Emergency by Financing

Haiti's Presidential Palace, before the quake

News of the last week has been blanketed with the gruesome details of last Tuesday’s 7.3-point earthquake in Haiti and its aftermath. Like many other socially-concerned people I know, I have been following who is contributing to Haiti’s recovery, and in what capacity. I recently read a press release from the IMF of their willingness to immediately extend $100 million in ‘emergency financing’ to disaster-stricken Haiti. I quickly reacted half in disbelief, half in confusion.

Isn’t there currently a coalition of political and entertainment figures lobbying lending governments to forgive Haiti’s debt? What sense does it make to push another sum on top of the odious debt Haiti already owes? I understand the need for immediate liquidity to be used and deployed, but isn’t loan-making simply bizarre with a humanitarian disaster of this magnitude?

I continued to think about the outpouring of support and pledges of aid by various governments, institutions, and indviduals the world over. Is there a reasonable assumption that Haiti could pay back any kind of debt right now by the IMF? Or has the spectre of debt cancellation on the horizon caused the Fund to strategize a means to stay relevant and involved in Haiti’s development?

The IMF has been in Haiti for over twenty years, and the truism that cuts across sectors drives action at times in international development as well; never work yourself out of a job. I remain very skeptical of exactly how financing is what Haiti needs right now. There should only be one word associated with Haiti’s debt right now: cancellation.

Layered Defense?

From Defenselink

I recently was sent a video clip from Hardball on MSNBC; it was an interview of a former Reagan aide and a friend of mine, Alejandro Beutel from the Muslim Public Affairs Council. While all sides, including Chris Matthews, brought up fair emotions and various considerations as a response to the Christmas plane scare, I am left with lingering concerns.

Is this really about the number of layers to our transportation security? Unfortunately, more than once we have seen examples of even those on watch lists getting onto flights and endangering he safety of others around them. Furthermore, our current scrutiny of US Muslims evades a clear fact: the hijacker on 9/11 and the large majority of militants apprehended since then are foreign nationals. You may say: well then, the new national-origin scrutiny is a step in the right direction. I’m not so sure.

Layer 1: the truth of the matter is, there needs to be more naming and shaming militant extremists in the communities from where they come, particularly if their friends and neighbors have been victimized by terror. Rather than worrying about driving certain individuals underground, in many cases I believe that community disapproval turns potential terrorists away from violence. To avoid family members expressing quite real ignorance at times of the violent ideologies of these same extremists, community accountability should be brought to bear.

Layer 2: at the airport. How we can make vigilant security personnel more effective in turning away or detaining persons of interest? Here, Alejandro’s suggestion in the video of behavior-based profiling makes a lot of sense to me. Though you can’t teach instinct, you can share body and verbal cues that indicate suspicious background and purposes. At the same time, while there are privacy concerns the full body scanner seems the way to go—I find myself supporting their installation and use.

Layer 3: on the flight. Though it seems a pain and inconvenience for some passengers, strictly enforcing a one-hour butt in seat rule at the end of every flight seems the surest way to prevent nefarious activity.

Ultimately, in spite of the political stumping our borders will always be porous, lest we “sacrifice our open society,” as President Obama assured us we would not. Our final layer of defense? Enduring as a society with a sense of normalcy, not ignorant bliss, and continuing to support while lovingly scrutinizing the US security apparatus.

Greenwashing Consumption

My sister pointed out a reality, as she often does, that had remained to me until that point unexamined; the glut of reusable bags being sold or given away in the name of “reducing waste” were no doubt resulting in the appearance of these bags, with their cute designs and environmental puns, in landfills across the US. So I decided to do some digging—online, at least for the time being.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reusable_shopping_bag?wasRedirected=true

Besides introductory articles like this, I have had a hard time finding articles critical of this bag fad. Here are some issues with all the hype:

1. Most of us already have reusable bags in our homes: bags from clothing stores, home goods establishments, and yes, that secret ball of plastic bags most of us have, that are better reused than tossed or simply collected.

2. Why buy reusable bags with logos? A recent Stanford study showed that consumers are hesitant to use a bag with one logo at another store. And it’s shocking to me that people who eschew being walking billboards in many other ways tote logos around which can hardly be said to be all from corporations championing environmentalism.

3. Make grocery stores work harder; it feels like issues like workers’ rights and local sourcing are being sweeped under the rug by grocers’ green wave of bags made with colorful polyester.

In the end, there are more sustainable solutions; one idea could be something I would call bag-pooling. There should be a reusable bag collection in subdivisions and multiple-unit buildings that’s shared. Use it, wash, return, repeat. No need for everyone and their grandmother to have a small army of the bags, and for tomorrow’s landfills to be filled with our green consumption.