Why Europeans Hate Bush Too

In response to "European Anti-Americanism":

Basically, I agree with the people in Europe. I don't like the American government much either. That comes from a few things, and I think it's more than just dogma.

Probably the most significant reason to distrust the US is the Iraq war. Countries should not be allowed to invade other countries just because they disagree with them. If there is a true threat to world security the there will also be an international consensus that something needs to be done, or at least not the level of resistance we saw for Iraq. The idea that "French people are just pussies" doesn't hold up. If there was a real danger they would have supported some sort of action as well. (I don't know if you remember the first Iraq war, but that was fought to stop Iraq from doing essentially what we did last year.) If there really is a danger, of course a country is allowed to defend itself... repeat DEFEND, not attack, but I don't think that was ever the case. Iraq was not ever a defensive move, it was aggressive. The Bush administration was set on invading (I believe for economic incentives... which turned out not to work too well either), and for that alone I think the administration deserves the negative public opinion.

The second reason would be the government's treatment of the environment. The stance of the Bush administration is basically that environmental health has no status versus industry. I agree that industry is a good thing, but pollution and destruction must be limited (I did a poor job of explaining this in the last post). He's just unwilling to admit that there might need to be some restrictions on what people (industry specifically) should and shouldn't be allowed to do. (Like I said before, I think this line is drawn at the point that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they're not directly hurting anyone else. And I can give you a laundry list of why lack of environmental regulation DIRECTLY hurts other people.) (Climate change, persistent organic pollutants, loss of bio-diverstiy (health of the future), irresponsible use of genetically modified organisms and hormones in foods.)

Third, in a never ending list, is that Bush doesn't believe in the importance of international institutions. I disagree with this because of it's long-term negative impact on the US. Being isolationist, or unilateral is all well and good while the US is in power. If the US wants to pull out of the ABM treaty, or not join the international criminal court that's just fine. There's no moral obligation that we join these institutions. But I think this is a very short-sighted way to view the world, and eventually this is going to bite the US in the ass. Right now no one can tell the US what to do, but what about in 70 years when China is an industrial behemoth and has overtaken the US as an Economic power. We are going to be kicking ourselves for not creating international institutions with any real power. The US now has the opportunity to create international controls that really mean something. If the US were to really support international governance of some kind (not dissolution of natoinal sovereignty, but rather a real commitment to creatinig something with authority) those institutions could exist! This secession of some power now will ensure our safety in the future. At some point we're going to need powerful international institutions, and when we do they're not going to be there.

So, yes, people here hate Bush, and by association, the US Government, and further down the line the people who voted for Bush. I can't say I blame them, I don't like those people too much either. I truly believe that the US is beginning a downward spiral. (Personally I blame Christians, but that's too much to get into now. Religion is the opiate of the people and all... promotes and excuses irrational behavior.(a lazy society based on the success of previous generations also isn't helping)) Essentially I think the US gets what it deserves--be it another great depression, or just dirty rivers and polluted air. (Of course none of what Bush has done justifies terrorism etc., but I think that is another important issue. Bush's policies are filling the world with people who hate us and I really think he's making the US less safe.)

But I don't think I have the energy or motivation to try to fix things in the US, that's why I'm trying to make some sort of connection here. I will come back to the US, and I'll probably live there for quite a while. But when the shit really hits the fan, I'm out. Einstein left Germany in 1933 because he saw what was going on. I want to be in the position to do the same if necessary.

And that's the way things are!

Individual Freedom and the Environment

I guess I should start by saying that I define myself as a "Sustainable Developmentalist" rather than an "Environmentalist" per se. I take this to mean that: development, industry, productivity should be encouraged but these forces must be prevented from destroying things that can not be replaced and from acting in a way that will inevitably lead to human-destruction in the long-run. People should be encouraged to create things, and improve the world, but this should be done in a way that can be continued indefinitely. In addition there are some things which can't belong to a single person, company or nation and those things must be protected (the air is one obvious example).

Now I don't know if you imagine these restrictions as being reasonable, or as already too much of an infringement on individual freedom, but I have to believe that you agree there is a certain amount of regulation which is necessary. As the most extreme and obvious example, a factory should not be allowed to pollute the air so much as to kill people in a neighboring town. Correct?

This idea seems simple enough, and in reality it may be. People should be allowed to do whatever they want to, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. Unfortunately when you get to the practicalities of implimenting environmental legislatoin the lines are not always clear. I am finding that environmentalism deals very closely with regulating the actions of other people, and sometimes it is hard to know what is an acceptable regulation and what is not. Every day I am presented with new cases where this line is blurred, and I imagine other's where I wouldn't know how to decide.

One very specific example is International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). This is an agreement which gives plant breeders property rights over the plants and seeds that they develop or discover. On the surface this sounds like a reasonable idea, but the specifics tend to be tricky. When exactly can someone say they "developed" a plant. In this convention all someone has to do is be the first to try to patent and sell it. So, essentially I could go into a country and, as long as no one else has come before me, start claiming to own the rights to any plants that weren't already "common knowledge". I don't have to change the seeds or really do anything, just have the idea to sell them, and have the resources to patent them. So, should someone be able to claim to own something they did nothing to create? And if they can, how long does this ownership last? Do they own that plant type and any plant type derived from it? Can they dictate who can grow those plants and what they do with them? Maybe, yes. They might have right to own all of these things. But I don't know if I like the idea of world where "coca-cola" owns the rights to every tree in a park. (And on a tangent: maybe if "Pfizer Pharmaceuticals" owned the rights to every tree, plant and animal in the Amazon they would protect some little bits, but the rest would still be laid to waste. So as far as bio-diversity goes property rights are probably not the solution.)

Here's another random example of the blurred line between one person's rights and antother's. While walking down the street today I saw a McDonalds, I think probably the only McDonalds in Geneva. It had a very under-stated sign outside, and none of the big golden arches you see everywhere else in the world. I am sure this is because Switzerland heavily regulates how big and flashy signs can be. As a simplistic example of this general issue, how big of a sign should a restaurant be allowed to have? You might agree that there must be SOME limit, a huge flashing sign for McDonalds with rotating lights and lasers shooting everywhere doesn't sound like my idea of acceptable. But someone else DOES own the restaurant and who am I to say what he can or can not do (even though it does directly affect me). So, if some sort of regulation is necessary whose sensibilities do you use? Mine, when I say I fucking hate McDonald's signs, or the average New Yorker who thinks anything under 35ft tall is ok?

Anyway, I'm not too worried about these dilemmas, but it is important to keep the perspective of all sides in mind. I think my stance on most of issues is clear. Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. The key is finding where the rights of one begin and the rights of others end. I know there are answers, but it seems that each issue needs to be examined on a case by case basis.

It is unfortunate to think that many of the things I'm fighting for, while protecting the health and rights of one group, might infringe upon the rights of another. But I guess you just have to make a value judgment about which you think is more important. And when you compare the value of one man's profits with the value of indefinite human survival and a sustainable world, I don't think it's too hard to choose.

Some reasons why George Bush is an Asshole

A friend of mine inquired:

"...what is your opinion regarding the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina? Also, tell me about the environmental reasons why we are having so many hurricanes, I mean is it nature or is it attributed to greenhouse gas emissions?"

My Response:

About the Katrina stuff. My stance on the whole thing is kind of complicated. I don't think that Bush was really responsible for getting all those people out of there before the storm, that should have been more heavily pursued by the local governments. I think people stayed just because they had lived through hurricanes before, and they figured it wouldn't be that bad. So, you can't 'force' people to be more safe, in a lot of cases it was their own choice to stay. (I think if anyone knew how bad it would be they would have put more effort into getting people to leave.)

As far as Bush's role in the whole situation, he didn't really 'cause' any of this, but it does highlight a few of the MANY things he is doing wrong. There is no reason he would want to provide help to the people in New Orleans because that is not where his constituency is. He has no incentive to care about poor black people, they wouldn't vote for him anyway. So, true he didn't try to get them out, but he also cut their social programs, and made life harder on them for the last 5 years. So I don't see how this is any different. The thing in New Orleans is a compelling news story, but no one mentions the millions of other people who are being hurt by Bush's policies. You have to ask yourself, if the people in New Orleans had better public schools, better social programs, better health care, better public transportation, better jobs, would as many have been poor enough and uninformed enough to stay behind? Bush is giving tax cuts to the richest 1% in the country while others can barely survive. He is helping to increase the gap between rich and poor, and eliminate the middle class. So, no he didn't help to get them out, and no he didn't care, until however it got on the news. Now he is SOOO full of compassion for the struggling people.

About the Kyoto protocol: I believe, and I think good science supports, that there are some major environmental changes going on that we caused and are causing. Exactly what those changes are, and will be, is not yet clear, but soon enough we will be finding out. There is no way to prove that Katrina was stronger because of climate change, but I suppose it is possible. The real effects of global climate change probably won't start for another couple decades, but people are using this as an example of the type of thing we will see more and more of as the effects become clear. I think it's a little misleading to say Katrina happened because of climate change, but maybe it will get people to wake up to the issue.

Now, Bush's stance is: there is nothing happening, nothing will happen, and if the climate changes we'll deal with that then. Basically he has decided to ignore the issue because it will cost too much to do anything about it. The "scientific community" is pretty unified about the fact that 'something' is happening. People argue about the specifics, and the time line for change, and exactly what the changes will cause, but something is happening and we are causing it. You can't pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year and expect nothing to happen. (The Ozone layer taught us we CAN in fact change the atmosphere. Depletion of the Ozone layer is FACT, everyone agrees that is going on, but at first the conservatives said that wasn't happening either.)

So, the Kyoto protocol was meant to be a first step in trying to stem this problem, at least slow it down a little. (I think the theory is: there is a 50 year lag between when the carbon is emitted and when the effects would be felt, so even if we were to stop using all fossil fuels right now we would still have 50 more years of climate change.) The protocol is a flawed document, full of wishy-washy language that probably wouldn't have too much impact even if everyone were to comply with it. BUT the reason it is like that is so that countries like the US would sign onto it. It is only supposed to be a first step, an admission that there might be a problem. And Bush refuses to do even that. The science is against him, but he clings to little uncertainties and says nothing is happening. For the people who are working their entire lives trying to stop some of this problem it is maddening.

(Not to mention the fact that if the US doesn't ratify Kyoto soon, and really start putting it's political power behind it, there is no way we're going to get China and India to control their emissions 30 years down the line when they are doing even more damage than we are.)

In Europe they have basically accepted that something is happening and they are doing the little they can to do something about it. They try to have good public transportation, and expensive gas so people use less of it. It doesn't fix the problem, but it at least it is an attempt to deal with it somehow. It is an accepted fact of life, and they find it astonishing that the US can be so oblivious. (I do as well.)

So, that's it. No, Kyoto wouldn't have stopped Katrina at all, and no, Bush wasn't responsible for helping those people get out of New Orleans, but he sure isn't helping matters. (Again, not to mention the fact that he thinks nothing of invading countries without international approval, won't join the international criminal court, won't help secure Russia's nuclear stock pile, gave up talks with North Korea, backed out of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty so he could develop his missile defense system (which is and was sure to be, a total failure), and generally doesn't give a fuck about what the rest of the world thinks.)

I get pretty livid about all this stuff just because I'm constantly having to defend myself about Bush's foreign policy. I have to tell people over and over 'I didn't vote for him.' 'It's not my fault.' The people here (Switzerland) really aren't very pleased with the US. I can't really blame them.

Anyway, that's why I didn't vote for Bush :)

Lazy man's blog

I don't have the energy to write anything new, so the next few posts will be any interesting things I've written in e-mails recently. Enjoy. And yes, I know I'm lazy. But I figure since no one's actually reading this it's ok.

The Start of Something...

Everyone thinks they're the most important thing on Earth. Blogs seem like a good way to find out who's right... and a good way to show everyone else how wrong they are.