Ignored Reasons for Immigration from Mexico

Here's a letter to the editor I had published in the Lowell Sun about how the United State's policies have largely resulted in immigration from Mexico. Here's the original link.


Absent from the growing debate about Mexican immigration to the United States is the most important question: Why are so many people willing to risk coming here?

Since the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 the number of documented and undocumented Mexicans in the United States has increased at a consistent rate, with a slight decline from 2007 to 2008 due to the financial crisis. This correlation is related to how the agreement fundamentally altered the economic relationship between the United States and Mexico. After the agreement went into effect, American-made farm produce (primarily corn) flooded the Mexican market. Mexican farmers are unable to compete with the prices of American corn because the industry is subsidized by the government, which NAFTA explicitly disallows the Mexican government to do for its corn producers.

At the same time that cheap American corn was putting Mexican farmers out of business, American corporations were moving manufacturing plants from the United States (with disastrous effects for many American workers) to Mexico, offering wages far below what would be justified by the profits these corporations were making.

Due to the lack of opportunity presented within Mexico, the prospects of coming to American and working in the service industry and other low-paying jobs seemed worth the risk for many.

It is clear that NAFTA and American corporations have done quite a bit to make the prospects of coming to the United States seem a lot better than remaining in Mexico. So before we criticize immigrants who come to our country seeking opportunity, we should reconsider our government's policies which have had such a harmful effect for many in Mexico.

Historical lessons could help the Middle East

Here's another letter about the Israel Palestine situtation that was published in The Lowell Sun . Here's the link to the origninal letter . It was written partialy in response to this response to my previous letter.


The author of the letter "How Hamas used its own citizens to gain fame," published on June 23, is right that Hamas is an organization that has committed numerous and horrendous crimes. However, the assertion that "the biggest share of funds, those that were destined to support the people of Gaza, do not reach them. It goes to Hamas," is not borne out by the facts. One of the primary reasons for Hamas' popularity is its success in creating strong social programs, which the corrupt Fatah did not do. The Israeli scholar Reuven Paz estimates that "approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities." As much as we may despise Hamas and what they represent they are the elected government of Gaza and until the Palestinians do something about it, they will be in power.

The United States government accepts and supports the Israeli government despite its crimes, including dropping white phosphorous (a chemical that causes third-degree burns) on the people of Gaza. They accept and support the Saudi government despite their barbaric practice of public executions. Why is Hamas a special case?

Clearly, ostracizing Hamas has not worked. Western countries have continuously tried this method to weaken governments and organizations they oppose. History tells us that this only serves to strengthen the organizations. One only needs to consider the more than a decade-long sanctions against Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship; they did little to weaken his power, while resulting in innocent deaths that are estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands.

Then what could work? Again history can teach us a lesson. For decades there was mutual antagonism between the IRA and the British government in Ireland. The British government refused to recognize the legitimacy of the IRA's claims and the violence between both sides continued. Only when the rights of the Catholic population of Northern Ireland were acknowledged (in the Good Friday agreement) by the British government and violence was renounced on both sides did the prospects for peace begin to improve. A similar story played out in South Africa, with Nelson Mandela's African National Congress, a group that was designated a terrorist organization for years.

If we can learn these lessons from history, there is certainly hope for peace in the Middle East.

There's Another Side to Blockade's Impact

Here's another letter to the editor I had published in The Lowell Sun (original link). I'm responding to some points made in this letter.

The author of the letter to the editor -- "Israel's actions to defend blockade justified (The Sun, June14)" -- makes some interesting and compelling arguments about the free Gaza flotilla attack and Israel's policies. Unfortunately, I fear it also reflects some misconceptions.

The author is quite right when saying nobody can enter sovereign territory of an independent state without its permission. However, the flotilla was not trying to enter Israel; it was trying to enter the Gaza strip, which is, according to the U.N., occupied territory. If one considers the blockade of Gaza illegitimate (as Amnesty International and Oxfam among others do), then the flotilla had all the right in the world to breach it.

The author also makes the point "the blockade is against Hamas terrorists, not against people of Gaza." The blockade was indeed put into place after Hamas violently seized control of the Gaza strip from Fatah in 2007. Unfortunately the blockade affects the 1.5 million people in Gaza much more than it affects Hamas. Numerous human rights reports, including the U.N.'s Goldstone report, have enumerated the harmful effect the blockade has had on the people of Gaza.

Responding to a point about United States military aid to Israel, the author rhetorically asks, "So Israel can't use weapons to protect its own border?" Israel certainly does have a right to self-defense against aggression, but when anywhere from 295 (according to the Israel Defense Force) to 926 civilians (according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights) were killed during Operation Cast Lead by arms largely supplied by the United States, I believe it necessary to question the policy. Palestinian civilians do not deserve to be punished for the crimes of their government any more than Israeli civilians deserve to be published for the crimes of theirs.

The author makes some very good points. This is an important issue, and it is good to know that others are actively engaged in it.

A massacre in International Waters

Here's a letter to the editor I had published in the Lowell Sun (original link) about the United State's relationship with Palestine and Israel. You can read the other 300 comments here, most of which are irrelevant to the article. Here is someone's response.

The Israeli military's recent unprovoked attack against a flotilla of international-aid workers in international waters bringing much-needed supplies to the occupied Gaza Strip is just the latest in a long line of insane actions committed by the government of Israel. The flotilla contained an Irish winner of the Nobel peace prize, an elderly holocaust survivor and several European members of parliament. This event adds itself to a growing list of irrational actions committed by the Israeli government, including the announcement of additional illegal settlements being built in East Jerusalem when Vice President Joe Biden was a guest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the barring of MIT professor Noam Chomsky from entering the occupied West Bank to give a series of talks. Unfortunately, these crimes, which we only hear about because they directly involve westerners, are not nearly the most grievous committed by the Israeli government.

While the media covers the Israeli Defense Force's massacre of the individuals aboard the flotilla, it has said little about Israel and Egypt's three-year blockade against the people of Gaza, which has resulted in enormous suffering on the part of the Palestinians. And while we hear about the vice president's anger about Israel's settlement announcement, we hear nothing about the continued theft of Palestinian land. And while we hear about Chomsky (in addition to other peace activists, including former President Jimmy Carter) being barred from entering the occupied West Bank, we hear nothing about the untold number of Palestinians who cannot travel freely and are prevented from seeing family in Gaza, the West Bank or even Israel. What Israel did to the flotilla was an enormous strategic blunder on their part, because while the west is prepared to ignore crimes when they are committed against unknown poor Palestinians, it cannot do this when the crimes are committed against westerners.

It is time that the United States and the western world rethink their policies toward Israel. Although there are some worse regimes in the world than the one in Israel, most do not function with the absolute support of the United States, as Israel has for the past 40 years. Israel's army functions primarily with U.S. military support on the order of billions of dollars. It is very likely that the ships used to board the flotilla and the weapons used to kill its occupants were financed or even built in the United States. This is sad, but true. It is time that the United States ends all military aid to Israel and other countries with little regard for human rights. Only when this happens can a peace process really begin.

Letter to Karl Rove

Here's a letter I sent to Karl Rove's book tour after I saw his response to be confronted at the first stop of his book tour promoting Courage and Consequence. In his response he seriously dobuted the veracity of the Downing Street Memos.


I saw a video of a recent stop on Mr. Rove’s book tour in California. In response to someone who referred to the Downing Street Memo, Mr. Rove referred to the memos as a fabrication and suggested it was crazy to believe that they were a legitimate piece of evidence about the decision making process in the lead up to the Iraq war. I would like to refer Mr. Rove to a few sources including the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times, and the LA Times all of whom attest to the veracity of the Downing Street Memo. Furthermore, Tony Blair someone who had direct involvement in the memos did not doubt their authenticity when testifying before parliament. I would encourage Mr. Rove to look more closely in to this issue before labeling the memos a fabrication in the future. Furthermore I would encourage Mr. Rove to talk to his former boss President Bush about what the memos suggest, namely that the United States was led into War and numerous innocent people were killed in Iraq under false pretenses.

Thank you,
Devan Hawkins

Terroism and Revenge

I sent this letter to Jeffrey Goldberg at theAtlantic.com about his take on Terrorists' motivation. Read it here.



Hi

I found your recent post on theatlantic.com about the supposed myth of terrorist being motivated to commit their crimes as revenge for America's crimes interesting. Supposing that these terrorists are not reacting to America's own acts of terror, why do they do it? Is it because they are inherently evil people?

Also, could you understand a young Pakistani man whose family was killed by an American drone reacting in a way similar to how the potential time square bomber did?

Thanks,
Devan Hawkins

Here's What Some Experts Had to Say about Health Care Reform

This was originaly published in the UMass Lowell Student Newspaper The Connector on April 27, 2010.




Professors Offer Opinions about Health Reform

The debate about health reform, which has gripped this nation for the last year, has been filled with issues that probably seem perplexing to many. Even after the passage of the final bill several weeks ago, there still appears to be a lack of understanding about what the bill actually means for many across the country.

After talking to three professors from the community health and sustainability department along with Monica Galizzi of the economics department, it is clear that the university’s faculty can cast some light on this complex topic.

These professors have been spending their entire careers looking into issues that politicians in Washington, and pundits across the country, have been heatedly debating for months.

Particulary there seemed to be a general agreement between all four professors that while the reform is historic, it does not go far enough to address some of the most fundamental issues within the present system.

For example, A. James Lee, an economist who has held various positions within the government, private and non-profit sectors analyzing health care’s cost effectiveness, offered an observation of how money is spent on health insurance when he said, “As much as thirty percent or more of health care services being provided today are either unnecessary or possibly dangerous…with the current financial relationship providers get paid more for doing more.”

His assessment is related to a growing, but rarely discussed, consensus amongst health economists that the current methods of reimbursement for health services are unsustainable.

Prof. Craig Slatin, whose primary area of research is public, environmental and occupational health policy, sees this issue and other financial inefficiencies within the system as a result of the negative influence of those who profit from it. Discussing the insurance, pharmaceutical, hospital and high-tech medical equipment industries, he said “the system’s designed to support the financial needs of those sectors… what the bill barely did was to remove their clout.”

Despite this criticism, he did see the bill as a step in the right direction. “It’s a major shift in how we’re thinking about health care. It says that running a system that neglects 50 million people outright… that’s unacceptable,” said Prof. Slatin.

Prof. Slatin sees a single-payer system, like in most other western countries, as the only solution that will begin to effectively address this issue of the uninsured along with cost control issues. This type of system features everyone in country being provided with health insurance paid for by the government through tax revenues.

He noted that single-payer would do the most to reverse what he sees as the most fundamental problem with the current system; namely too much focus on individual choices and not enough focus on environmental and financial issues, which have been shown to have a statistically high effect on one’s health.

However as Prof. Carlos Eduardo Siqueira, who is also an advocate for a single-payer system, explains this solution was “off the table” from the beginning of the debate about health reform.

He added that even a public option, a non-profit government run insurance alternative, did not make its way to the final bill, despite wide public support.

Prof. Siqueria suggested that a public option may have been an effective method of cost control. Prof. Lee was slightly more skeptical casting it as a “red herring” in the debate unlikely to have much of an effect.

Additionally, while discussing about a portion of the bill which mandates everyone in the country be insured, Siqueira said “We should provide [health insurance] as a right to people; I would prefer that you had rights instead of mandates.”

Prof. Siqueira, who was a practicing physician in Brazil for years, was hesitant to compare the two country’s health systems due to the enormous gaps in wealth between them. He did say that Brazil, which has a single-payer system, does a very good job insuring its citizens despite rampant poverty.

Nevertheless there have been numerous arguments made that single-payer or any more government involvement in health care would bankrupt the nation.

Prof. Monica Galizzi, an economist who specializes in labor economics, has some doubts about a congressional budget office study which determined that the bill would reduce the federal deficit over the next decade.

However she noted that when deciding how to allot money for health care, the question of how much value a society puts on health must be dealt confronted. She added that personally she viewed health care as “a basic need.”

Yet Galizzi who comes from Italy, another single-payer country, understood that there was not wide acceptance of the notion that health care is a basic need in the United States.

While thinking that single-payer is an effective method of insuring a country, she doubted whether implementing a similar system would be possible in the United States. She views this as a result of “[ideological] resistance about government intervention as well as a traditional reliance on the free market. It would be something very difficult to sell here.”

Offering a slightly different opinion about the reason that the fight for health care for all Americans, an almost century old fight, has not succeeded Prof. Siqueria suggested it was due to the power and influence of private insurance companies, “They are becoming oligopolies… They are not allowing the country to have options that many other developed countries have.”

The Conservative Resurgence

Two important things happened in the fall of 2008, the western world entered the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and Barack Obama was elected president. These two events, one of which invoked fear and the other hope, have obviously had enormous consequences. For many there was a conviction that Obama’s inauguration would mean decisive action would be taken both to reverse the effects of the recession that griped the nation in early 2009 and ensure that the abuses of the private sector that caused it would not be repeated.

Unfortunately events proved these convictions false.

Certainly Obama and an overwhelmingly Democratic congress were quick to pass a stimulus bill, but due to conservative pressure (from both Democrats and Republicans) the monetary size of the bill was inadequate to reignite the economic potential of the country.

This was the Democratic majority’s first and most important mistake that has contributed to the conservative resurgence witnessed over the past year.

Republicans in Washington have, from the beginning of the Obama’s presidency, positioned themselves in opposition preventing much of anything from passing while still blaming Democrats for not addressing the worries of the American public.

It is clear that the number one concern for Americans right now is the need for more jobs. Equally clear is that the private sector alone cannot be counted on to create those jobs. A stronger and larger stimulus bill would have invested more capital into public works projects creating much needed jobs. Obama’s stimulus was not large enough to do this on a scale necessary to counter the recession. This provided the Right in this country with just the fodder necessary to attack the president and prevent even the most minor reforms from being passed.

The rallying cry of the Tea Party movement (the most notable expression of Populist anger in this country) has been the need for jobs and fewer taxes. Never mind the fact that much of the stimulus was made up of (some would say squandered) on tax cuts and the stated goal of it was indeed to create jobs—this has not been articulated adequately by anyone and, due to the stimulus’ small scope, has been visible to almost no one.

This uncertainty and seeming lack of action is where much of the anger comes from.
This rage has been brilliantly exploited by both special interest organizations (Freedom Works) and commentators (Glenn Beck) to prevent much of anything from being accomplished in Washington.

However, it is far too easy too simply blame these special interests (mostly corporations who lose-out when reforms are passed) for what is happening. They would not be nearly as successful without a citizenry looking for answers. There is certainly legitimate resentment and fear across this country. Average real wages (the value of wages adjusted for inflation) have decreased since the 80s while the money made by top percentiles in the country has grown vastly. So the real question should not be “Why are these people angry?” but rather “Why has this anger not been directed towards the status-quo?”

This is where the failure of the Left is most evident.

On any given issue from health care to investments in a green economy there is little doubt that Americans would benefit from swift action, but the case for this has not been made. Democrats in congress have only proposed the most tepid reforms—a cap and trade bill instead of a carbon tax, minor reforms in health care instead of larger overhauls of the dysfunctional system—and this has only dug their hole deeper.

The clearest case of this failure of the Left to direct public anger towards the real problems hurting the country has been the question of regulating the big banks. The anger across the country following the massive bank bailouts, largely viewed as payouts for campaign contributions, has been quite clear. It would not been difficult to pass strict regulations to end some of their most grievous practices, but this has not happened. Even on the question of creating an agency with the express mission of protecting consumers from deceptive bank practices there has been little action until recently.

I fear that this trend will continue until grass roots groups who were motivated so successfully to elect President Obama can once again reignite their passion and push the agenda of congress and the president closer to what this country needs.

However until this happens, when asking who has caused the Conservative rage gripping the country look not to any successful case made by the Right but rather the failures of the Left.

Conan O'Brien and Jay Leno

So apparently NBC has decided to move Jay Leno back to his old time slot at 11:30. Now Leno will be on for a half-hour, Conan O'Brien will be on from 12 to 1 and Jimmy Fallon will be on from 1 to 2. This is really disappointing for me, I've been a fan of O'Brien's for over 10 years now and was incredibly excited when he took over the Tonight Show. I enjoyed Leno, but I've always thought of the Tonight Show as a generational thing and it seemed as though it was time for O'Brien's irreverent humor to replace Leno's observational, celebrity oriented style. However at the time of Leno's departure grew near it became clear that he did not want to give up his time slot and maybe he was right. It probably would have been wise for NBC not to make Leno leave, but let him decide when he would leave like Johnny Carson.

Now NBC is deciding to go back on its decision. I don't agree with this, when O'Brien took over Late night from Dave Letterman it took him years to gain any sort of popularity, but NBC stuck with him and it worked out. I understand that NBC doesn't like losing ratings to Letterman at CBS, but the station should give it time. Allow O'Brien to become comfortable in his new, more mainstream role and then they will have a much more prepared host when Letterman retires.

That's just my advice. Do you think NBC is reading this?

Patriots...

New England Patriots lose in first round to Baltimore Ravens.

No comment. Just a question: Is the Patriot's dynasty over?

Some Thoughts About the Tea Party Movement

In a video I just watched on YouTube taped during a talk Noam Chomsky gave in October (Part 1 & Part 2), he briefly discusses the Tea Party Movement and offers a unique perspective regarding it. (Also, read here for another unique perspective.)

Too often the Tea Party movement has been treated with derision by the elite liberal community (most notably their frequent labeling as "tea baggers"), but this strikes me as counter productive and often elitist. This is likely because the movement has mostly come out in opposition to policies supported by the Democracts, something that was most clearly evident during this summer's town hall meetings. Frequently liberal commentators simply wrote these individuals off as results of 'astroturfing,' meaning that they were payed by some special-interest to protest. Although there was some truth to this argument, the fact remains that these are real people with, as Chomsky say, "legitimate grievances."


These are people who see the massive bailout of the financial industry, the power of lobbyist in Washington and the lack of choice presented by the two-party system and are angered and frightened. But unlike most with similar views they have chosen not to be cynical, but instead have decided to speak up using their inalienable right as citizens. Unfortunately most organization of these people has been precipitated by right-wing groups, who I feel have twisted this massive mobilization of people in order to support position which run contrary to most of these people's self-interest. I don't mean that the protesters are stupid, but I do believe that they haven't been presented with any viable alternatives to those presented by the right.


This lead to Chomsky's most important question, "Why isn't the left organizing these people?" It seems that most of the individuals at these protests are working-class individuals who resent the unholy relationship between government and corporate interests. Oddly, during the health care debate the protests at town hall meetings (not the same thing as the Tea Party protests, but having a similar sentiment) suggested that the status-quo was working. This is understandable. The Democrats, who were the main outlet for the venom of the protesters, only proposed minor adjustments to the system; some of which serve to strengthen the corporate bureaucracy that controls the system.


One can only imagine if the Democrats has proposed true reform in the form of some sort of single-payer system, or Medicare-For-All (as Sen. Bernie Sanders heroically defends here). Certainly the attack could not be any worse than those used over the summer (i.e. death-panels) and at least real fundamental change would be occurring. The Democrats would have more arguments on their side (universal coverage, ending bureaucracy, lower costs), but instead the Democrats proposed a tepid bill; the senate version even lacking a public option which polls continuously showed was supported by the majority of the country.


Maybe it is fanciful to think that the Tea Party protesters would come over to the the other side if these proposals were made, but it certainly could have activated a progressive groundswell in support of reform rather than the opposition most progressives have engaged in. Regardless, it is time for the elites to stop degrading the Tea Party movement and progressives to start organizing in a similar fashion.

Senate Race in Massashusetts

Being a resident of Massachusetts I have remained embarrassingly aloof of the race currently going on to fill Ted Kennedy's senate seat. This is partially due to the fact that there is no third-party candidate running, aside from the Libertarian (who interesting claims to be the 'tea party' candidate) Joseph Kennedy (no relation to the Kennedy family). I can't muster the support for any of the candidates, although I passively hope that the Democratic candidate Martha Coackley wins seeing her as the lesser of the evils running (not to mention she started out as the district attorney from my county), but I would recommend voting for Kennedy or writing in a candidate to protest the lack of choice presented.

With that said my interest in the race was recently sparked by a video posted by the Republican candidate Scott Brown. In the video clever editing is used in order to juxtapose a clip of president John F. Kennedy announcing his planned tax cuts with the candidate Brown elaborating on the positive effect these cuts would have for the economy. From a propaganda perspective, this tactic could prove to be very effective for the candidate. The Kennedy name has a lot of weight in Massachusetts and by portraying himself as a Representative of JKF's values (something he certainly could not due with Ted Kennedy) he successfully can make use of this influcence.

This, however, does not account for the fact that the connection of those tax cuts to modern reality are historically false. The top bracket income tax today is around half of what it was in 1963 when Kennedy proposed his tax cuts. Not to mention that wealth has become more concentrated in the top tier since then and the tax cuts were proposed during a time of relative economic prosperity, quite different from today.

This argument follows in a similar vein to the one that is heard quite often today, that tax cuts will result in economic prosperity, something that it seems the Bush administrations policies seem to contradict. This argument also ignores the fact that President Obama's far too small stimulus was significantly comprised of tax cuts.

I am no expert on this issue, but I generally subscribe to a Keynesian view of this subject. It seems to me that at a time of economic distress (like the past few years), private interests will be less willing to spend money due to financial precarity and that tax cuts (especially when directed at corporations and the rich) serve only to take money away from essential public institutions.

But like I said I'm not expert and would be very interested in reading suggestion and a discussion on this issue.

2010

I've decided to try and start this blog up again, seeing as it tailed off pretty quickly. Looking ahead to 2010 there's a lot to hope for even after the numerous disappointments of the last decade.
Three things that give me hope:
-Ralph Nader may run for Chris Dodd's senate seat in Connecticut, challenging the two party tyranny that rules this country. Sign the petition to encourage him.
-The Gaza Freedom March, although unable to make it into Gaza due to the intrusion of the
Egyptian government, releases the 'Cairo Declaration,' formulating a way forward for peace in the region.
-The KEO time capsule project shows that humanity is still optimistic about it's resilience by launching a satellite with messages from all across the Earth to be opened 50,000 years from now...

There's a lot to hope for looking forward but we all need to keep up the fight for justice, peace and love. Happy New Year!