A good look at where our national priorities are right now....
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/tax_breaks_infographic.html
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Monday, December 27, 2010
Jails in Chile
It barely made international headlines, but Chile was faced with a tragedy without a happy ending in the beginning of December. One of Chile’s largest and most overcrowded jails, San Miguel, caught fire due to conflict between gangs, killing 80 people. There was a great deal of panic and distress among relatives who attempted to find out the status of their loved ones, after the number of dead was released without any names. The inmates in the jail ranged in the severity of the crimes they had committed; however, the majority were first time offenders.
Despite the tragedy, in my opinion, due to his masterful control of the media, Piñera was able to use the tragedy to once again improve his image, calling the state of the prison system “ a shame” and promising reform, despite the fact that his policies of liberalization and privatization likely contributed in many ways (both directly and indirectly) to the occurrence.
The human rights of prisoners are a challenge everywhere in the world, due to limited international law and a lack of willingness to address the issues of those who have threatened society. Increasingly, greater percentages of populations are imprisoned in attempts to deal with delinquency, gang violence and the drug trade.
While nowhere near the 751 people held in prison for every 100,000 in population in the US, Chile has the highest rate of incarceration in Latin America, with 310 for every 100,000.
While it should be noted that this statistic may be higher than some countries due to a stronger rule of law in general, increasingly incarceration is being used in Chile as a solution to the problems posed by the población.
Regardless, there’s increasing evidence that incarceration is far from the only solution to deal with crime. How long will it take to create comprehensive policies that address the root causes rather than the outcomes? While it’s hard to describe them as innocent, as an international community, there is a responsibility to prevent these deaths from being in vain.
Here's a good article from global post that contextualizes the event and surrounding human rights abuses very well:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/chile/101214/prison-reform-fire
Despite the tragedy, in my opinion, due to his masterful control of the media, Piñera was able to use the tragedy to once again improve his image, calling the state of the prison system “ a shame” and promising reform, despite the fact that his policies of liberalization and privatization likely contributed in many ways (both directly and indirectly) to the occurrence.
The human rights of prisoners are a challenge everywhere in the world, due to limited international law and a lack of willingness to address the issues of those who have threatened society. Increasingly, greater percentages of populations are imprisoned in attempts to deal with delinquency, gang violence and the drug trade.
While nowhere near the 751 people held in prison for every 100,000 in population in the US, Chile has the highest rate of incarceration in Latin America, with 310 for every 100,000.
While it should be noted that this statistic may be higher than some countries due to a stronger rule of law in general, increasingly incarceration is being used in Chile as a solution to the problems posed by the población.
Regardless, there’s increasing evidence that incarceration is far from the only solution to deal with crime. How long will it take to create comprehensive policies that address the root causes rather than the outcomes? While it’s hard to describe them as innocent, as an international community, there is a responsibility to prevent these deaths from being in vain.
Here's a good article from global post that contextualizes the event and surrounding human rights abuses very well:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/chile/101214/prison-reform-fire
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Word of the day:
hidrocarburos- hydrocarbons
países en vía de desarrollo- developing countries
pudor- modesty, but a very loaded word that describes a certain type of sexuality for women. Used a lot in older international treaties from the 1940s.
You never learn the most from the things you think you will. Take my Globalization and Copper class. While it may not count for much academically, it has made me think about a variety of issues and I might even go so far as to credit it greatly in my recent decision to change my academic focus within my International Relations major. Anyway, today’s discussion was a meta-look at the idea of the university and its relationship with knowledge, government and development. We talked about how the best knowledge is attained: is it possible to do the best critical or investigative research done when the educational institution is controlled by the state or follows a for profit model? How can universities be innovative and leverage this dynamism into political policy? This was all very interesting because at the same time, there’s much talk in the student community (and class itself ) about the need to make higher education free. Suspending concern over practicality of this, however, would this give the state too much control over the university, disenabling its critical role? Would the state ever finance something that was not directly working for its benefit? Would the greater economic productivity created by better educated workforce outweigh the downsides? Where does the model of the “university” go in an age where there arguably isn’t a unified current of thought anymore (but rather a string of separate realities, typified by the idea of post modernism)?
Another train of thought for today:
There are so many times when ideas aren’t communicated because of the different “languages” used. In my econ class today, we talked about the need to frame poverty and inequality as an economic issue, in the sense that over the long term, the productivity lost by having underperforming sectors can put a brakes on even the most superficially healthy economy. (ie. the US????) It’s a sad reality, but using moral and “human rights” based arguments has failed to create a strong enough impetus for intervention. Similarly, today in my law class we talked about women and political/economic discrimination. I think that again this is one reason feminism has had marginal success internationally is exactly this: it has only recently started to show economically the negative effects of discrimination against women.
As much as its easy to disagree with economics being the focal point of our value system, when arguments are shaped in the same language as an opponent, it’s much easier to show how everyone loses from not promoting “just” policies. Cynical to believe this is the most likely way to achieve change? You bet. But maybe a type of diplomacy that will become a career path?
hidrocarburos- hydrocarbons
países en vía de desarrollo- developing countries
pudor- modesty, but a very loaded word that describes a certain type of sexuality for women. Used a lot in older international treaties from the 1940s.
You never learn the most from the things you think you will. Take my Globalization and Copper class. While it may not count for much academically, it has made me think about a variety of issues and I might even go so far as to credit it greatly in my recent decision to change my academic focus within my International Relations major. Anyway, today’s discussion was a meta-look at the idea of the university and its relationship with knowledge, government and development. We talked about how the best knowledge is attained: is it possible to do the best critical or investigative research done when the educational institution is controlled by the state or follows a for profit model? How can universities be innovative and leverage this dynamism into political policy? This was all very interesting because at the same time, there’s much talk in the student community (and class itself ) about the need to make higher education free. Suspending concern over practicality of this, however, would this give the state too much control over the university, disenabling its critical role? Would the state ever finance something that was not directly working for its benefit? Would the greater economic productivity created by better educated workforce outweigh the downsides? Where does the model of the “university” go in an age where there arguably isn’t a unified current of thought anymore (but rather a string of separate realities, typified by the idea of post modernism)?
Another train of thought for today:
There are so many times when ideas aren’t communicated because of the different “languages” used. In my econ class today, we talked about the need to frame poverty and inequality as an economic issue, in the sense that over the long term, the productivity lost by having underperforming sectors can put a brakes on even the most superficially healthy economy. (ie. the US????) It’s a sad reality, but using moral and “human rights” based arguments has failed to create a strong enough impetus for intervention. Similarly, today in my law class we talked about women and political/economic discrimination. I think that again this is one reason feminism has had marginal success internationally is exactly this: it has only recently started to show economically the negative effects of discrimination against women.
As much as its easy to disagree with economics being the focal point of our value system, when arguments are shaped in the same language as an opponent, it’s much easier to show how everyone loses from not promoting “just” policies. Cynical to believe this is the most likely way to achieve change? You bet. But maybe a type of diplomacy that will become a career path?
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
October 6: Caldo de Cabeza
Title: I'm making soup from my brain! I'm not sure anyone actually uses this expression anymore/ever used it (it's from the often unreliable "How to Survive the Chilean Jungle"), but I like it anyway since it supposedly means to think about things too much until your brain ceases to function. It describes well how one feels after too much econ and political whiplash in a language that is not your own.
Words of the Day: Let's Talk about Economics!
los flujos de caja- cash flows
las utilidades(in a financial sense)- earnings
IVA- Value Added Tax (VAT)
filial financieras- Offshore banks in the Carribbean where you don't have to pay taxes.
casa matriz- headquarters ie of a bank
la lucha de clases- class struggle ( Now I can talk to Marxists and investment bankers- Hurrah!)
So I learned a lot today. I learned about the different types of armed conflict and which types of human rights accords apply when. Then I learned about the economic effects of the Porfiriato in Mexico, a period of dictatorship which screwed over campesinos pretty badly but modernized and industrialized Mexico, in a very specific way. Then I learned about how transnational corporations essentially pay no royalties on Chilean copper.
Typically for college though, the most thought provoking part of my day was not actually class, but a colloquim type thing I went to at asuntos publicos entitled "Marginality and Space." Basically, it was the first part of a 3 part film/discussion series looking at issues surrounding marginalized communities in Chile. First, we watched a 20 minute "documentary" from 1958 called "Las Callampas" which technically means "mushroom" but came to mean shantytown, referring to the way communities rose up suddenly, like mushrooms after the rain. It told the story of the founding of the población La Victoria, which was formed during a "toma" of land in which un-used government lands were occupied. As the film showed it, a bunch of people who lived in miserable conditions walked onto some land to build houses and struggled at it for a while. But BAM! the Catholic church organizations of Chile swooped in to the rescue and helped the poor people build houses. Then everything was great.
This was fascinating for me, because we had actually gone to La Victoria during orientation and talked with a group of women who had been part of the toma. Their version of events had been a lot more about self-reliance, communal action but also the revolutionary nature of what they had done. To a certain extent, these sentiments still seemed really strong in La Victoria and are what make it so much more hopeful than other poblaciones. And of course, everyone critized the film for that reason.
So after that, there was a discussion between 2 academics and leader of a movement of pobladores. I learned a lot of interesting things:
-There has been a constant push for liberalization of public housing, regardless of whoever has been in political power.
Under Pinochet, lands were privatized, under the Concertación (liberal politicians post-Pinochet) construction was privatized and most recently, under Piñera, there have been attempts to liberalize public housing.
- Chile does not have a public housing policy written into law.
Tomas of land, as I was reminded, are at their root a very revolutionary act in that they fly in the face of the idea of private property. The actors who engaged in them may have not actually seen them that way and just have been trying to improve their lot in life but that aspect still stands. As I see it, it's a reaction along the lines of "Ok, government, you're not going to address my lack of adequate housing. I am a citizen of this country, so these public lands are pretty much mine in a sense. I'm going to build a house here if that's ok. Please don't bring out the mounted police and tanks. Thanks so much." As my mom loves to quote from Beatrix Potter's "The Tale of Pigling Bland "All I want is to have a little garden and grow potatoes." Obviously, it's a little more radical than that, the idea that one is entitled to something, but in a certain spacial context, ie urban lands that weren't being used anyway, the logic makes sense and seems fairly harmless. Unless of course you are a developer who was planning on buying the land and making a great profit.
Essentially, we ended up discussing:
Question: What is the most optimal?
a) No action
b) Slow action from below, perhaps underfunded and disorganized but by and for the same people
c) Institutionalized action from above, reinforcing certain ideas about class hegemony and imposing uniform solutions but well-funded and probably well-meaning
Answer: If we knew this one, we'd all be doing great.
This part of the discussion mainly focused around the role of Un Techo para Chile, which is at this point, especially due to its post- earthquake role, is the major player in the construccion of a new physical paradigm for Santiago. Basically, the poblador movement leader criticized the organization for being an example of a dialogue that proposes that poverty can only be solved by rich U Católica types as a top down solution that is necessary to prevent political ferment among the masses. Un Techo para Chile has as its mission to do away with campamentos, but doesn't specify the need to do away with poblaciones. This is sort of analogous to the discussion over whether it is enough to have NGOs that attempt to "alleviate" poverty rather than "eradicate" it. New housing, he argued, is good, but it doesn't change the economic situation of pobladores and furthermore can be detrimental because it breaks a lot of the communal ties that enabled survival, such as communal fires and the olla común, cooking together. While I thought the speaker overemphasized the communal nature of shantytowns, his point certainly had some validity. Is it better for institutional impositions to "better" people's lives rather than them organizing the changes they want on their own? I'd usually describe my political views as "O for crying out loud, stop bickering over ideology and GET SOMETHING DONE" this did give me pause. Maybe not everything is worth rushing into: maybe structures created and the class messages are significant. However, I do think it's better for the rich to be involved in philanthropic work than not at all. Despite whatever marxists would say, Chile's upper class isn't going anywhere anytime and from my perspective, they might as well be thinking about the issues facing "the other Chile" even if it is patronistic. Ideally, all the young people engaged in volunteer work will be impressed by the experience to work for political and social change.
So all this made me think about my internship, El Trampolin and NGOs in general: are external impositions better than nothing even if they are loaded actions? I really really hope so. I guess all we can really do in the end is strive for sincerity, compassion and an open mind. And maybe if we're lucky, something worth doing will come out of it.
Words of the Day: Let's Talk about Economics!
los flujos de caja- cash flows
las utilidades(in a financial sense)- earnings
IVA- Value Added Tax (VAT)
filial financieras- Offshore banks in the Carribbean where you don't have to pay taxes.
casa matriz- headquarters ie of a bank
la lucha de clases- class struggle ( Now I can talk to Marxists and investment bankers- Hurrah!)
So I learned a lot today. I learned about the different types of armed conflict and which types of human rights accords apply when. Then I learned about the economic effects of the Porfiriato in Mexico, a period of dictatorship which screwed over campesinos pretty badly but modernized and industrialized Mexico, in a very specific way. Then I learned about how transnational corporations essentially pay no royalties on Chilean copper.
Typically for college though, the most thought provoking part of my day was not actually class, but a colloquim type thing I went to at asuntos publicos entitled "Marginality and Space." Basically, it was the first part of a 3 part film/discussion series looking at issues surrounding marginalized communities in Chile. First, we watched a 20 minute "documentary" from 1958 called "Las Callampas" which technically means "mushroom" but came to mean shantytown, referring to the way communities rose up suddenly, like mushrooms after the rain. It told the story of the founding of the población La Victoria, which was formed during a "toma" of land in which un-used government lands were occupied. As the film showed it, a bunch of people who lived in miserable conditions walked onto some land to build houses and struggled at it for a while. But BAM! the Catholic church organizations of Chile swooped in to the rescue and helped the poor people build houses. Then everything was great.
This was fascinating for me, because we had actually gone to La Victoria during orientation and talked with a group of women who had been part of the toma. Their version of events had been a lot more about self-reliance, communal action but also the revolutionary nature of what they had done. To a certain extent, these sentiments still seemed really strong in La Victoria and are what make it so much more hopeful than other poblaciones. And of course, everyone critized the film for that reason.
So after that, there was a discussion between 2 academics and leader of a movement of pobladores. I learned a lot of interesting things:
-There has been a constant push for liberalization of public housing, regardless of whoever has been in political power.
Under Pinochet, lands were privatized, under the Concertación (liberal politicians post-Pinochet) construction was privatized and most recently, under Piñera, there have been attempts to liberalize public housing.
- Chile does not have a public housing policy written into law.
Tomas of land, as I was reminded, are at their root a very revolutionary act in that they fly in the face of the idea of private property. The actors who engaged in them may have not actually seen them that way and just have been trying to improve their lot in life but that aspect still stands. As I see it, it's a reaction along the lines of "Ok, government, you're not going to address my lack of adequate housing. I am a citizen of this country, so these public lands are pretty much mine in a sense. I'm going to build a house here if that's ok. Please don't bring out the mounted police and tanks. Thanks so much." As my mom loves to quote from Beatrix Potter's "The Tale of Pigling Bland "All I want is to have a little garden and grow potatoes." Obviously, it's a little more radical than that, the idea that one is entitled to something, but in a certain spacial context, ie urban lands that weren't being used anyway, the logic makes sense and seems fairly harmless. Unless of course you are a developer who was planning on buying the land and making a great profit.
Essentially, we ended up discussing:
Question: What is the most optimal?
a) No action
b) Slow action from below, perhaps underfunded and disorganized but by and for the same people
c) Institutionalized action from above, reinforcing certain ideas about class hegemony and imposing uniform solutions but well-funded and probably well-meaning
Answer: If we knew this one, we'd all be doing great.
This part of the discussion mainly focused around the role of Un Techo para Chile, which is at this point, especially due to its post- earthquake role, is the major player in the construccion of a new physical paradigm for Santiago. Basically, the poblador movement leader criticized the organization for being an example of a dialogue that proposes that poverty can only be solved by rich U Católica types as a top down solution that is necessary to prevent political ferment among the masses. Un Techo para Chile has as its mission to do away with campamentos, but doesn't specify the need to do away with poblaciones. This is sort of analogous to the discussion over whether it is enough to have NGOs that attempt to "alleviate" poverty rather than "eradicate" it. New housing, he argued, is good, but it doesn't change the economic situation of pobladores and furthermore can be detrimental because it breaks a lot of the communal ties that enabled survival, such as communal fires and the olla común, cooking together. While I thought the speaker overemphasized the communal nature of shantytowns, his point certainly had some validity. Is it better for institutional impositions to "better" people's lives rather than them organizing the changes they want on their own? I'd usually describe my political views as "O for crying out loud, stop bickering over ideology and GET SOMETHING DONE" this did give me pause. Maybe not everything is worth rushing into: maybe structures created and the class messages are significant. However, I do think it's better for the rich to be involved in philanthropic work than not at all. Despite whatever marxists would say, Chile's upper class isn't going anywhere anytime and from my perspective, they might as well be thinking about the issues facing "the other Chile" even if it is patronistic. Ideally, all the young people engaged in volunteer work will be impressed by the experience to work for political and social change.
So all this made me think about my internship, El Trampolin and NGOs in general: are external impositions better than nothing even if they are loaded actions? I really really hope so. I guess all we can really do in the end is strive for sincerity, compassion and an open mind. And maybe if we're lucky, something worth doing will come out of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)