A Sound anti-AIDS Policy.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva broke the patent of the anti-AIDS drug efavirenz. Although there are many things in the scandal plagued Lula administration that deserve criticism, this action should be commended as a noble and brave measure that is part of a necessary endeavor: to have a humane AIDS policy.

Lula issued a compulsory license for efavirenz, which means that Brazil can now manufacture or buy generic versions of the drug while paying a small royalty to Merck, the drug’s manufacturer. The measure, although controversial, is allowed by the World Trade Organization in certain cases.

The Brazilian government decided to break the patent after negotiations with Merck failed to reduce the price of the drug to a satisfactory price.

Brazil is an excellent example of how government intervention can greatly benefit the construction of better health policies. The Brazilian AIDS policy is successful and used as a model for several countries across the world. By threatening to break their patents, the Brazilian government was able to significantly decrease the prices of several anti-AIDS drugs.

By aggressively pursuing these price reductions, the Brazilian government is able to provide free and universal access to antiretroviral drugs. Drug cocktails are very expensive, and there is no way that the poorer sections of society could have access to them without government help.

Intellectual rights activists may criticize this measure. However, there is a big difference between intellectual rights and a monopoly of knowledge. Knowledge is only useful when it is constructive for society – a monopoly of knowledge deprives people from the benefits of intellectual achievements.

The pharmaceutical industry’s search for even higher profits cannot interfere with a person’s, a people’s, and a nation’s health. At what point is it wrong to gain ridiculous profits on other peoples suffering? When is it ever right to sentence a person to death because of “intellectual rights?”

Some may argue that the break of patents will cause a decrease of investment in drug research. If that is so, then there is something extremely wrong with the current pharmaceutical system. Perhaps private investments fuelled by selfish impulses are not the best way to go about things.

There are other measures, however, that make Brazil’s AIDS policy one of the best in the world. The government has adopted a realist approach, recognizing that there is no way of preventing people from having sex. There have been significant investments on the promotion of condom use, and sexual education in schools is comprehensive. Throughout the year, and especially during Carnaval, it is common to see billboards featuring government sponsored condom advertisements, and government officials and NGO’s freely distribute preservatives.

In addition, the Brazilian government refused to stigmatize prostitution, thus renouncing a $40 million grant from the U.S., and decided instead to work with prostitutes to help prevent the spread of AIDS. This cooperation with prostitutes is indispensable since they are a high-risk group.

AIDS policy needs to be sensitive and adaptable to cultural differences; there is no one-size fits all model. However, there is lot to be learned from the Brazilian model. The prioritizations of health over profits and of realism over attempts to impose moral values are essential to combat this epidemic. Brazil and the U.S. have many similarities. Sex is predominant in both countries’ cultures, and even though a cultural revolution is possible, by the time it is done AIDS will have caused too much damage. Meanwhile, the best way to deal with the epidemic is by accepting and dealing with the realities of our culture, and making healthcare a priority.

Strange Modern Times

Liberty, individuality, rationality and justice: these are some of the fundamental values of Modernity that appear to be ingrained in our society. However, how were these ideals developed and, more importantly, are they truly adhered to and do they help construct a better society? The solution to the inequalities that exist in the planet, the gap between the haves and the have not, is often presented through the social development of “poorer” societies so that they resemble industrialized western countries. Is this development fair or even desirable? Not the current way it is being enacted.

To understand the objectives that social development seeks, and through what means it attempts to achieve them, it is first necessary to comprehend the framework that the idea of development was built upon. The construction of that framework began with the rise of modern nation-states and the ideals of Modernity. In Europe, during the transition from the Middle Ages to Modernity, different concepts began to appear and the way people understood the world and themselves changed. One major shift was the understanding of the “self.” During the Middle Ages, people were part of numerous circles that they identified with; some examples of these circles included the Church, different guilds, family, etc. The identity of an individual was deeply interlinked with the circles he was part of – that is why it was common for a person’s last name to reflect her profession (Schumacher, Smith, etc). However, throughout time, a shift towards individualism began to take place, and the idea of the “self” being something separated from the external world became the standard. This is exemplified in Descartes’ separation of the mind from the external world. With the Enlightenment also came a greater emphasis on reason, and the understanding of the world through experience was substituted for objective scientific examination.

As cities grew during the Middle Ages, a new social class, the bourgeoisie, became the economic force. Seeking greater rights so it could better engage in its merchant activities the bourgeoisie allied itself with the kings and erased feudalism. The “taming of the nobility” came through various processes, such as putting into law measures against noble ideals – it was the substitution of passion for reason, good name for economic power, individual alliances for stately order. A new entity that would protect and help expand the bourgeoisie’s economic activity was established: the nation-state. This entity was based on the concept of sovereignty, which meant that external forces should not interfere with a state’s affairs – the state was to govern itself, this helped protect the economy from external interference. The justification for such an entity came through the “natural law theory,” which using the new Enlightenment values of individuality and freedom, said that the state existed because of an act of consent by the people ruled by the state; they voluntarily gave away some of their liberties so that there would be order (Hobbes’ “bellum omnium contra omnes” – “the war of all against all”). Thus was formed a new society with new values; a society defined by the economy, the nation-state, and the civil society.

However, this process of “modernization” was at the time exclusive mostly to Europe and the United States. Although European countries promoted these values in the continent, the same was not for their colonies. Europe maintained the colonies under its dominion and exploited their resources without giving them anything in return. This caused a great trauma to the colonies because native residents were displaced, local traditions suppressed, and examples of genocide were not rare. Therefore, while Northern countries reaped the benefits and developed their economies with the help of the exploitation of Southern countries, the conditions of living in these Southern countries steadily decreased. Tensions grew as people from Southern countries became less and less satisfied with the exploitation of their resources and the fact that they could not enjoy the same rights as the Northern countries. Independence movements thus sparked because people from underdeveloped countries wanted to enjoy the same sovereignty that developed countries had. The independence of these colonies was often a bloody and traumatic event, as was the case with Algeria, and it often left the economy and infrastructure of these colonies in pieces. That is how the gap between the North and the South was formed, and the idea of social development originated as a way of improving the quality of life in these Southern countries.

Social development has as a premise that to increase the quality of life in a given country, that country needs to adhere to the values of industrialized nations. This means that these underdeveloped countries need to create a strong bureaucracy and expand a capitalist culture. This capitalist culture exorcises religious aspects of a society and helps with the formation of a secular state but, even though the state claims to be secular, its economy is not. Free market capitalism is offered as the solution because of the belief that an “invisible hand” will control the economy and prevent any abuses of the system – there is a belief that a free economy will balance itself out. This belief fails to acknowledge numerous issues, ranging from corruption to the “tragedy of the commons.” As this capitalist culture expands, local traditions start disappearing and people start loosing their native identity. This loss of identity leads to several problems – including higher incidents of alcoholism and depression – that only make social problems worse. This loss of identity is further worsened with the establishment of private property and exploration of the land for resources. Amongst the proponents of development, a patch of land is only useful if it produces something. Therefore local indigenous populations are uprooted from their communal land, which is often sacred to them, so it can be transformed into some sort of productive endeavor, whether it be mining, planting, hydroelectric plants, etc.

This uprooting of indigenous populations also has serious ecological problems. The people and corporations that take control of the land have no affinity with that soil, that patch of earth does not mean anything for them. This lack of identity with the land means that there is usually nothing keeping these people from exploring nature for maximum productivity. This is something similar to what happened during the Dust Bowl in the American Southern Plains. Farmers who migrated to that area in search of profit did not have a history with the land, so as soon as they had exhausted the soil resources in one area, they would just move on to the next. This took away the natural coverage of the soil and caused desertification, and whenever winds would build up huge dust storms, a symbol of the United States’ biggest ecological disaster, would occur. This kind of desertification is currently happening in China, and is a result of the desire for higher productivity and development. This new way of looking at nature, seeing it as a commodity that can be explored instead of an essential extension of human nature, is a product of Modernity, in where the idea that through science humans could control nature began to take shape. This is a major problem with Modern ideals; they destroy the symbiotic relationship that prevailed between humans and nature and establish an elusive master-slave relationship, where humans are the masters of nature and can control it for their purposes. However, nature always reacts, whether through dust storms or hurricanes, and these reactions usually cause hunger, displacement of populations, health issues, and other social problems.

Another problem with social development is that it believes that it can make societies equal by closing the gap between developed and underdeveloped countries. The big question is: can that gap be closed? Technologies implanted to improve underdeveloped countries are often years outdated when compared to the technologies of their rich counterparts. When an underdeveloped nation finally reaches a production goal similar to developed nations that richer nation has already increased its production. It then becomes an endless race, where underdeveloped countries never reach the head of the pack. This of course takes a toll on the environment and maintains these underdeveloped nations in a state of constant submission. Economic growth is therefore seen as an indicator of development but, in reality, it does not really offer tangible solutions.

The strong bureaucracy and the control of violence created by the modern nation state also restrict individual actions. The state controls the mechanisms for change, which can only be made through the appropriate channels, and that makes individual efforts extremely hard to succeed. Modern bureaucracy has its origins traced back to French Absolutism and was created to stabilize the nation state and prevent conflict. Any sort of dissatisfaction needs to be expressed through the appropriate channels, and these channels do not allow anything that may threaten the status quo to go through. With that, an increased feeling of powerlessness appears and people become even less inclined to attempt any sort of change. If dissatisfaction builds up to a point that revolts begin to happen the state, through its police force and army, is able to destroy that revolt through violence. Therefore, the individual is somewhat imprisoned by the state, if he is not a productive – and that means that he should be engaged in an economic activity – he is considered a delinquent, a persona non grata in the system, he is then excluded from society through the appropriate mechanisms – prisons, homeless shelters, etc.

So, what is the purpose of social development? Although its proponents might genuinely think that it will help solve the issues that haunt this globalized world, it actually enforces the power relationship between developed and underdeveloped countries. Development helps create the structures that restrict individual actions and replaces local traditions for an economic perspective. Instead of fostering comprehension and cooperation, it creates more competition and more drive for profit, thus enhancing the chances of conflict and causing environmental damage. Social development helps reinforce the ideals that have created much of the injustices in the world today, and since these injustices tend to increase, the proponents of development believe it needs to be applied more strictly. It then becomes a mutual relationship, with social injustices fermenting the drive for development, and development creating more injustices.

The "N-word."

Michael Richards did it. He said “nigger”. We all saw the incident so there’s no need to describe it. Is Richards, the man who made Kramer an American icon, a racist, or was he venting out his frustration and anger at what seemed to be disrespectful audience members? I don’t know, people can sink to low levels to offend individuals when in fact that is not how they act in their daily lives, and how they feel about people from that “group”.

What I do know – or at least think I know – is that racism is an extremely complex subject, in which no one has an absolute answer or solution.

Let me pose a couple of questions: How can you universalize the treatment and relations between human beings when they are inherently different? Also, if there really is such a thing as political correctness can you, and should you, strive for it?

I will admit, I wasn’t exactly shocked by Richards’ use of the word “nigger”; I was shocked by his anger. It truly makes me think on why I should be shocked by him saying “nigger” when in the room next to mine someone is playing a rap song in which a black man has probably repeated it 20 times.

Ok, maybe it’s “nigga”. Big difference.

I don’t fully understand why some black people use the term if they are so offended by it. Perhaps they are trying to appropriate the word so that it loses its effectiveness in offending and becomes a friendly term. At least that’s the idea I get when I hear someone go, “Wassup nigga.” But if that’s the goal they shouldn’t act offended by its usage in the first place. Also, there’s such a spectra of opinions regarding the usage of the term in the black community that there’s no way to universalize its meaning between blacks.

So we are stuck with relativism, not only cultural relativism but also individual relativism.

The people Richards called “niggers” are suing him. There is something wrong with that. What Richards did was offensive, and those people have the right to be offended - if that happened to me I would never go to his show again - but to sue him? Like it or not Richard has the right to freedom of speech. Also, I don’t believe the people he offended have the moral high ground to sue him when they replied by calling him a “cracker-ass” and a “fucking white boy”, both with pejorative connotations to them.

More importantly, we need to have a good look at our society before we crucify Richards. Wasn’t the mistreatment of the Qu’ran by some members of the U.S. military a form of bigotry? But how many people were truly shocked by that? Calling someone a “nigger” and disrespecting what for many is a sacred book has a similar effect: they both attack what those groups consider the fabric of their own identity. So why tolerate one and not the other? Furthermore, aren’t racial profiling, the migration of white people to suburban areas because of the black population in urban areas – which leads to de facto segregation - and the idea of American exceptionalism all forms of discrimination and intolerance?

I believe that in one way or another we all have prejudice. How many times have you caught yourself saying, “That’s so gay,” when referring to something you are not comfortable with? How about, “He’s such a Jew,” or, “That’s retarded,” or, “Quit being a nigger.” And how many times have you read generalizing comments about “frats,” or “GDIs” in the Free for All? Don’t those manifest one form or another of imbedded prejudice? And, can you honestly claim you never said something similar?

Humans operate in groups, and groups automatically generate labels that in turn lead to prejudices. As I said, it’s in human nature to have prejudices, but I do believe it’s something we should fight against. But I also believe that there are many more dangerous forms of discrimination that we should be worrying about than an anger outburst by a comedian. Just have a look at our prisons, or our Congress.

Anti-Americanism

These last years the U.S.’s image around the world has been deteriorating. According to a new poll by the BBC conducted in 18 countries, only 29 percent of the people interviewed believed the U.S. was a positive influence in the world. That’s not really surprising, considering America’s current foreign policy, but resentment against America has always existed in some form. But is this resentment justified? The short answer is yes.

To understand why a group of people has a certain point of view you can’t examine the situation only from your historical context and culture. You need to attempt, as hard as it is, to understand what conditions led to the development of that perspective.

The U.S. is an empire. It’s an economic, political, cultural and, arguably, military empire. The world’s economy and the U.N. are subordinate to American interests, and the invasion of American culture in other countries is undeniable. Everywhere around the world American movies and songs are being played, McDonald’s is being patronized, and English is being learned. Because of this imperialistic nature there will be resentment from other countries. It’s a form of cultural affirmation and independence. The same way colonial Americans resented Britain in the 18th century, people from other countries hold a certain grudge towards America and the power it exerts over the world.

Another component in this resentment is the constant hypocrisy in America’s history. Ever since America established itself as an independent nation it has preached some values that it considered essential, particularly liberty, justice and objecting totalitarianism. These values, although preached, have been consistently secondary to national interests.

As an example, America claims to despise totalitarian regimes, but in practice it’s another story. If the U.S. is, and wants to be seen as, a bastion of freedom why did during the Cold War it support a series of coups d’état in South America that replaced democratically elected leftist governments for brutal military dictatorships? During this traumatic period death squads were in action, tens of thousands of people were killed and the military regularly practiced torture with methods taught by the U.S.. Students and artists considered “subversive” were targeted. That explains in part the resentment the student movement in South America has against America. The coups might have happened if the U.S. wasn’t involved, but history has been made and America is an accomplice.

Of course, both the imperialistic nature and the political hypocrisy only relate to the U.S. as an institution. It would be wrong to blame individual Americans for the result of foreign policy and events passed, and it’s rare to find people who do that. But theoretically the people are somewhat responsible for their governments, especially in a democracy.

Resentment towards the U.S. is justified, albeit not constructive. But it’s the U.S. who holds the key to diminish this attitude, because in the eyes of other nations America is the current empire exerting power over them. Mistakes will happen, and you are always under more scrutiny if you hold power. Because of that America needs to be humble and avoid self-righteousness.

Just because the U.S. is the only remaining superpower doesn’t mean it should act irresponsibly or ignore its mistakes from the past, and there are plenty of them. That is bad foreign policy, and against America’s interests because it breeds hate. To truly achieve an ethical coexistence in the international level the U.S. needs to practice what it preaches, and understand how its power affects people around the world. It should constructively use that power, avoid acting unilaterally, and respect other countries cultures and interests.

Thoughts on drinking.

Perhaps I am spoiled, coming from a city that is said to be the first in the world regarding bar per capita, but the truth is that the Lawrence bar scene isn’t really that great. Don’ people ever get tired of going to the same places that always play the same music and offer pretty much the same atmosphere?

What Lawrence really lacks is a more bohemian atmosphere. By bohemian I do not mean the artistic qualities, but an uncommitted and laid-back environment where one sits down and drinks for hours while talking about infinite things. A bohemian atmosphere doesn’t exist in Lawrence, and in part the United States, for mainly two reasons.

The first reason is because of the early 2 a.m. closing time. The measure itself is counterproductive. Instead of decreasing alcohol related problems it increases them. People drink quicker because they know they have a limited amount of time until the bar closes. This doesn’t give people the opportunity to relax and enjoy a beer while engaging in a conversation. In Brazil, I would spend several hours talking at a bar without ever really getting intoxicated. This sort of environment provides a great opportunity to actually meet and get to know people, and not just have someone grind on you while both of you are drunk. You actually remember a person’s name and information the following morning.

The second reason is because of the 21-year-old drinking age. This is an American cultural problem. The high age stipulation and prohibitive way most kids are raised with alcohol make a dangerous combination. Alcohol receives this mystic aura and becomes a fascinating stimulant. When underage people are able to get a hold of alcohol they feel they have to drink a lot so that they can have the “whole” experience. The U.S. and England are the only countries I know were it’s cool to get wasted; in the rest of the world that person would be seen as an idiot. Most of the American youth doesn’t understand that there is more to drinking that just getting drunk and that is not their fault. For some reason American society puts much less effort into showing the benefits of drinking moderately than into showing the consequences of drinking excessively.

Also, Lawrence has a very large underage population, and those that can’t get fake ids become segregated from the whole bar scene. College students tend to have a great mentality for bar discussion for they are outgoing, impulsive, hardheaded, and have very different points of views, usually more revolutionary, than older people. Their access to the bars would be a great contribution to society because in those environments wild ideas, philosophical thoughts, political conversations and criticism of establishment tend to flourish. This kind of environment is a catalyst for changes. The Greeks and the Romans knew this and some of the greatest ideas and discussions were nourished with alcohol, particularly wine. As the Romans said: “In vino veritas.”

Individual bottles are also something that bothers me. Every bar you go here you see each person with his or her own bottle. I think this exposes the individualistic nature of Americans. It’s very common in Brazil for people to go to bars order a large bottle of beer and share that amongst themselves. Each person has a small cup and whenever someone sees an empty glass that person takes the liberty to fill it up. This really connects the people who are drinking together, for they are all sharing something.

There are places in Lawrence were one can sit drink and relax, but that isn’t enough. A couple of places here and there don’t make a bohemian atmosphere. I do enjoy going out to a dancing environment but I think there’s a desperate need for more “sit down, drink, and talk for hours” sort of places. But even then something else is needed: Americans need to become more relaxed when it comes to alcohol.