Mi Querida Guatemala... muere de hambre

http://www.guatemala-times.com/news/guatemala/2545--guatemala-little-headway-against-rampant-malnutrition.html


According to this article, 49.3% of children under 5 in Guatemala are malnourished.
This is the highest rate in Latin America, and one of the highest in the world.
Thousands die every year because they can't get enough to eat. And we complain about the amount of food available in the USA and Canada... I was listening to the CBC the other day. The guest that was speaking was addressing the problems of food shortages, the agricultural industry and how to combat world hunger. One thing that he said completely shocked me: 30% of food in North America is wasted. It never gets eaten. In the USA, the rates can be as high as 50%.

Imagine this: you have a garden. Everything grew wonderfully and it is harvest time. For every tomato you pick, you throw one out. For every potato harvested, one is discarded. They are both healthy, both nutritious, but this is the reality in the USA. There is too much food. No one cares about food or how much they waste. The old adage of "think of the children starving in Africa" (or Guatemala for that matter) apparently isn't very effective. Yet the rates of obesity in the USA are insane. The United States of America: the biggest wasters and the biggest eaters. What does this say for the rest of the world? They waste much less but also eat much less. Ironic.

Let us be thankful about what we have, and wherever possible buy fair trade. It may be more expensive, but are we really eating all that we buy, anyway? So it works two ways: you spend the same, eat less, thereby probably being healthier in this society, and you are supporting someone who needs that fair wage so that he can eat a nutritious meal and also not waste it.

Of course life is much more complicated than that, but I think it is a fairly simple principle. ALWAYS support fair trade whenever possible, including local items. Recently people have been complaining about the huge gaps of income between people in the USA (those who argue it in Canada know nothing about the system: Just under 50% of the tax-paying population made over $50,000 in 2008, 4% over $100,000, and only .4% over $250,000. Clearly the 1-99% ration does not work here. Or maybe they all want to make $175,000 and think that's fair (which would do what to make it more even with the rest of the world?)

Anyway, if over 24 million Canadians are working enough to make $25,000 a year and pay taxes. The world average according to this website: http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/10/07/average_earnings_worldwide/ is $7,000 a year (which only 19% of countries actually attain). The world median was $1,700. *cough* So despite rising food and housing prices (which are always on the rise and a constant complaint no matter what year or era) in Canada, the majority of us still make a buttload more money than the average world citizen. Also, if you complain about housing prices, I invite you to live in the Lower Mainland, especially Vancouver. My husband and I were considering buying a house until we realized that we could never afford one in this area. A condo, maybe, but I have 2 horses, 2 cats, a dog, a bunny, and a garden. I am quite happy renting, though I do hope to buy one day, it may have to be in Mexico.

Greed vs. Greed?

Before I start: http://www.thebloggess.com/2011/10/missing-2/ Comic relief :)

A couple of weeks ago, I was thinking about the whole capitalism vs. socialism debate. With this Occupy Wall Street movement happening, which honestly I haven't read much about, I'm getting tired of the greedy attitude of everyone involved. The socialists are just as "greedy" as the capitalists.

By the way, I despise putting people and ideas into boxes, labelling them or what have you. Life is too complicated to make such black and white presuppositions, but sometimes it is necessary.

The current trend to view capitalism is such: capitalists are greedy individuals who care nothing about people or the environment. They usually come in the form of corporations that care about nothing except for the bottom line. Life would be better without capitalism. Without capitalism there would be much more equality, everyone would be happy, and no one would go without.

The current trend on socialism is this: socialism fights for the equality of all people. No one is unique, we all should live the same with the same rights, and access to all the same things. No one should ever go without, and no basic necessities denied. A beautiful ideology.

At least, those are the opinions that I have noticed trending through articles, posts on FB, comments to articles, movements, etc. etc.

I saw this quote on Facebook back in early September:

"As long as we relate primarily to each other's wealth, health, stability, intelligence, and soul strength, we cannot develop true community. Community is not a talent show in which we dazzle the world with our combined gifts. Community is the place where our poverty is acknowledged and accepted." Henri Nouwen.

I thought this was so sad and going in the completely wrong direction. Acknowledging and accepting our poverties is not going to automatically establish community. Each one of us is unique and has something unique to offer the world. No one can please everyone. It is not possible. Why? Because we each have our unique tastes, desires, likes and dislikes. Just like why the quote above disturbs me but fascinates another person. There is nothing wrong with this. It should be embraced and enjoyed. Differences should be celebrated and not forced into one amorphous object.

Perhaps I am biased from my Linguistics background, where we were taught to embrace and respect different cultures and languages. Every language has something to offer, every language has something unique that is not repeated elsewhere. When we lose a language, we lose a lot. This battle to become egalitarian, to make everyone the same, to have us all live in the same type of housing, to be making all the same type of money; it doesn't make sense to me. I compare it to the world slowly being globalized. If not kept in check, we will soon succumb to speaking one language, practicing one culture. We will not remember that there were other ways of doing things. This may be convenient, and "nice", but in my opinion, the worst way to go. In Vancouver, they are pushing to have us all take transit, all live in small apartments, have high density etc. etc. I cannot live like this. I have a whole slew of animals. How could I fit 3 horses, and dog, 2 cats and a rabbit in an apartment? I need a truck to drive the trailer to go horse riding anywhere (because people are nutso on the roads), yet gas prices tell me to f*** off because I should "be taking transit" (15 cent gas tax for transit that is not accessible + 2 cent carbon tax per litre). My lifestyle is considered taboo. My god, I want to live in a house with acreage? Cursed be me! We are all different! We don't all want the exact same things. Let me be and I'll let you be. That is why higher taxes don't work. If you are concerned about medical care, then donate your extra money for that! Just because something interests you does not mean it interests me, just as I wouldn't expect higher taxes to build more equestrian trails throughout the area (though this would be awesome). If we have more access to our money, then we can put it wherever we want it, whether it be charities overseas, charities at home, hobbies, business, or even your greedy old self. No problem for me. Just let me live my life how I want to live it.

Why did I title this blog greed vs. greed? It is because the socialists are just as greedy as the capitalists are, if not more. The capitalists are always aiming higher, sometimes sacrificing people and the environment to make ends meet or to cut costs. The socialists, on the other hand, see what the wealthy have and say: "That's not fair. No one should have that much money at the expense of other people." But in their minds they are thinking "If I can't have that, then no one else should." Granted, I'm sure there are some who truly are bent in the way of social equilibrium. Their lives are dedicated to helping the less fortunate. But honestly, which one of us would not want a raise at work? Or better yet, who would hate to win the lottery? Which one of us would despise a million-dollar-a-year salary? The even bigger question is: if this did happen, what would we do with the money?

Because honestly, the average person in the world lives on less than $10 a day. We in North America (excluding Mexico) are in the top 10% of the world. For those of us not making a whole lot of money, what are we doing with the $20,000 that we do make? How much of that money are we using to support those less fortunate than we? Do we really need internet? Do we really need cable tv? Do we really need computers? Do we really need cell phones? Do we really need cars? Do we really need new clothes? Do we really need to live in nice houses? Do we really need to go to Starbucks every day? Do we really need all that? Most people don't, so why have these become the new "necessities"?

What I figure is this: For those who are complaining about the top 1%, recognize that you are in the top 10%. Whatever you would have the wealthier do, you should do too, because you are much wealthier than the average person in the world.

I most likely will never be rich, but I have nothing against those who are. The wealthy are the patrons of the arts. They are the ones who are able to donate huge amounts of money to keep many charities going. They are the ones who can pay for high quality items that keep artisans and artists in business. They are the supporters of research. A couple of years ago when there wasn't enough money to continue with The Celebration of Light in Vancouver, Scotiabank was able to donate over a million dollars so that this free event that entertains thousands of people could still be put on. This can be seen as frivolous spending, but that is exactly my point. So many enjoyable things would go down the tube if there weren't people with excessive amounts of money. Life would become monotonous, egalitarian, bland. This may be great for some people, but it does not suit me at all.

I think this is a basic principle: if I work hard and am smart about it, I want to be rewarded as such. If I grow a garden and spend a lot of time on it, then I expect to get out about as much as I put into it. The same is with money. If I plant my garden and don't water it, why should I expect anything to grow? If something does grow, then I am fortunate, but I cannot expect food to appear from nowhere if I don't even plant! Yet this is what others want. They either don't want to work, or they buy things that they can't afford. This life that most of us in North America live is extremely privileged. It is not a right. Medical care is not a right, though we are very blessed to have it. In Canada, because it is basically "free". In the USA, because it is generally top-notch care. In Mexico, because there is the option of both.

I need to stop now, because I could go on forever. I will probably write on this again because most aspects of society really bother me. Here is a quick video that a friend sent me asking some questions about the Occupy Wall Street thing: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/Lang_&_O%27Leary_Exchange/1308689786/ID=2149202610

P.S.

My political philosophy leans mostly towards libertarianism, but this does not mean I am socially dead. I volunteer often and give a significant amount of money (compared to what I make) to what I deem worthy causes.