is so costly and wasteful, yet still fails to provide basic decent healthcare to so many.

For those of you who have taken a position against health care reform in 2009 (early 2010?), I urge you to reconsider your view, try to see it another way.

Whenever this issue comes to a vote, I hope that we will see a positive result.  In the meantime,  I hope those who are in favor of reform and change will be mobilizing!

Human trafficking is something which is often associated with women and children.  But in fact, many men are the victims of human trafficking for purely labor purposes.

This IRIN article, published by UN OCHA, explains the phenomenon in more detail.

I had previously heard a story from Cambodia back in 2003 about men trafficked to work on boats, had been addicted to drugs, and who were repatriated to Cambodia.  There wasn’t much in the way of funds available to help them.

Its also interesting to note that previously in Thailand and Cambodia, men could not be considered trafficking victims.  In retrospect, this seems to have been a mistake, since the events described in this article seem like a clear case of human trafficking.  It leads one to wonder what other gender-related pre-conceptions may be preventing an effective solution?

Just as a personal side note:  I used to work at one of the NGOs mentioned in the article- CARAM Cambodia!

SUMMARY

IRIN Report Link: Cambodia: Men being exploited, trafficked too This article illustrates the realities of a type of trafficking/slavery that is not so well-known: the labor trafficking and exploitation of men. The details about their deception and abuse, and the voices of actual victims, provide advocates with something to rally around, to get the issue higher on policy and donor agendas. To date, male victims of trafficking still do not receive proper protections under many legal frameworks, and services to male victims of trafficking is extremely poorly funded. There are many hotspots of male labor trafficking in our region (and elsewhere in the world) where men are flatly rejected by service providers because they are not women or children, despite suffering similar abuses. Read the Full Article

FULL TEXT

CAMBODIA: Men being exploited, trafficked too

PHNOM PENH, 15 September 2009 (IRIN) – Kou Channyyon’s story is typical of many young Cambodian men.

Desperate for work, he was trafficked to Malaysia with the promise of earning more than US$200 a month in a coffee factory.

But after he arrived, his passport was confiscated, and he found himself working 13 hours a day, with barely enough money to cover his living costs.

Barred from leaving the factory premises, he did not know if he would ever be able to escape.

“It was exhausting … I got very little sleep and was paid less than other workers,” the 23-year-old farmer’s son from southern Kandal Province, told IRIN.

According to the UN Inter-Agency Project on Human Trafficking (UNIAP), thousands of Cambodians are trafficked annually for the purpose of labour exploitation – a figure expected to increase given the global economic downturn.

“The risk factors for an increase are certainly there,” Paul Buckley, field operations coordinator for UNIAP, told IRIN in Bangkok, citing job losses, diminished remittances, and rising debt as key indicators.

Cambodian exports have been badly shaken by the global financial crisis, resulting in thousands of workers losing their jobs.

“This makes for an easier environment for traffickers to work in,” Buckley said, noting the need for more quantifiable data and research.

Earlier this year, the International Labour Organization (ILO) projected that job losses may surpass 45,000 this year, with a disproportionate burden falling on young workers, who already face few employment opportunities.

“Cambodia confronts a growing problem of providing decent work for this young population,” said Ya Navuth, executive director of Coordination of Action Research and Mobility (CARAM), a local NGO working to reduce illegal immigration to other countries.

“I think the government has to solve the problems of labour exploitation or illegal immigration by increasing the domestic market for labour,” Ya Navuth said.

Scant research on male victims

Trafficking victims have traditionally been identified by governments in Southeast Asia as women and children. There is scant research on the problem of male trafficking for labour exploitation, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

According to the Cambodian government, men seek longer term work mostly in Thailand  in construction, factories, transport, fishing and fish processing.

“Males continue to be another vulnerable group besides women and children,” UNIAP’s national project coordinator in Cambodia, Lim Tith, told IRIN.

“They suffer abuse and labour exploitation [in a bid] to support their family back home,” he said.

A 2008 UNIAP report said the main destination countries for Cambodian labour migrants are Thailand, Malaysia and Taiwan.

Thailand is the top destination country for victims of human trafficking from Cambodia.

Thai fishing boats

Some of the worst exploited are men and boys who end up on Thai long-haul fishing boats that ply the South China Sea for two years or more at a time, according to a UNIAP study in April 2009.

“The boats become virtual prisons on which the trafficking victims endure inhumane working conditions and physical abuse. Death at sea is frequently reported, sometimes at the hands of Thai boat captains,” the study notes.

Until mid-2008, Thailand’s anti-human trafficking legislation excluded men from being acknowledged as trafficking victims, which meant that they were counted as illegal migrants instead, and consequently deported. [emphasis added]

Some 130,000 individuals are deported to Cambodia from Thailand each year, and evidence is readily available of cases of misidentification by Thai or Cambodian authorities of victims of trafficking departed from Thailand, said the 2008 UNIAP report.
“The fact that the problem remains hidden makes it harder for the NGOs and the government to work on it,” Lim Tith said.

New law

Cambodia has undertaken a series of measures to curb trafficking, including a 2008 law that recognizes men as potential trafficking victims for the first time, and provides a better legal framework to prosecute traffickers. [emphasis added]

But given the fallout from the global economic crisis, tackling illegal immigration and trafficking may prove difficult for the Cambodian government because of its small budgets and limited human resources, said Lim Tith.

“What’s important now is that the government has a political will to solve the problems, although they have very limited options,” said Lim Tith.

“With the global economic crisis still continuing or [having an] effect, more men will surely continue to seek jobs abroad and be exploited by the financial crisis,” he said.

A few days ago I got an e mail from Amnesty International in which their Central America team strongly criticizes the de facto government in Honduras, even referring to a “coup” in the country.

I had previously printed my e mail letter to US President Obama advising his administration to re-consider referring to the political change as a “coup”, since it appeared to me to have been legal according to the constitution of Honduras. (See my previous post here.)

Now here was an e mail from Amnesty International, making me doubt whether my assessment of the situation was accurate.  Or was it perhaps true, that there are serious human rights violations in Honduras now, even if the political events referred to were not a “coup”?  I have not been following the events in Honduras closely, especially since news of events there have become less frequent now.  But it may be that serious abuses of people attempting to demonstrate have been perpetrated.

I am considering writing to the Amnesty International team asking them to explain why they think it was a coup, since according to my understanding of the events, it was not.  Perhaps they know something which I do not which will persuade me to think otherwise.

This is a case which shows several things- it shows that it is good not to be too stiff or resilient on a position, especially if one does not really have enough knowledge to decide.  A person who is truly in pursuit of truth on some issue or concern must be open minded and willing to consider new points of view or new information.

It also shows (as I have noted before) how difficult it can be to try to keep track of and have any real understanding of many different countries in the world.  I recognize ultimately the weakness in my own assessment of the situation because I, like many others, lack the time to really carefully investigate more than a few key issues as time passes.

Are there any readers out there who have any feelings or thoughts about whether the events in Honduras in late July, 2009, in which Zelaya was removed from office as President, was, or was not, a coup?

But yet, it may still be, as I suspect, that what occured in Honduras was not a coup.  At the same time, even if it were not a coup,  many human rights abuses may have followed the incidents and change of power there.

Many people may not really be familiar with the idea of being a vegetarian, especially if they don’t know anyone who is a vegetarian and they live in a country where there is no real movement in favor of vegetarianism.

I suspect it is in more developed countries, or countries which have a history of freedom and open- mindedness, which will have a stronger presence of vegetarianism as a ideational force.  In many Asian countries some people may be full or partially vegetarian for religious reasons, usually either Buddhist or Hindu.

There are religious as well as practical reasons to be a vegetarian.  In this case I’m looking at the practical reasons to be a vegetarian and appealing to people’s rational faculties, with a compassionate motive.

Being a vegetarian could help reduce the impact of humans on the rainforest, especially meat consumers in certain countries.  For example, meat consumers in countries like Argentina and Brazil, where rainforest is cleared to make way for cattle range, there is a strong possibility that beef consumed in those countries affects the cutting down of the rainforest.

The same link between rainforest destruction and meat consumption applies to any country which receives beef which is exported from those countries where rainforest is being cleared for cattle grazing.  I have not researched it to know all of the countries where this is occurring, but I suspect it is considerable (among multiple other causes of rainforest destruction).

Another logical reason to reduce meat consumption is that prices of many foods have risen, especially some meat and fish.  In 2008, food prices reached extremely high levels and the poor of the world were particularly hard hit.  Several commentators at the time, including the World Bank, said that the rise in food prices threatened to turn back, or repeal, advances in poverty reduction made over the past few decades.

That was before the economic recession hit.

An additional pressure on food prices which will probably expand even further in the future, is the new bio-fuels.  These bio-fuels are environmentally more friendly (in terms of carbon emissions) , but there’s one catch:  They may compete for land with that land used to grow food for humans.  That is, an energy source is now competing for limited space with the food source.  If bio-fuels had never been invented, more land would be available to grow food, which in turn would probably increase the food supply.  An increase in food supply would drive food prices down relative to a constant level of demand.  Expanding bio-fuel production means that there will be less food overall, which will generally apply upward pressure to food prices in the long- term.  This is of course in addition to expanded demand from growing population, and increasing meat consumption in many countries which are developing and having more disposable income.

So, the idea here is that if a person eats less, or no meat at all, they will be reducing the demand for meat, which will result in lower meat prices, which will reduce pressure on the poor of the world.  If many people did this, it could have an effect over the long term.

Overall, I think at this point that as a species,  humans should reduce meat and fish consumption, as one measure to restore balance with the planet, and wild ecosystems.

Well, it’s food for thought.  I wonder if any readers have any thoughts about this, and whether they would consider being a vegetarian or reducing their meat intake as a result of these reasons?

Please comment!  All thoughts are welcome.

For more information about the link between a vegetarian diet and ecofriendly, green lifestyle, see also this website:  (EarthSave International)

Continuing from my previous post about Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, I think what I am basically trying to say about Hugo Chavez is that he is an ambiguous figure.  He is ambiguous because he has done many good things, including redistributing wealth and providing better healthcare, and promoting literacy, but he has also done many negative things like curtailing political freedoms and befriending countries with poor, undemocratic rights records.

There is a tendency among many people to become polarized and either be totally against, or totally for, a certain person or issue.  But in some cases, the actual reality of the situation requires a more moderate, even tempered attitude and approach.  Chavez inspires adulation from many, but is strongly denounced by others who oppose him.  I’m suggesting perhaps the truth is in the middle somewhere- which is perhaps why there are two considerably sized camps opposed to each other.

The original post was: Chavez is Going Too Far Despite Alleged Benefits of “Socialism in” Venezuela

Since I wrote the original post, Chavez did again the very thing that I mentioned in the post:  he went to Iran in what could be described as a friendly diplomatic visit.  In contrast, Chavez’s approach to the US has almost always been confrontational.  It seems a little bit imbalanced.

Chavez’s actions are dubious, especially in the context of the recent Iranian elections, which revealed, at least, that Iran is deeply divided about the direction the country should go in.  The harsh methods used to deal with the protestors, as well, makes the Iranian regime look dirtier, less respectable than before.  (Of course, to some they already had no credibility.)  Iran is a country where democracy is not really functioning, where democracy does not define the most powerful parts of the state- the Ayatollah, the Revolutionary Guards, and other un-elected government organs.  Therefore, it is only partly democratic, and the ability and practice of the authorities of selecting out any undesirable reformist candidates at their own whim, makes it even less democratic.

Chavez likes to style himself as a friend of the people.  But if he were really a friend of the people, he would realize that people’s rights consist of not only having a meal on the table, but being able to say what they think about the people who rule over them.   Its not only being able to go to a clinic that matters, but also having the power to vote and change the regime in your country, so that the will of the people triumphs over the whim of the powerful.  However, judging by Chavez’s foreign policy of lauding and befriending governments which are undemocratic and limit people’s rights and freedoms, one has to wonder whether he really is a friend of the people.

Just wishing all those who are fasting in one form or another a happy Ramadan.  For those who are fasting, I hope it goes well!

Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

A few brief excerpts:

“Reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.”

“Melody Barnes, the President’s Director of the Domestic Policy Council, debunks the malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors.”

“Reform will ease the burdens on small businesses and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.”

“Linda Douglass of the White House Office of Health Reform debunks the myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.”

I’ve been watching Venezuela for a while and trying to make sense of what is happening there.  It’s difficult to follow what is happening in every country in the world, but Venezuela stands out from many other countries because of the fact that Hugo Chavez’s government has been embarking on a left wing course of government expropriation of resources.  Thus Venezuela has become a place in which several fundamental questions- about government ownership of the means of production, expropriation of property, redistribution of wealth, etc. can be examined.

I must admit that I don’t know enough about Venezuela and I have never been there. My fellow students and I studied Venezuela in one of  our courses at the Institute of Social Studies.   A few months ago I began to conduct some research about it but have since forgotten much of what I read.  Perhaps after re- reading those articles I can re- write this post.

A further problem, like so many debates between left and right, is that all the arguments are so heavily propagandized, depending on the perspective of the author, that it is difficult to know who and what to believe.

I have no doubt that Chavez has done some good things in Venezuela, and the benefit of distributing the wealth gathered from oil to the mass of the population should never be underestimated.  Its hard in a blog post like this to really adequately recognize how much of a difference this may make to the ordinary person.

Yet I have also had some serious doubts about Chavez, which grew worse when I saw this article.  (Chavez Accused of Gagging Media) This BBC article details the closure of 34 radio stations, with 200 other stations to follow.  This kind of activity, which will no doubt further eliminate critical speech in a country where the political and economic power is already highly concentrated, seems dubious at best, and threatens to turn Venezuela into a country which lacks pluralist debate.

Chavez’s Questionable Foreign Alliances

This is not the first thing that Chavez has done which caused me concern.  I am a person who particularly values political rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and I have concluded that some form of democracy is the political system which is most likely to bring justice to the people of the world’s countries.  Thus I am not too favorably inclined towards the governments of countries like Iran and China.  Yet Chavez, while launching unending criticisms of the United States, made friendly overtures, even alliances to these countries.  On one overseas tour (which I believe was in 2005), Chavez even planned to visit North Korea, but was dissuaded from doing this by his advisors.

I can understand Chavez’s criticisms of the Bush administration.  But befriending the enemies of the Bush administration, whoever they may be, merely for the sake of realpolitik, when these regimes are serious human rights offenders, suggests that he does not really care about the rights of people.  It shows that he was merely interested in augmenting his own power through alliances with the enemies of his enemy.

If Chavez were one who truly stood consistently on the side of justice, he would have pointed out the failures of both the Bush administration, and the failures of those other countries.

I also do not appreciate Chavez’s style of discourse.  When making criticisms of someone or something, I think it is important to make level- headed, rational criticism, and also acknowledge any strengths of the object of criticism (if one sees any.)  But Chavez spends literally hours making exaggerated criticisms of the United States, which, while not without some basis, are way overblown.  I just do not appreciate this demagogic, caudillo style.  It’s a matter of personal taste, I suppose.

Socialism and Expropriation of Property

Over the past few years, we have observed how Chavez has ordered the expropriation (or taking over) of more and more privately held economic enterprises in Venezuela.   While one could argue about the benefit or harm of this course of action, I do believe at the very least that the state, when expropriating property, should pay a fair price for the property.  However, in several instances (perhaps more that I am not aware of), when the companies involved did not agree to the price Chavez offered (they felt the price was too low), Chavez basically bullied them into accepting the price that he offered.

Now I’d like to turn to a discussion of socialism in general, applied to the case of Venezuela.  Before doing so, I’d like to discuss different forms of socialism, which can then be applied to the case of Venezuela.

1- Soviet/ Cuban/early Chinese style socialism:  In this case the state owns all the means of production, arranges all transactions between economic enterprises through centralized planning, and fixes prices based on its own determination.  In other words, the market plays no role in determining prices.

2- Government ownership/ market pricing mechanism:  In this scenario, the government or state owns all of the means of production, but it allows market interactions between different state owned enterprises  to determine prices in the economy.  I am not aware of any historical examples of this, but no doubt there are some.

3- Hybrid state and private ownership/ market pricing mechanism:  In this case the state owns some of the means of production, but some of the means of production is also in private hands.  At the same time, market interactions determine prices (with perhaps some government interventions).  Since, even in most capitalist countries, some economic enterprise is state owned (for example the postal service, or the train system), cases in which very little is owned by the state, would then be referred to as capitalist.

Venezuela, to my understanding, is clearly in the third category.  I am not aware what percentage of the economy is privately owned vs. state owned, but it is clear that the general trend is for the state to own more, and the private sector less.  On the other hand, most developing countries have a large segment of the economy which is called the “informal economy”, or small, often unlicensed merchants:  people who sell things from small stands, push ice cream stalls through town, repair shoes at the roadside, etc. (What in communist orthodoxy would be referred to as ‘petty bourgeois’, coming from ‘petite’ or ‘little’ bourgeois)  I doubt very much whether Chavez intends to expropriate these people’s property as it would be very unpopular, and the Venezuelan state would be unlikely to be able to find work for all of them.

The question is whether this expropriation of property and the movement towards a hybrid form of socialism, in which more and more is owned by the state, is beneficial.

In some ways it may be beneficial, if it means that more wealth in the form of profits from these enterprises are redistributed to the general population.  And it may prevent profits from being taken out of the country.

But there may also be weaknesses which socialists are not ready to recognize.  For one thing, in most historical cases that I am aware of (and Venezuela seems no different in this way), the actual people of that country had little say over the operation of the state owned enterprises, or how its profits were used.   For example, during the early communist period in China, the profits from state owned enterprises in China were used to purchase and develop military weapons while many people starved to death.  Since the people had little right to object or participate in decision making, the system itself was exploitative, earning the term used by some leftists to describe these Stalinist systems as “state capitalism”.

While Venezuela is definitely not a Stalinist system, it appears to me that the Venezuelan people are generally not involved in the decision making process about how profits from these enterprises are used.  They may benefit from oil wealth, but they are the recipients of the decisions made by an elite in the upper echelons of the power structure.

The ideal scenario would be one in which the people of a state had real democratic decision making power in the operation of these enterprises and the uses of the profits.   While this may be difficult to institute in practice, I do think it is at least possible that the heads of these enterprises could be elected.

A further criticism is that, without real transparency in the operation of these enterprises, the resources involved could be misused and corruption could become problematic.

Of course, there is the oft repeated criticism that, without competition between different enterprises, or without the genuine possibility of failure due to government subsidy, these enterprises will become inefficient.

Chavez Serves Himself

There is another aspect of the way this hybrid socialism is being implemented in Venezuela that disturbs me.  It is not merely a neutral state which is administering socialism on behalf of the people.  Rather, Chavez has orchestrated the system such that he himself personally delivers the benefits to the people, thus winning their adoration and building a personal patron- client network between himself and the Venezuelan people.  That is, it is basically self- serving.

One wonders whether Chavez does not have kind of a big ego.   He sees his own legacy at stake and perhaps would like to have a place in history along with the likes of great socialist heroes like Lenin, etc.  (In fact I don’t know which people he would pose as heroes, this is just an example.)

In aiming to achieve this, I think he is trying to achieve too much too quickly.  If socialism is in fact a better system (something which should still be up for debate), it should be something which takes over gradually.  But Chavez’ muffling of the media shows that he is willing to stifle diversity of thought and pluralism in order to achieve his goals. The logic seems to be: “socialism will bring more justice to the poor, so it is OK to violate people’s rights to freedom of expression in the process.”  But I think that socialism would be more successful in the long run if it gradually wins acceptance in the presence of competition from other forms of thought.  Or perhaps there is another ideology, which is even more advanced than socialism, which will eventually win out?

Long Term Rulers Are Unhealthy for Society

I’ll finish up with one of my beliefs about governance.  In general, I think that long periods in office for one President or Prime Minister are unhealthy for a country, and will eventually cause problems.  In fact, the repression of diverse thought that we are now seeing in Venezuela may be a result of Chavez staying on too long.  The longer Chavez stays in power the more he seeks to deepen his grip.  In my opinion, it would be better for him to let go and turn it over to someone else for a while.

Conclusion

Its difficult to say where this situation will go.  It seems likely that, since Venezuela is gifted with oil, that it could go on for a long time.  Since even poor governance can be covered up with the glut of money that oil is likely to produce, this whole experiment could go on for quite a while even if it is not actually that well managed or successful.

To conclude, my advice for Chavez would be three-fold:

- Stop the grand- standing political rhetoric (which reminds me of George Bush’s style, actually)

- Stop limiting other people’s political rights

-Stop forging alliances with some of the world’s worst rights abusers, sheerly for reasons of realpolitik- have the nerve to stand alone in the world, in necessary, if it means taking the position with the greatest integrity.

See also: The Ambiguity of Hugo Chavez

Earlier today I sent the following e mail to U.S. President Barack Obama at the following link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

Dear President Obama,

I am writing you in regards to the political crisis in Honduras, and the US government’s insistence that former President Zelaya be reinstated, as well as its terming of his removal as a “coup”.

I was quite surprised, and concerned when I read two editorials by members of the current Honduran government which explained why Mr. Zelaya was removed, and that this was done in a wholly constitutional fashion, given that the Honduran constitution guarantees removal of any figure attempting to extend their own term.

The response of the United States, and other governments in the region, by condemning the move, and referring to it as a “coup”, seems to have been a bit hasty.  I understand that it is difficult to monitor the situation in over 191 countries in the world, but I think the U.S. has a responsibility to make sure that it has understood the situation correctly before making any demands and characterization as a “coup”.

Imagine how the United States would feel if, following the election of George Bush in 2000, all the countries of the world insisted that Al Gore be made President.  Or if, in the event that Bill Clinton had been impeached, if all the countries in the world demanded that he be re-instated.

While generally I support referendums, I am also aware that referendums may not be accurate when the current officer in power has a strongly vested interest in its outcome, and can use the power of the state to affect the outcome.  Recent developments in Venezuela suggest, whatever one’s opinion about Hugo Chavez, that presidents who remain in power over consecutive terms can become increasingly authoritarian and impinge on the free exercise of the rights of that country’s citizens.

Further, in the past, I have noticed that before the War in Iraq, the US government did not gauge the opinion of the Iraqi people about whether they wanted to be invaded.  The US government in this case would be wise to get a sense of the Honduran peoples’ opinion on this issue.  While some people may rally in Mr. Zelaya’s favor, this does not mean that a majority support him.

In summary, I request the US government to review its reaction to the events in Honduras to determine whether Mr. Zelaya’s removal was not, in fact, constitutional, and adjust its foreign policy reaction based on that.

In due respect, and with best regards,

Patrick Mosolf

(end)

The internet is awash with information about this political crisis, but the following is an account of what preceded the removal of Mr. Zelaya from Honduras, printed in an article in the L.A. Times on 10 July, 2009: (Honduras’ Non- Coup)

Earlier this year, with only a few months left in his term, he [Zelaya] ordered a referendum on whether a new constitutional convention should convene to write a wholly new constitution. Because the only conceivable motive for such a convention would be to amend the un-amendable parts of the existing constitution, it was easy to conclude — as virtually everyone in Honduras did — that this was nothing but a backdoor effort to change the rules governing presidential succession. Not unlike what Zelaya’s close ally, Hugo Chavez, had done in Venezuela.

It is also worth noting that only referendums approved by a two-thirds vote of the Honduran Congress may be put to the voters. Far from approving Zelaya’s proposal, Congress voted that it was illegal.

The attorney general filed suit and secured a court order halting the referendum. Zelaya then announced that the voting would go forward just the same, but it would be called an “opinion survey.” The courts again ruled this illegal. Undeterred, Zelaya directed the head of the armed forces, Gen. Romeo Vasquez, to proceed with the “survey” — and “fired” him when he declined. The Supreme Court ruled the firing illegal and ordered Vasquez reinstated.

Zelaya had the ballots printed in Venezuela, but these were impounded by customs when they were brought back to Honduras. On June 25 — three days before he was ousted — Zelaya personally gathered a group of “supporters” and led it to seize the ballots, restating his intent to conduct the “survey” on June 28. That was the breaking point for the attorney general, who immediately sought a warrant from the Supreme Court for Zelaya’s arrest on charges of treason, abuse of authority and other crimes. In response, the court ordered Zelaya’s arrest by the country’s army, which under Article 272 must enforce compliance with the Constitution, particularly with respect to presidential succession. The military executed the court’s order on the morning of the proposed survey.

If this account of the events is true, it is understandable, in the context of the Honduran constitution, why the actions against Mr. Zelaya were taken.  It shows that the actions taken against him were according to the law, and not a military coup as has been claimed.

There are few things that annoy me more about US political culture than the use of the term “socialism” as a scare tactic, since hardly any of these people really know what socialism is anyway, and it is silly to try to frighten people with the word.  Even if someone in the US were talking about socialism, they wouldn’t be talking about Soviet style socialism anyway.

Recently I was discussing this with some other US citizens, and they informed me that what is referred to in the US as Single payer healthcare is not being considered.  Single payer healthcare means that there is only one insurer- which would be the US government or another public entity.  This idea is not being considered now.

But even this proposal is not socialized medicine.  Why?  Think about it… what is the most important thing about medical care- the hospital, the service of the doctors and nurses, the procedures, the medicine etc.  Under this single payer plan, all of these things would still be provided by private (i.e. non- government) entities, the same as they are now.  The only thing that would be “socialized”  would be the insurance part.  The actual production of healthcare would still be private (i.e. capitalist).

Ok, so the single payer plan is not socialism.  And the single payer plan is not even being considered now (its considered to be too extreme or radical.)  So how can the Obama administration’s proposal be considered  socialism?  All the  Obama proposal does is create a government provided insurance scheme which would compete with private insurance companies.  Personally I think it is a good idea- because these greedy insurance companies which have been screwing US citizens for the last ?? years will finally have some real competition and may have to offer decent prices!  But having a government insurance provider competing with private providers is not even close to socialized medicine.

And it is not even comparable to the Canadian system, so discussions of the Canadian system are totally irrelevant!

The Obama administration’s proposal is actually quite moderate (reflecting a need to compromise with those who really have the power in this system).  The following document has a basic description of the proposal.  (See this link)

According to the Wikipedia entry on healthcare reform in the US, under the Obama proposal, “Coverage would be guaranteed regardless of health status, and premiums would not vary based on health status either.”  This means insurance companies could not refuse to insure people (one of the main cruelties of the current system), and they could not force people to pay ridiculously high sums to get health insurance (my father recently told me he had to pay $24,000 per year just for health insurance, before he was old enough to be covered by Medicare.)

What is really going on here seems clear to me- the big businesses that are making a lot of money out of the current system are totally propagandizing the debate, with the willing assistance of media like FOX News.  Normal people, who don’t have the time or energy to investigate for themselves are falling for the scare tactics.  Just as an example, see Sarah Palin referring to the Obama plan as “evil” (at this link).

You Americans who are reading this- this is going to be the last chance in a long time to fix this system.  In case you are not aware of it, the rest of the developed world is laughing at us, and wondering why we are so uncivilized that we can’t even provide a just and humane system of healthcare for our citizens!

Don’t fall for the propaganda.  The Obama administration proposal is not socialism.  Its nothing like Canada’s system, so Canada’s system is irrelevant.  The proposal is a moderate one which would make some improvements in the system to make it more affordable and less wasteful.

Take an hour and do a little research before making up your mind… now is the time to make some improvements.

The incident in which an African American professor from Harvard was arrested by a Boston police officer has been all over the news recently.  It seems like political comedians like John Stuart and Colbert have been making jokes about it for at least three days.  So by now, almost all US citizens must be familiar with the incident.

The event involves two issues: race and race profiling, and the use of the power to arrest citizens by police officers.

On the first issue, I don’t feel able to judge whether officer James Crowley was acting in a racist way.  There are two instances in which racism may have come into play:  1) in the identification of a suspect, and 2) in the decision to make an arrest.  Officer Crowley was not the one who identified Professor Henry Louis Gates as a potential suspect, since he was replying to a call.  The neighbor of Gates, a white woman, who called the police when she saw Gates and his driver trying to get into his house, may have been influenced by racism, but she is not the subject of the racism allegations.

In the decision to make the arrest, there are three possibilities related to Crowley:  either he was not motivated by racism at all but was merely arresting a person he saw as disorderly, or he was subconsciously motivated by racism, or he was consciously motivated by racism.  Since Officer Crowley did not, to my knowledge, make any racist remarks, and I cannot read his mind at the time of the arrest, I cannot determine which is these three possibilities is true.

To me, the other issue at hand is at least, if not more, important- that a police officer arrested someone who probably did not need to be arrested.  From reading the arrest report, if it is true, it sounds like Professor Gates was not very polite and lost his temper.  He was just returning from a trip overseas, and may have been suffering from jet-lag.  Like many Americans, he probably resents unnecessary police interference in his life, and this may have been one reason why he was less than polite.  After all, he was on his own property and there was no need for the officer to be there after he had ascertained that.

OK, so he wasn’t nice to the officer, but what did he actually do wrong?  Fortunately for the police the infraction of “disorderly conduct” has been kept vague enough to protect them in cases such as these.  I would like to see a clear legal definition of what constitutes disorderly conduct so that police officers know clearly when the situation fits and when they should leave a person alone.

The police in the US seem to have developed the attitude, particularly during the Bush administration, that they can do whatever they want, that they are untouchable.  The attitude that they can arrest someone who is acting vaguely deviant, and ignoring the harmful effects of this to that person and to society.  Police seem to feel that “might makes right” and disregard the humiliation of arresting a person unnecessarily.

I will cite a few other examples to make my point.  First a personal anecdote.  I was arguing with the staff of Greyhound in the New York Greyhound station.  The Greyhound staff, amazingly, called the police officer working nearby.  The police officer told me that he would arrest me if I continued to argue with the Greyhound staff.  That’s correct- arguing with someone would lead to my arrest.  What is even more pathetic is that the Greyhound staff called the police at all instead of having the decency to solve the conflict among fellow citizens.  (No solidarity!)

Then there is this incident which I will never forget reading about:  A man was arrested in a mall for wearing a T shirt that said “Give Peace a Chance”, after the John Lennon song.  What is even more ironic is that he bought the T shirt at the same mall where he was arrested!  (see this link) This has to be the lowest level the police can stoop to and represents what a police state the US became under Bush.

Finally, this news was just in the July 29th, 2009 edition of The Palm Beach Post, page 1: former Sgt. Brent Raban of the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, would wear a skullcap with the words “Punishment” on it, then patrol the streets looking to rough people up.  Then he would make posts on Facebook crowing about the abuse he had meted out.  “Like a good batterer, I know the areas that hide the marks well, ” he said, referring to beating a suspect.  “It’s not crime- fighting… Its dealing out PUNISHMENT!”  he wrote on another occasion.  In another case, he whined about being frustrated at not being able to hit someone for 14 days.

All of which reveals to me, and hopefully to others, that new norms need to be established for the police about the exercise of their power.  I do not know Officer Crowley, but he is probably not a bad person.  In fact, society had socialized him to think that he could arrest Professor Gates if he wanted to.  His actions were a product of a society that has let police power get too far out of check.

Now that we are in the post- Bush era, some force or group in society- whether it be other parts of government, the media, or the citizenry- need to show the police that we do not accept the old norms and they need to stop abusing their power.  There is no reason to unnecessarily arrest people and reduce their dignity.  Citizens of the “Land of the Free” should not have their freedom unnecessarily curtailed, without any rational or just cause.

Let’s hope our police officers get the message…

A few other good articles on the arrest of Professor Gates:

Bite Your Tongue- Maureen Dowd

Gates Gate- Andrew Sullivan

The phenomenon of Islamist violence, which has already reached many parts of the globe, has now reached Nigeria.  (Nigerian Islamist Attacks Spread).  According to this article, this particular Islamist group is against Western education; the name of one of the groups involved in the attack means “Education is Prohibited”.

Now, I’m a pretty open minded person.  If someone wants to present arguments about why they are against “Western” education, and can explain why it is UnIslamic, I may not agree with them, but I respect their right to share their views.

However, when such a person or group decides to violently attack the police and civilians because of these views, it crosses a red line and becomes a violation of normal people’s rights.  This kind of behavior must immediately stop, and must be branded by everyone as unacceptable.

In particular Muslims themselves must recognize how negative this behavior is, and condemn it from inside the religion.  The effect of condemnation from other Muslims would be more significant.

I have noted before how violent activities by Islamist groups leads to serious rights violations in the context of repression of Ahmadiyya in Indonesia.  (Suppression of Ahmadiyya by Extreme Muslims Violates Freedom of Religion)

I may be totally unable to see clearly in this case, but it seems like Islam is going through a historical phase in which an increase in fundamentalism among some relatively small parts of the population is causing more violence and violation of the rights of minorities and ordinary people.  The world’s citizenry, both Muslim and non Muslim, must struggle to end these violations, as it will help to bring humanity to a greater degree of peace.

Hopefully, within 20 or 30 years, all this extremism will have faded away and Islamism will attract fewer followers.  This will result in less violence (at least from this source), and less intolerance of diversity and different choices of different people.  Until then, however, citizen activists need to struggle against these tendencies, just as fundamentalism in other religions, particularly in Christianity, must also be addressed.

A shortlist of countries with problems related to Islamism:

Nigeria

Indonesia- problems in various forms

Thailand- southern separatism

Somalia- the main rebel group for the last few years has been Islamist

Iran- ruled by an Islamist regime

Algeria

Afghanistan- Taliban insurgents

Pakistan- Taliban insurgents, Al Qaeda terror, repression of Ahmadiyya

Chechnya- Islamist involvement (among others) in the separatist struggle

Palestine- Hamas

Turkey- terrorist attacks (not all terrorist attacks in Turkey are from Islamists)

Saudi Arabia- terrorist attacks

Some readers may not condemn the Islamist role in all of these cases (a person may be symapthetic to the Algerian Islamists, for example, since they actually  previously won the elections.  Or a person may not feel critical of the Iranian regime, depending on one’s perspective.)  But looking at this list makes one realize the role that Islamism has played in so many different conflicts.  Just the blunt  numbers of problematic cases involving Islamism should lead one to be skeptical of this ideology.

Anyway, I’ll rest my case for now, and invite readers to leave their comments about whether they agree, disagree, hold some nuanced position in between, etc….