Showing posts with label Public Policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Policy. Show all posts
Monday, November 30, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Maryknoll Conferences
One of the best parts of studying here at the Maryknoll Institute is the conferences they host every Wednesday.
Conference topics include: The Church in Latin America (I missed this conference which focused primarily on the Jesuits), Mining in South America, Non-Violent Communication, Water in Latin America, The Dignity of Work, Hope & Disenchantment in South America, and Coca and the Drug Wars.
Last weeks' topic was 'Coca and the Drug Wars' to coincide with our trip to the Chapare Region. During our trip, we were able to visit both a coca farm (part of the shift in drug policy here in Bolivia that allows for a negotiated reduction of coca where one cato, 1/6 of a hectare, is allowed for each family in certain regions) and also UMOPAR, which is the Bolivian anti-narcotics eradication unit largely funded by the US.
Some interesting points from both the conference on coca and the trip:
-Coca is used for many purposes; including chewing, drinking in tea, for ancient Andean rituals, for other ceremonial rituals, for medicinal purposes including fighting off altitude sickness, providing needed energy, keeping awake, etc.
-Coca is similar in nature to caffeine.
-The Supply-Side Drug War, which has for 20+ years focused on eliminating coca growth and focused in practice targeted small farmers has been a failure in all the typical measurements: purity of the drug has remained high, availability has remained high, growth of coca has grown worldwide, and the price has been stable.
-Both Colombia and Peru grow far more coca than Bolivia.
-The Catholic Church first tried coca eradication.
-Colombia's Drug Czar said that drug control policies do more harm than the drugs themselves.
-The RAND Corporation has written that drug education and prevention programs are 23 times more effective than interdiction.
-The Leahy Amendment (1997) prohibits the funding of security forces in another country if that force has demonstrated human rights abuses. This law has not been effectively enforced.
-Current interdiction programs in Colombia include spraying Round-Up from planes.
-Even though the DEA was kicked out of Bolivia, the Narcotics Division of the US Consulate remains in Bolivia and has 3 times as many people working for the Narcotics Division than the DEA.
-Many things in Bolivia are run by unions....and coca production is the same. Most of the coca production from Bolivia comes out of the Six Federations: six unions that have agreed upon who grows coca, where coca is grown, how it is sold & transported so that the coca cannot be used for cocaine.
-Bolivians have one of the lowest rates of cocaine use in the world. Something like .04%.
-Most of the coca that is not used domestically is exported and used for cocaine in Argentina and Brazil.
-Many Bolivians feel that the US government has not been interested as much in the drug war as in the partnership between the US military and the Bolivian military which remains as strong as any US partnership in Bolivia.
-Law 1008 was an anti-drug piece of legislation written in the US for Bolivia which Bolivia, under strong pressure from the US, adopted before Evo came to power.
-Any laxity in US law regarding coca stems from the influence of Coca Cola, which still uses coca alkaloids in producing its Coke products.
-When Evo Morales was still at 12% or something in the early stages of the presidential elections, the US pronounced that if Evo was elected, all US funding for Bolivia would end. This made Evo jump sharply and immediately up in the polls. Evo, of course, won the most recent presidential election and is also the head of the Six Federations. Being head of both might be considered a conflict of interest but it was the only way to get a sharply reduced production of coca.
The Conference was given by the head of the Andean Information Network, Kathryn Lebedur.
*I am not endorsing the legalization of drugs, but a focus more on the demand-side of drug use and a limit to the heavy-handedness of the US in foreign policy.
Conference topics include: The Church in Latin America (I missed this conference which focused primarily on the Jesuits), Mining in South America, Non-Violent Communication, Water in Latin America, The Dignity of Work, Hope & Disenchantment in South America, and Coca and the Drug Wars.
Last weeks' topic was 'Coca and the Drug Wars' to coincide with our trip to the Chapare Region. During our trip, we were able to visit both a coca farm (part of the shift in drug policy here in Bolivia that allows for a negotiated reduction of coca where one cato, 1/6 of a hectare, is allowed for each family in certain regions) and also UMOPAR, which is the Bolivian anti-narcotics eradication unit largely funded by the US.
Some interesting points from both the conference on coca and the trip:
-Coca is used for many purposes; including chewing, drinking in tea, for ancient Andean rituals, for other ceremonial rituals, for medicinal purposes including fighting off altitude sickness, providing needed energy, keeping awake, etc.
-Coca is similar in nature to caffeine.
-The Supply-Side Drug War, which has for 20+ years focused on eliminating coca growth and focused in practice targeted small farmers has been a failure in all the typical measurements: purity of the drug has remained high, availability has remained high, growth of coca has grown worldwide, and the price has been stable.
-Both Colombia and Peru grow far more coca than Bolivia.
-The Catholic Church first tried coca eradication.
-Colombia's Drug Czar said that drug control policies do more harm than the drugs themselves.
-The RAND Corporation has written that drug education and prevention programs are 23 times more effective than interdiction.
-The Leahy Amendment (1997) prohibits the funding of security forces in another country if that force has demonstrated human rights abuses. This law has not been effectively enforced.
-Current interdiction programs in Colombia include spraying Round-Up from planes.
-Even though the DEA was kicked out of Bolivia, the Narcotics Division of the US Consulate remains in Bolivia and has 3 times as many people working for the Narcotics Division than the DEA.
-Many things in Bolivia are run by unions....and coca production is the same. Most of the coca production from Bolivia comes out of the Six Federations: six unions that have agreed upon who grows coca, where coca is grown, how it is sold & transported so that the coca cannot be used for cocaine.
-Bolivians have one of the lowest rates of cocaine use in the world. Something like .04%.
-Most of the coca that is not used domestically is exported and used for cocaine in Argentina and Brazil.
-Many Bolivians feel that the US government has not been interested as much in the drug war as in the partnership between the US military and the Bolivian military which remains as strong as any US partnership in Bolivia.
-Law 1008 was an anti-drug piece of legislation written in the US for Bolivia which Bolivia, under strong pressure from the US, adopted before Evo came to power.
-Any laxity in US law regarding coca stems from the influence of Coca Cola, which still uses coca alkaloids in producing its Coke products.
-When Evo Morales was still at 12% or something in the early stages of the presidential elections, the US pronounced that if Evo was elected, all US funding for Bolivia would end. This made Evo jump sharply and immediately up in the polls. Evo, of course, won the most recent presidential election and is also the head of the Six Federations. Being head of both might be considered a conflict of interest but it was the only way to get a sharply reduced production of coca.
The Conference was given by the head of the Andean Information Network, Kathryn Lebedur.
*I am not endorsing the legalization of drugs, but a focus more on the demand-side of drug use and a limit to the heavy-handedness of the US in foreign policy.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Proposed Renewal of the Day of Fasting and Prayer
On July 09, 1812, President James Madison proposed a Day of Fasting and Prayer for the US. I believe reviving this day could be an important counter-point to Thanksgiving in November. As a country, it is good that we are considered hopeful and optimistic. We could also do with a measure of self-reflection.
When Madison created this proclamation, The United States was under specific threat from the British, who would burn Washington DC. Madison's entire statements typically asked for blessing against adversaries and portrayed US as the more devout. However, I believe the underlying sentiments of penitence are still important for our/every country.
An abbreviated transcript follows (What I thought could be carried to today):
Whereas the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution of the two Houses, have signified a request that a day may be recommended to be observed by the people of the United States with religious solemnity as a day of public humiliation and prayer; and
Whereas such a recommendation will enable the several religious denominations and societies so disposed to offer at one and the same time their common vows and adorations to Almighty God....
I do therefore recommend the third Thursday in August next as a convenient day to be set apart for the devout purposes of rendering the Sovereign of the Universe and the Benefactor of Mankind the public homage due to His holy attributes; of acknowledging the transgressions which might justly provoke the manifestations of His divine displeasure; of seeking His merciful forgiveness and His assistance in the great duties of repentance and amendment, and especially of offering fervent supplications that in the present season of calamity and war.. He would inspire all nations with a love of justice and of concord and with a reverence for the unerring precept of our holy religion to do to others as they would require that others should do to them; and, finally, that... He would hasten a restoration of the blessings of peace.
When Madison created this proclamation, The United States was under specific threat from the British, who would burn Washington DC. Madison's entire statements typically asked for blessing against adversaries and portrayed US as the more devout. However, I believe the underlying sentiments of penitence are still important for our/every country.
An abbreviated transcript follows (What I thought could be carried to today):
Whereas the Congress of the United States, by a joint resolution of the two Houses, have signified a request that a day may be recommended to be observed by the people of the United States with religious solemnity as a day of public humiliation and prayer; and
Whereas such a recommendation will enable the several religious denominations and societies so disposed to offer at one and the same time their common vows and adorations to Almighty God....
I do therefore recommend the third Thursday in August next as a convenient day to be set apart for the devout purposes of rendering the Sovereign of the Universe and the Benefactor of Mankind the public homage due to His holy attributes; of acknowledging the transgressions which might justly provoke the manifestations of His divine displeasure; of seeking His merciful forgiveness and His assistance in the great duties of repentance and amendment, and especially of offering fervent supplications that in the present season of calamity and war.. He would inspire all nations with a love of justice and of concord and with a reverence for the unerring precept of our holy religion to do to others as they would require that others should do to them; and, finally, that... He would hasten a restoration of the blessings of peace.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Freakonomics Calendar
Nov. 25th, 2008
Two economists found that when a country takes over one of the rotating seats on the United Nations Security Council, it receives nearly 60 percent more foreign aid from the U.S. When the country leaves the Security Council, the aid falls back to the old levels.
Two economists found that when a country takes over one of the rotating seats on the United Nations Security Council, it receives nearly 60 percent more foreign aid from the U.S. When the country leaves the Security Council, the aid falls back to the old levels.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Should It Be Illegal for Those Under 21 To Join the Military?
I've traveled to a lot of countries that have, in the past, been accused of exploiting child soldiers. Many times these children are forcibly taken from their parents. But child soldiers can also be lured into joining the ranks of soldiers because its perceived much like any other gang....its a family, a broken family that provides a certain amount of freedom, power, and respect.
Child soldiers are supposedly good soldiers. They do what they are told, are easily persuaded and manipulated, quickly develop into good marksmen, and are smaller targets for the enemy.
Leaving aside the conversation about the ethics of an army built on conscription, at what minimum age should volunteers be allowed in an army? In the United States, applicants may join at 17 with a parent's permission but face delayed entry. Most applicants start their training at the minimum age of 18.
However, recent studies have shown that human brains do not fully develop until our early 20's. The prefrontal cortex, which "controls impulses, calm emotions, [and] provide an understanding of the consequences of behavior and allow reasoned, logical, and rational decision making processes" "do not fully develop until the early twenties."
-The International Justice Project, citing other academic research projects.
Instead, adolescents use a different part of their brain: the amygdala, which is "typically associated with emotional and gut responses."
"Studies by Dr. Deborah Yurgelun-Todd and her colleagues at Harvard Medical School using functional MRI scans show that teenagers when interpreting emotional information use this part of the brain rather than the rational decision making region: the prefrontal cortex. Conversely, adults in the same experiment relied more heavily on the frontal cortex. In assessing the results of the tasks set to the two groups, Dr. Yurgelun-Todd found that all of the adult participants interpreted the emotional information correctly in comparison to under half of the adolescents."
ibid.
Dr. Yurgelun-Todd says that "Adult brains use the frontal lobe to rationalize or apply brakes to emotional responses."
There are other parts of the brain that do not fully develop in adolescence including the corpus callosum, which are the axons that help both the left and right parts of the brain communicate.
The author(s) are careful not to suggest that this impedes an adolescent from knowing right from wrong. It does however, suggest that adolescents may have difficulty "controlling their desires", understanding the ramifications of their decisions, and perceiving their "time horizon" differently than adults so they are only concerned about the next 1-3 days whereas an adult engages in "long-term planning".
For more information, see:
http://www.internationaljusticeproject.org/pdfs/juvBrainDev.pdf
This suggests that an adolescent may make an emotional decision to enter the military and may be predisposed to make emotional decisions in combat once in the military. Rationality may have little force in decision making for many of the adolescents caught in the midst of combat. Combine this with stories of basic training where soldiers view battle scenes while listening to loud rock music and this suggests that the military knows about these emotional responses and deliberately manipulates young soldiers for its own ends.
Anecdotally, I have heard a soldier that remarked that he got caught up in the loud music and battle scenes and started hating Arabs (shown in the videos) until he took a step back and started processing that brainwashing. Other studies have shown that the military has made great strides in its training to psychologically help its soldiers be able to kill the enemy (The most helpful suggestion instead of an offensive command, is defensive: to protect your battle buddy).
With the development that has taken place in neuro-biology, should a new minimum age be considered for military service? Say 21?
Suggestions that the military is exploiting the most vulnerable and manipulating them for the military's own ends can be thwarted somewhat by raising the minimum age and by recruiting more soldiers from among the richer classes. Raising the minimum age would put rationality at the forefront and allow each volunteer to make sound decisions when joining the service and also in combat.
This would also perversely shut down the argument of soldiers that they should be allowed to drink alcohol at 18...since if they are able to fight and die for their country they should certainly be allowed to drink. Actually, both are harmful to brains that are still developing.
Child soldiers are supposedly good soldiers. They do what they are told, are easily persuaded and manipulated, quickly develop into good marksmen, and are smaller targets for the enemy.
Leaving aside the conversation about the ethics of an army built on conscription, at what minimum age should volunteers be allowed in an army? In the United States, applicants may join at 17 with a parent's permission but face delayed entry. Most applicants start their training at the minimum age of 18.
However, recent studies have shown that human brains do not fully develop until our early 20's. The prefrontal cortex, which "controls impulses, calm emotions, [and] provide an understanding of the consequences of behavior and allow reasoned, logical, and rational decision making processes" "do not fully develop until the early twenties."
-The International Justice Project, citing other academic research projects.
Instead, adolescents use a different part of their brain: the amygdala, which is "typically associated with emotional and gut responses."
"Studies by Dr. Deborah Yurgelun-Todd and her colleagues at Harvard Medical School using functional MRI scans show that teenagers when interpreting emotional information use this part of the brain rather than the rational decision making region: the prefrontal cortex. Conversely, adults in the same experiment relied more heavily on the frontal cortex. In assessing the results of the tasks set to the two groups, Dr. Yurgelun-Todd found that all of the adult participants interpreted the emotional information correctly in comparison to under half of the adolescents."
ibid.
Dr. Yurgelun-Todd says that "Adult brains use the frontal lobe to rationalize or apply brakes to emotional responses."
There are other parts of the brain that do not fully develop in adolescence including the corpus callosum, which are the axons that help both the left and right parts of the brain communicate.
The author(s) are careful not to suggest that this impedes an adolescent from knowing right from wrong. It does however, suggest that adolescents may have difficulty "controlling their desires", understanding the ramifications of their decisions, and perceiving their "time horizon" differently than adults so they are only concerned about the next 1-3 days whereas an adult engages in "long-term planning".
For more information, see:
http://www.internationaljusticeproject.org/pdfs/juvBrainDev.pdf
This suggests that an adolescent may make an emotional decision to enter the military and may be predisposed to make emotional decisions in combat once in the military. Rationality may have little force in decision making for many of the adolescents caught in the midst of combat. Combine this with stories of basic training where soldiers view battle scenes while listening to loud rock music and this suggests that the military knows about these emotional responses and deliberately manipulates young soldiers for its own ends.
Anecdotally, I have heard a soldier that remarked that he got caught up in the loud music and battle scenes and started hating Arabs (shown in the videos) until he took a step back and started processing that brainwashing. Other studies have shown that the military has made great strides in its training to psychologically help its soldiers be able to kill the enemy (The most helpful suggestion instead of an offensive command, is defensive: to protect your battle buddy).
With the development that has taken place in neuro-biology, should a new minimum age be considered for military service? Say 21?
Suggestions that the military is exploiting the most vulnerable and manipulating them for the military's own ends can be thwarted somewhat by raising the minimum age and by recruiting more soldiers from among the richer classes. Raising the minimum age would put rationality at the forefront and allow each volunteer to make sound decisions when joining the service and also in combat.
This would also perversely shut down the argument of soldiers that they should be allowed to drink alcohol at 18...since if they are able to fight and die for their country they should certainly be allowed to drink. Actually, both are harmful to brains that are still developing.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Kill Corn Ethanol
Have you noticed that your vegetable, dairy, and meat prices have skyrocked this last year? The reason is that demand is so high for ethanol (currently made from corn), that corn prices have risen considerably. Because farmers knew that corn prices were rising, they stopped planting other crops to plant more corn. Wheat and soybeans prices also increased dramatically because they were taken out of production. The price of corn remained high however due to high demand, and since corn is used as feed for dairy cows, beef cattle, hogs, etc. these prices have also gone up.
I was hoping to start a petition online to kill ethanol produced from corn.
Ethanol, produced from corn, is a loser because it obtains so LITTLE energy from the process, but also because it encourages the planting of one crop at the expense of other crops, at the expense of biodiversity, and at the potential expense of some forests that will be burnt down to start planting corn because of its high price.
I've already read that Mexican families have been unable to make corn tortillas for their families, because the price has risen so dramatically. Traditions and dietary habits that are hundreds of years old have to be abandoned so we, the rich USA, can put it in our gas tank.
Corn the fuel v. Corn the food is an unethical choice.
I was hoping to start a petition online to kill ethanol produced from corn.
Ethanol, produced from corn, is a loser because it obtains so LITTLE energy from the process, but also because it encourages the planting of one crop at the expense of other crops, at the expense of biodiversity, and at the potential expense of some forests that will be burnt down to start planting corn because of its high price.
I've already read that Mexican families have been unable to make corn tortillas for their families, because the price has risen so dramatically. Traditions and dietary habits that are hundreds of years old have to be abandoned so we, the rich USA, can put it in our gas tank.
Corn the fuel v. Corn the food is an unethical choice.
Debt
Whenever a lender and a borrower agree to do business, the lender lends money usually according to terms set by the lender but agreed to by the borrower.
Many times my debt has been "bought" by another lender, either because another company bought out my lender outright or bought the accounts of that lender. My debt obligation was transferred to the new lender. I don't believe there are laws that the new lender must keep the same terms as the old lender. I feel like with several private student loans and credit cards, that the terms changed.
I wonder if there is a possibility that debtors could gain the right to approve or not approve their debt being transferred to a new lender. That a proxy vote could be held regarding this debt transfer. Conceivably, borrowers enter into an arrangement with a lender based on all sorts of conditions: interest rate, penalties, customer service, etc. Since new lenders can impose new conditions that can change all of the original terms, I think that debtors should have a voice in who "holds" their debt.
I recently ran into a bank employee whose own mortgage was sold out from under him. His mortgage, which he arranged at the bank he worked for, was sold to another business without his consent. I understand this helps provide liquidity for home sales (which are fairly illiquid), by introducing them in the financial markets, but it also can help create other problems because when these are combined with other mortgages and placed into financial instruments, the ability for the market to assess its risk seems weaker: hence the recent sub-prime mess that has affected the stock market.
Has anyone heard anything about debtors having a voice in their debt being sold?
Many times my debt has been "bought" by another lender, either because another company bought out my lender outright or bought the accounts of that lender. My debt obligation was transferred to the new lender. I don't believe there are laws that the new lender must keep the same terms as the old lender. I feel like with several private student loans and credit cards, that the terms changed.
I wonder if there is a possibility that debtors could gain the right to approve or not approve their debt being transferred to a new lender. That a proxy vote could be held regarding this debt transfer. Conceivably, borrowers enter into an arrangement with a lender based on all sorts of conditions: interest rate, penalties, customer service, etc. Since new lenders can impose new conditions that can change all of the original terms, I think that debtors should have a voice in who "holds" their debt.
I recently ran into a bank employee whose own mortgage was sold out from under him. His mortgage, which he arranged at the bank he worked for, was sold to another business without his consent. I understand this helps provide liquidity for home sales (which are fairly illiquid), by introducing them in the financial markets, but it also can help create other problems because when these are combined with other mortgages and placed into financial instruments, the ability for the market to assess its risk seems weaker: hence the recent sub-prime mess that has affected the stock market.
Has anyone heard anything about debtors having a voice in their debt being sold?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)