Good Choice, Ecuador

Ecuadorians have voted in referendum to accept a new constitution promoted by their leftist President, Rafael Correa. Although he is a leftist, I strongly support several points of the new charter.

For starters, and the biggy, the new constitution is designed to help break the stranglehold on the economy caused by a select few, the descendants of Spaniards, owning large land holdings. This is a common problem across Latin America and the Philippines. Not only are their the direct effects such as preventing or hindering many people from owning their land property, but there is also a cultural effect which hampers the development of these Hispanic cultures (I am including the Philippine culture as Hispanic in this case). The concept of being wealthy in much of East Asia and the West is of a diligent, hardworking businessman. Even in countries which have family-based oligarchies, such as South Korea, those oligarchies are involved in active business, and the roots of those chaebol only date to the 1950s, so in many cases the original entrepreneurs are still alive.

In Latin America and the Philippines, the traditional concept of being wealthy is owning a large ranch, or hacienda, and being fairly idle. In much of East Asia and the developed West, being wealthy is to work and earn lots of money. In the Philippines and Latin America, being wealthy is NOT having to work, but instead to be able to be lazy.

It is easy to see why much of East Asia and the developed West are wealthier and more advanced than Latin America and the Philippines.

Tack onto this that many poor Filipinos and Latinos thus believe that to have wealth, you need land--but to have land, you have to be wealthy. Therefore, if you are poor and landless, you cannot become wealthy.

LINKS

"Ecuador's poor bank on referendum" (BBC) "In good faith" (The Economist)

The new Ecuadorian constitution is supposed to allow the state to seize and sell unused land and to ban large holdings of land. Such land redistribution should occur in many Latin American countries and the Philippines. Countries such as the Philippines and Mexico should also permit foreigners to buy and own land--though they could limit the amount of land citizens of any single country, or all foreign countries, can own.

The constitution would also let Ecuador consider some foreign loans to be illegitimate, and so Ecuador would not have to pay off those debts. While this is bad, it would be convenient if the Philippines could simply remove its enormous public debt--which is preventing further loans and deterring investment, which in turn is preventing much needed infrastructure overhaul and growth--by declaring the old loans illegal.

While the BBC simply calls the constitution "controversial," the response from the "Economist" is far more telling. Although their article on the subject is generally negative, there is notably few actually criticisms of the mechanics of the constitution. Either the author of the piece did not read the constitution, or even the anti-economically-leftist "Economist" sees some value in what the new constitution can accomplish.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Yankee's (Finally) Coming Home.

Mexican archaeologists have determined that four skeletons unearthed at the site of the Battle of Monterrey, which was a major battle in the Mexican-American War, are those of American, and are not Mexican, as they had originally figured.

Their conclusion came after discovering American coins near the skeletons. Prior to this, consensus was that the graves in which the corpses were buried held Mexican casualties.

Now there are plans to carry out DNA testing on the skeletons, and contact nearest of kin--and repatriate the bones to the United States.

An interesting point is that part of the determination that the skeletons were of Americans is that measurements of the corpses' bones and skulls played a part in the concluding that they belonged to Americans.

Why is this? If they tested the bones for chemicals linking the skeletons to parts of the United States (chemicals from the water they drank as a child, for instance), then the measurements would make sense. Otherwise, there were Mexicans who were primarily of European descent, and not all Americans are of European descent. Measuring the lengths and dimensions of bones and skulls should not be all that strong a determinant of whether or not a skeleton is American or Mexican.

Another thing to consider is that during the war, a lot of Irish Roman Catholics emigrated from the United States to fight alongside the Mexicans, their fellow Roman Catholics, against the Americans--who were primarily Protestant. Since the archaeologists originally believed that only Mexicans were buried at the site, could these skeletons belong to Irish Americans who fought on the side of Mexico? That would reconcile the measurements and the traditional history.

The Mexicans lost the war, and the Americans won. Mexico ceded roughly half of its territory to the United States, including the key state of California. Mexico has been clearly subordinate to its northern neighbor since. Although there is still some animosity over the Mexican-American War (or rather the war's outcome), most people on both side of the border accept what happened and that the ceded territory belongs to the United States. And today, Mexico and the United States (and Canada) are close allies and part of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Area.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Kudos Brazil for Taking a Stand Against Abortion.

Kudos to Brazil for rejecting a proposed law which would have granted a supposed 'right' to an abortion. The world's largest majority Roman Catholic country still considers abortions to be illegal except in the cases of rape and when the mother's life is in danger. That is far more than the world's largest majority Protestant (and general Christian) country--the United States--has done.

It is astounding at how many countries where the majority of inhabitants, occasionally the overwhelming majority of inhabitants, profess to be Christians, have legalized the termination of a human's life because that life would have been a hindrance (or so they believe). The people have been fooled in many cases into accepting abortion as a 'woman's right to choose' by way of loaded phrases such as the preceding along with little ditties. For instance, using 'embryo' or 'fetus' instead of 'unborn child' so as to make the child seem less human and therefore cause less of a furor among people who might become angry at the wanton murder of babies. 'Embryo' and 'fetus' are completely accurate terms, but the fact is, if you let an embryo and especially a fetus develop, the result is usually what would be incontrovertibly a human being. Even the phrase 'terminate a pregnancy,' probably the most violent of the commonly used terms is not balanced, and definitely not critical of abortions. Notice that the pregnancy, the process, is terminated; there is no mention of the unborn child being killed. Even the most baseline term, 'abortion' is loaded, portraying the ending of a life as little more than the cancellation of a process.

Furthermore, many in those countries who support abortion are fond of depicting the issue as being equal with homosexual marriage as an enemy of the 'religious right.' In elections, they argue that populists stir up these ignorant rednecks to divert their attention from the 'real issues' such as the economy or foreign affairs. For people supposedly open to other views, they are particularly dense. Abortion and homosexual marriage are not equal, although they are both bad--from a Christian perspective. An analogy would be a serial murderer and an abuser of prescription drugs. Currently, society frowns on both those types, but definitely considers the former far more loathsome than the latter.

Christians consider a single zygote (when a human life is a single cell) to be completely human, and the willful termination of that life by abortion to be a murder. In the cases of miscarriage, that would be the death of a child, not just some thing that failed to mature into a human. If you believed that millions of people have been murdered--and are being murdered each year, wouldn't that take priority over economic or foreign affairs issues? It would be akin to declaring a Holocaust, a genocide, happening right in front of the world, a side topic. For Christians, the murder of millions of the most innocent humans out there per annum has to trump practically any other issue, which is why for many Christians, they will not vote for a pro-abortion politician, even if they agree with him on lesser issues. The opposite for a pro-life candidate who would get their support, even if he happened to be less competent in other areas.

So shame on those in the developed, Western, 'Christian' world who have approved of a genocide which goes on today. And kudos to those in the developing, Western, 'Christian' world who have stood up for a human's right to life, which far supersedes any human creature's 'right to choose.' Bravo Brazil.

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Mexico Restricts Price of Foodstuffs.

In an attempt to limit inflation and provide for its poorest citizens, the Mexican government has capped the prices of basic foodstuffs, such as beans and vegetable oil.

From a humanitarian point of view, this is a smart idea. Obtaining reasonably priced food has been getting increasingly difficult for the average, and especially the poorest, Mexicans.

Some blame the higher prices on the United States diverting much of its corn (maize) crop to biofuels, particularly ethanol, in an attempt to wean off the American car market from foreign oil. And this could be a factor, but only a single factor out of many.

The argument is that due to NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), Mexico was flooded with cheap, subsidized American crops grown using new technologies which increased crop yields while reducing the expenses involved in farming. Poor Mexican farmers, without new technologies or seeds, and with weaker subsidies than their American counterparts, could not compete with the Americans, and their businesses--their farms--became bankrupt. This argument is also used to explain the increase in illegal immigration to the United States: many of those bankrupt farmers and their employees (if any) then immigrated north looking for money after they lost their livelihoods at home. However, so long as the United States kept exporting corn and other foods to Mexico in such large quantities, the price of food for Mexicans actually became more and more affordable for Mexicans--at least those still employed.

But now the United States is no longer trading as much of its food surplus with Mexico as land is being converted into growing more corn, and much of that corn is being turned into ethanol. There is less land to grow soybeans, wheat, and other grain or vegetable crops. Because of the so-called 'knock-on' effect, prices of other foods, such as chicken, beef, milk, etc. which depend on grain-fed animals, have shot up even for Americans. For Mexicans, the price hike is even more threatening. The local agriculture industry is decrepit because of Mexico's own fault, and the number of farmers has decreased because of NAFTA.

Another factor would be Mexico's economic growth. Inflation normally is paired with GDP growth. For most developed countries, this would not be so bad, as the enlargement of the economy often entails an increase in the bulk of worker's salaries. In Mexico, this is not the case.

As with other developing countries, such as the Philippines, Mexico is run by a relatively small elite, and the majority of people are rather poor. The system, with both government and industry run by the elite, is such that the country is run for the benefit of the de facto aristocracy at the expense of the ordinary people--and the reputation of the country.

Which gets down to the crux of the issue. Rather than fleeing to the United States, or limited reform such as this restriction of food prices, Mexico needs major structural reform. The elite need to be ousted from their preeminent position in politics, and pared down in industry. Some state-run companies ought to be privatized, via stockholding. In short, reform needs to be made to get the bulk of poor Mexicans into contributing more to, having a stake in, and benefiting from, Mexico's economic success.

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

The Death of FARC?

Now it seems as if even the premiere chavista is on board. With ordering FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, to shut down its business of drug dealing, kidnapping, murder, and general crime, that is.

Faced with the death of their preeminent leader, Manuel Marulanda, the survival of FARC in its current form has been called into question. Prior to that death, Raul Reyes, Marulanda's de facto second in command was killed during a Colombian raid into Ecuador; a raid which--while controversial in that it was carried out without Ecuador's approval--also provided evidence of Ecuadorian, and particularly Venezuelan, collusion and support for the rebels. Add onto that, another Secretariat member was killed by his own bodyguard for a million dollar reward from the government. And then there's Nelly Avila Moreno ('Karina'), who turned herself into the government and urged FARC to surrender, stating that desertion and military pressure were taking their toll on the rebellion.

Furthermore, rather than giving their movement more clout, the kidnapping and murder of hostages has de-legitimized the group in the eyes of much of the world, though unfortunately--until recently--not necessarily in the eyes of Colombia's closest neighbors under their current government administrations. Similar to how Osama bin Laden has been hampered by the deaths of innocent Muslims, FARC's reputation has been tarnished even for those supporting its Marxist ideals due to the crimes carried out on innocent people, often Colombians.

Therefore, given that the use of violence has not led to success, only driving Colombia into poverty when it could have been developing, and given that FARC is now in retreat, hopefully this will lead to an impetus to end FARC's use of hostilities and cocaine dealing to further their goals. Hopefully, this will lead to FARC using peaceful methods of trying to get Colombians to support their views--via politics, not war. Akin to how in Northern Ireland, with the Irish Republican Army (IRA) compelled to end the use of the sword and take up the use of the pen through Sinn Fein.

And hopefully, as with Sinn Fein, the voters reject the FARC's views--and FARC accepts that, only using peaceful persuasion to get the people on their side.

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
The Roadmap to the Future.
The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Unasur: A New EU.... or Another ASEAN?

On Friday, May 23, twelve South American states joined together into an economic and political union dubbed Unasur, short for Union of South American Nations. Already one member, Venezuela, led by a radical leftist, has declared this new body's number one enemy to be the United States.

Yet for most members, the union is much more peaceful and less antagonizing in tone. For them, Unasur is a way for South American nations to more effectively compete in an increasingly globalized economy, and for them to have a voice in world affairs.

But the states comprising Unasur are diverse in their histories and their current political views. For instance, while Venezuela is vehemently anti-American, Colombia--also a member of Unasur--is one of the United States' closest allies in all Latin America. It is debatable whether or not the union will be an effective organization such as the EU, or rather a practically pointless talking shop such as ASEAN. Here's a comparison:

vs. the EU

For all its faults, the EU is an extraordinarily effective economic organ, and is the most powerful political bloc of its kind, short of a full-fledged federal state. The fifteen older members and the twelve newer all share a common history, whether as aggressors or defenders. The devastation caused by the two world wars ironically was the cause for reconciliation between European enemies. Most are developed or almost developed countries--only Romania and Bulgaria would fall out of this category. Geographically, the EU is somewhat small. Furthermore, the new states--the so-called EU-12--view membership as a sign of modernity and acceptance as being part of the West. Several EU states were once leaders on the world stage, and now they seek to turn the EU into a new global power.

In contrast, there is still much enmity between Latin American nations. Although the two major countries in the continent, Brazil and Argentina, have largely made amends, there is still a lot of discord. Colombia has poor relations with Venezuela and Ecuador. Chile with Peru and Bolivia (both which lost land to the former, and Bolivia lost its Pacific coastline). And Uruguay is not too hot about Argentina these days.

There is a wide variation of development in the region. Argentina and Chile are at the threshold of the low end of developed status. Bolivia is extremely poor, while Brazil is still quite the developing state, although it is the largest economy in all Latin America. There is also little 'modernity' factor in the equation, besides acting similar to Europe, which Latin Americans are wont to do anyway. All South American economies combined would be smaller than either the EU's or the United States.' Unasur would have a greater voice, but not necessarily a great one.

vs. ASEAN

Or will Unasur end up the way ASEAN--the Association of South-East Asian Nations--is now? ASEAN is infamous for being a forum where member governments give grandoise speeches, but implement very little useful policy. Supposedly an economic and political union, ASEAN fails at both, with member states making bilateral free trade agreements with other states to the detriment of the other members of their association--and with ASEAN being ineffective in promoting greater freedom in Communist Vietnam and Laos, along with Cambodia and now much-maligned (deservedly) Burma. Due to the members of ASEAN's failure to act together, the region has largely lost out to its great neighbors China and India. One member, the Philippines, has fallen from being the second largest Asian economy (excluding the Soviet Union), to being one of the poorest in East Asia, noted for corruption and and oligarchy which strangles the nation's ability to develop (to be fair, this is partly due to sensationalism and freedom of the press--the Philippines is very corrupt, but actually less so than countries such as Vietnam, which has still been able to attract massive amounts of investment). Religiously, ASEAN has states that are majority Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, and (officially) Atheist. States such as the Philippines and Indonesia are ethnically diverse, as they are largely Western constructs. European powers conquered many tribes and unified them into a single colony. Now, there is a considerable amount of division among those tribal components of those states.

Because of this ineptitude, China is gaining more and more power over the group.

In contrast to ASEAN, Unasur could actually come out stronger. Although South America might receive somewhat less foreign investment than South-East Asia, South America has other strengths. Notably, there is not a major power next door who is trying to take over, as China is in ASEAN. Contrary to some Latin Americans' views, the United States does not have designs on South American states. Having Latin America rise economically in in the United States own interest as that would decrease the number of immigrants--legal and illegal--flooding the United States and putting an economic and cultural strain on the country.

As opposed to ASEAN, South America is largely religiously and denominationally unified. All the member states of Unasur are majority nominal Christian, and the bulk of them are majority Roman Catholic. Similarly, South Americans largely share Iberian origin cultures--with other influences mixed in, of course. South America also has considerable land area and resources, and there is no nearby economic magnet drawing investment from South America the way China and India draw investment to themselves to the detriment of South-East Asia.

Not so bad, not great

So, in conclusion, Unasur seems to have a decent future ahead of it, although with many challenges, largely related to the member states working together and for peace, not aggression. It might not be in as great a position as the EU, nor is it set to be as effectively organized, but Unasur starts off leaps and bounds ahead of ASEAN. There is a moderately bright future for the Union of South American Nations.

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:

• The Roadmap to the Future.


• The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.


• The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.


• The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.


• The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:

• The Science Fiction Channel.


• The Vegetarian Diaries.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Words to live (forever) by: John 3:16.

wall. wall. wall. wall.

John 3:16 (King James Version)

"16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."



wall. wall. wall. wall. wall.

Biblegateway.com.

Tag this post with:
Delicious	Digg	Technorati	reddit	Facebook	StumbleUpon	Furl	blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.