Future Plans

I am unsure if I will be going on for my PhD directly after my MA. This is because at some level I have become disillusioned with a large part of academia. I feel that many of the debates that are carried out between the smartest people in the world are more semantic than substantive. While two researchers may, for the most part, agree on some fundamental issue, they are split on something like the "level of analysis" or whether a particular hypothesis adequately takes into account context. Though the differences may seem huge to the individual researchers, the policy prescriptions that would come out of them often seem rather similar.

Currently I plan to work within the field of public policy. For me public policy or possibly an activist oriented NGO would be a good place for me. I am interested in working on what I see as issues of substance. I really enjoy studying issues of inequality and neo-liberalism. I think that neo-liberalism is an overarching hegemonic social structure that affects our daily lives in a myriad of ways. These include things as distant as the rise and fall in the value of the American dollar and as close as the price of food and gas. Most interesting for me is that it represents a fundamental shift in the way governments think about legislation and their role in public policy.

Through my graduate work I have come to focus specifically on health and health policy as an important area of legislation. For me health policy represents a fundamental social good that the state must play a role in for it to function adequately. The pitfalls of health for profit can be seen through the structural inadequacies and inequalities that are experienced throughout the U.S. system. The argument goes that the market can provide goods and services at a lower cost and more efficiently than with government "interference." In the empirical literature on health we see no support for this notion. The U.S. has some of the least efficient health distribution and the highest per capita costs for health in the world. While this post is not about health policy per se, I do see myself as working towards fundamental changes in health in the U.S. I appreciate and plan to use a wide range of empirical and qualitative academic literature to inform the policies that I eventually will work toward. I feel confident enough in my training to be able to interpret the literature and create informed and relevant measures that could be implemented at a wide range of levels of government. Though I still think that it is important for my work to face the scrutiny of peer review. For that I plan to still look at trying to publish in academic journals. Simply the creation of "gray" papers doesn't sufficiently fulfill my ideas about the role of a sociological researcher, even in the realm of public policy.

Irresponsible and Negligent... What's New?

The Bush administration has again struck a blow against appropriate and prudent public policy. Bush has vetoed a bill that would extend basic health care insurance coverage to 10 million children who parents earn too much to be eligible for Medicaid but cannot afford insurance on their own. In recent polls it was found the policy was favored by over seventy percent of Americans. This in a country that is traditionally against social spending, even for the poor. The fact that Bush said that he vetoed this measure because it was too big of an increase in spending is impossible to justify in light of the billions spent each year on subsidies to large companies and pointless military purchases and research. It is difficult to comprehend how providing unneeded subsidies to those who don't need it is unquestioned while providing health care to children left behind by the system is considered a burden. The audacity of Bush to attempt to prove that he is a "fiscal conservative" at this point is bewildering. Even Republicans realize that he is not and never has been a fiscal conservative. Hopefully Congress can push through the desperately needed bill and get back with more "important" business like flag burning amendments.

The Right Side of History

After weeks of positive social action in Myanmar, the military regime has done what many of us expected all along, turned to violence. Monks and their supporters have been marching in solidarity and called for reforms to the country. At a time like this, countries that support democracy need to heed the call to action that these marches represent. These monks have led similar marches in the past and have faced violent crackdowns. Still they march in defiance. The military dictatorship has committed crimes against humanity and even, it has been argued, genocide against some of the ethnic minorities that live in rural areas of the country. The time has come to act. We must move beyond sanctions and simple monetary action. Such petty and deplorable regimes must face a more constant pressure from both regional actors and the international community. This pressure should not include violence, unless it is decided upon in a multilateral way, and in the protection of those who are marching for democracy, or those who continue to face starvation and forced relocation throughout the country. Toppling a military regime with violence only opens a power vacuum that is often filled with another violent regime. In 2001 a U.N. commission published "The Right of Intervention" a document that made the argument that the right to intervene in the affairs of a country must be taken into account when its actions against its own people constitute genocide or other deplorable conditions imposed in a consistent and measured way. The U.S. has failed the test of history many times in the past, it is time we place our actions in line with our rhetoric and not in line with the interests of multi-national corporations.

Development as Opulence

The historical specificity of development is important to keep in mind. The social context of development is still important because it belies much that is taken for granted when discussing issues of development. Development is a misnomer because it depends on the assumption that countries move forward on a trajectory that would eventually lead to a society that is similar to those currently deemed developed. This idea is untenable because the “developed” world is unsustainable and it would require massive change in order for even a portion of the world to reach that level of decadence.

Instead the development paradigm that is put forward by many dominant institutions is not sufficient to allow for actual change. This is particularly reflected in groups such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund that place both responsibility and blame on the countries themselves for not "developing." This blame is not appropriate because these countries exist within a world trade system that is horribly unfair and does not serve their interests.

The contradiction of "development" can be seen clearly in China. As China begins to turn into a consumer society the ecological footprint of many of its citizens is increasing exponentially. This situation will continue to exacerbate the already dangerous trajectory we are on for consumption of resources. By exporting neo-liberal consumerism as the mode and end of development we are selling short a chance at a more just and equitable world.

A Plot Most Despicable

A recently released report makes the charge that the U.S. did in fact set up illegal and secret prisons in Europe that were used to interrogate suspects in the war on terror. The report also alleges that flights were known about by different countries that were involved. While the CIA has recently rejected these charges it is difficult to believe their assertions that there is no truth. This is once again a damning indictment of the Bush administration and represents a significant threat to democracy in America as well as the other countries involved. It is telling that this sort of thing is plausible because of previous actions of the administration, such as wire tapping, Guantanamo, and the designation of "enemy combatants." These actions put more Americans in danger as we are continually seen as an evil superpower. If other countries were to do the same actions we would not stand for it, thus we cannot allow it to happen here either.

The Breakdown of Democracy

It is truly scary when a presidential candidate is laughed out of the election because of how he looks or how he talks. Dennis Kucinich represents a significant change in politics. His proposed policies would attempt to create solutions that would be a value to a majority of Americans. He refuses to be beholden to corporate or ideological interests. Kucinich is often called "Dennis the Menace" for his dogged approach and willingness to propose legislation that others are afraid to. This undeserved moniker is an indication of the poor state of democracy that the U.S. currently is subject to. Three major factors show that we have truly lost course: money required to run, confused public perception, and a poor system of elections.

An increasingly ludicrous amount of money is required to run a campaign for election for either the presidency or for seats in Congress. This leads to a system were raising funds becomes the most important aspect of a legislators time. Less time is left to work on issues and actually create quality legislation. This system, which is taken for granted by most Americans, is actually very different than democracy found in other countries. Election cycles in Europe last only a matter of months (though this number is now increasing), candidates spend a fraction of their U.S. counterparts, and the voters are able to be more informed on issues. Because parties are the focus in Europe, as opposed to the individual focus of the U.S. system, it is much easier to identify what policies would be pushed for if one of the parties is elected. The parties hold their members to the party line and because there are multiple parties it is much easier to find one that fits the politics that you would like seeing.

Now I am not saying that we have to go to a proportional representation system that is seen in Europe, we do need to implement significant electoral change. Changes that would make legislators less beholden to special interests, allow them to actually legislate, and allow U.S. voters to understand what the benefits of voting are.

More Hype Without Details or any Chance of Real Follow Through

The recent G8 meetings have come to a close. As per usual they recognized that they didn't hit the goals set previously but pledged even more money this time around. Now this type of display is disgusting to say the least. These pledges are just that. If it is inconvenient or if one of the donor countries decides something is amiss they can easily (and usually do) pull out in part or entirely. Many in the development sphere are already calling this recent pledge a "farce."

Hypothetically, if the G8 does provide the money promised (60 billion alone for AIDS research, among other pledges) it will not be in the form that many would accept as reasonable. Anyone familiar with the Bush administration's past work on AIDS will know how disastrous and ill-informed the strict rules that come attached to the money. Because the U.S. pledged to donate 30 billion of this sum it is likely that they will have a large say in the contingencies and policies on which the money can be spent.

Among the most insulting of the ludicrous ties that AIDS money to Africa has endured in the past is the focus on abstinence. Much of the money was earmarked for groups that only push abstinence as a method of stopping the spread of AIDS. When the money goes through a recipient government there are strict "abstinence only" financing rules that must be followed for the money to keep coming in. This despite the fact that abstinence does not make sense when used alone as a method to prevent AIDS. Studies have continually found this to be true worldwide. I will acknowledge that it can play a minor role in an overall sexual health and well-being program. Use of only abstinence has been shown in many instances to not decrease the rate of transmission but has actually increased the rate of transmission by decreasing funding to other services. When abstinence becomes the focus of a government targeting teen and pre-teen boys and girls, other important issues like birth control methods, safe-sex practices and use of condoms falls aside.

These AIDS grants are also incomplete because one of the best ways to mitigate the devastating effects of AIDS is to drop the price of drugs that serve to decrease the effects of the actual virus. Also drugs that when taken by a child born to an HIV positive mother can severely decrease the chance of contracting AIDS. These steps are blocked at every turn by pharmaceutical companies that cite the cost of research of the drugs as the reason for the high prices. When these companies are having record breaking profits and at the same time receiving much of their R&D at highly subsidized rates from public universities and grants, they could at least take a "loss" (though the idea that they would take a loss is severely suspect) on these necessary drugs.