A few weeks ago, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez underwent surgery to deal with a pelvic abscess (sounds painful, quite frankly) - in Cuba. I have to admit that my first thought was, um, why is the leader of a nation having surgery in another country rather than in his own nation? I would assume that pelvic abscesses are not something so unfamiliar that they can't be handled as part of a routine procedure and would therefore be something that could be handled by doctors in your own nation. After all, can one imagine the president of the US going to Turkey (or Switzerland, for that matter) for a similar procedure?
Heck no! (S)he would undergo surgery in his own country from the best his nation has to offer. So, I guess it begs the question of exactly why Chavez had surgery in Cuba (for which, to those otherwise unaware, he has been an economic patron while Fidel Castro has been his political mentor). Is it because Venezuela doesn't have competent doctors? Perhaps Chavez doesn't want his own populace to be aware of his weakness (from whence he might be dumped from office)? Maybe it's more convenient to perform surgeries in Cuba than it is in Venezuela?
Cuba does seem to have an excess of doctors that it exports throughout the world so I guess they must have a decent reputation... And it's not the first time leaders have had medical concerns dealt with external to their own countries (the Shah of Iran and members of the Saudi Arabian elite are notable personages who sought medical care in the US for serious or rare medical conditions that could not be addressed in their respective nations). But it certainly does not speak well of either the Venezuelan medical system or the trust that the leadership has in it. Too bad the poor Venezuelans who make up much of his political base can't have similar options when it comes to their own medical care...
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Expanding Points of View
I recently finished Christiane Bird's Neither East Nor West, a story of her travels in Iran. Her book reminds me of one of my favorite blogs, Seeing Red in China, by an American named Tom about his view of China on a daily basis. What these two things have in common is a desire to look beyond the very narrow, news-oriented point of view of daily life in Iran and China respectively and offer their readers the opportunity to see life in places they may otherwise never have the opportunity to see. Frankly, it is people like this that help to bring the world closer together and make it, hopefully, a better place for everyone.
And while my commentary may be directed more at Westerners (and Americans in particular), it is by no means limited only to them. Misconceptions and generalizations about others has no limits nor boundaries and they are rarely positive. The only way to overcome those misconceptions is to truly live some place else and recognize that life in the US is really not that significantly different than it is in China or Iran or anyplace else. This is not to suggest that there are no differences but to point out that we tend to have a very limited perspective when we think of others. For example, we tend to view Iran as a misogynistic, radically religious, fundamentalist nation that is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and imposing a radical view of Islam upon the rest of the world. Yet few Westerners realize that there is a great deal of diversity within Iran, that they actually do have elections (perhaps not to the standard that we have in the West but certainly better than any in the Middle East) and that there is a long line of Persian history, art and culture to which they are the inheritors. The same goes for China. To hear China in the news, it is often in regard to their rising economic status, their belligerent behavior in the South China Seas toward their neighbors, the rising number of protests in the countryside or their human rights violations (see Liu Xiaobo, among others). Yet very little street-level discussion is provided to offer the full context of life in China - much of which revolves outside of the limited political view with which it is held in nations outside of China. Indeed, I have always found it interesting that Chinese often knew more about US politics (although often negative or bad things) than most US citizens. In reality, it could be argued that the majority of people in both Iran and China like the US, if not necessarily its government or policy decisions. But then again, there is a sizable portion of US citizens who have problems with its government and policy decisions, so there may be some validation to that particular argument.
Perhaps not everyone has the opportunity to travel to these places and see things for themselves but they should, at the very least, avail themselves of the opportunity to read about them beyond the limited scope of what they see/hear in the news. Expanding one's horizons and perspectives can only be to the benefit of not only the individual but potentially even rising to higher levels of policy making that can allow nations to work together to solve problems for the mutual benefit of more than a select few. Perhaps this is a simplistic and naive point of view but everyone should dream about making the world a little better else nothing will change. As the saying goes, think globally - act locally.
And while my commentary may be directed more at Westerners (and Americans in particular), it is by no means limited only to them. Misconceptions and generalizations about others has no limits nor boundaries and they are rarely positive. The only way to overcome those misconceptions is to truly live some place else and recognize that life in the US is really not that significantly different than it is in China or Iran or anyplace else. This is not to suggest that there are no differences but to point out that we tend to have a very limited perspective when we think of others. For example, we tend to view Iran as a misogynistic, radically religious, fundamentalist nation that is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and imposing a radical view of Islam upon the rest of the world. Yet few Westerners realize that there is a great deal of diversity within Iran, that they actually do have elections (perhaps not to the standard that we have in the West but certainly better than any in the Middle East) and that there is a long line of Persian history, art and culture to which they are the inheritors. The same goes for China. To hear China in the news, it is often in regard to their rising economic status, their belligerent behavior in the South China Seas toward their neighbors, the rising number of protests in the countryside or their human rights violations (see Liu Xiaobo, among others). Yet very little street-level discussion is provided to offer the full context of life in China - much of which revolves outside of the limited political view with which it is held in nations outside of China. Indeed, I have always found it interesting that Chinese often knew more about US politics (although often negative or bad things) than most US citizens. In reality, it could be argued that the majority of people in both Iran and China like the US, if not necessarily its government or policy decisions. But then again, there is a sizable portion of US citizens who have problems with its government and policy decisions, so there may be some validation to that particular argument.
Perhaps not everyone has the opportunity to travel to these places and see things for themselves but they should, at the very least, avail themselves of the opportunity to read about them beyond the limited scope of what they see/hear in the news. Expanding one's horizons and perspectives can only be to the benefit of not only the individual but potentially even rising to higher levels of policy making that can allow nations to work together to solve problems for the mutual benefit of more than a select few. Perhaps this is a simplistic and naive point of view but everyone should dream about making the world a little better else nothing will change. As the saying goes, think globally - act locally.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Where's Captain Obvious?!
Reading through something on Yahoo earlier today had me wondering if someone had forgotten to reference Captain Obvious. Yes, the headline of the article was "TV Executives Admit in Taped Interviews That Hollywood Pushes a Liberal Agenda". It was all I could do stop myself from uttering out loud, "Oh really?!"
Yes, someone actually got a bunch of Hollywood writers, producers, execs and who knows who else to admit on camera that they were biased, happily so, and would just as soon see anyone who isn't of the same opinion as they go unemployed (at least in Hollywood). Now, I'm sure that some of these people who were interviewed will then cry foul that their tapes were released (exactly what would make them think that TAPED INTERVIEWS would not be used at some point in a public forum?) and others will freely continue to admit that they are better than their non-conservative peers with no public recrimination. And in Hollywood, it does not seem that recriminations from their many like-minded peers will be forthcoming, so that does not seem to be a deterrent to spouting forth their points of view. But I wonder if they will be at all more hesitant to express such views if no one watched their shows and they suddenly find themselves unable to earn an income? (Not that I think that likely; that is more of a wandering thought meandering through the vast desert of empty space in my head.)
And I do not begrudge them their views even if I do not necessarily agree with all of them. No, I think what gets me is the arrogance they show in their superior beliefs and the disdain that they hold for any who do not believe as they do. It is surely an open secret (if "secret" be the right term) that Hollywood has a liberal bias and that is not so much an issue. If you do not like what Hollywood produces, then go create your own or find your entertainment elsewhere. But to assert the rightness of your beliefs and then to deny others who might disagree with you the opportunity to work for/with you would find you in front of a courtroom in almost any other line of business. Heck, Target was recently targeted (no pun intended) for protests when it was learned that the company had donated money to anti-gay politicians. They then backtracked and offered to compensate the opposite side in order to avoid any controversy. Yet the Hollywood elite (and even the not-so-elite) boast of their narrow-minded views and the retribution they deliver to those who don't agree and no one says anything. While they claim to hold tolerant views, it is clear from their words and actions that they are extraordinarily intolerant - while accusing anyone who disagrees with them as being such.
In the world in which I live, this is called hypocrisy. And, anywhere outside of Hollywood, it would not only be frowned upon but likely means of all kinds of not-so-positive things to happen. However, in Hollywood, it appears to be the standard. But I guess that shouldn't be so surprising for an industry that is based on escaping reality.
Yes, someone actually got a bunch of Hollywood writers, producers, execs and who knows who else to admit on camera that they were biased, happily so, and would just as soon see anyone who isn't of the same opinion as they go unemployed (at least in Hollywood). Now, I'm sure that some of these people who were interviewed will then cry foul that their tapes were released (exactly what would make them think that TAPED INTERVIEWS would not be used at some point in a public forum?) and others will freely continue to admit that they are better than their non-conservative peers with no public recrimination. And in Hollywood, it does not seem that recriminations from their many like-minded peers will be forthcoming, so that does not seem to be a deterrent to spouting forth their points of view. But I wonder if they will be at all more hesitant to express such views if no one watched their shows and they suddenly find themselves unable to earn an income? (Not that I think that likely; that is more of a wandering thought meandering through the vast desert of empty space in my head.)
And I do not begrudge them their views even if I do not necessarily agree with all of them. No, I think what gets me is the arrogance they show in their superior beliefs and the disdain that they hold for any who do not believe as they do. It is surely an open secret (if "secret" be the right term) that Hollywood has a liberal bias and that is not so much an issue. If you do not like what Hollywood produces, then go create your own or find your entertainment elsewhere. But to assert the rightness of your beliefs and then to deny others who might disagree with you the opportunity to work for/with you would find you in front of a courtroom in almost any other line of business. Heck, Target was recently targeted (no pun intended) for protests when it was learned that the company had donated money to anti-gay politicians. They then backtracked and offered to compensate the opposite side in order to avoid any controversy. Yet the Hollywood elite (and even the not-so-elite) boast of their narrow-minded views and the retribution they deliver to those who don't agree and no one says anything. While they claim to hold tolerant views, it is clear from their words and actions that they are extraordinarily intolerant - while accusing anyone who disagrees with them as being such.
In the world in which I live, this is called hypocrisy. And, anywhere outside of Hollywood, it would not only be frowned upon but likely means of all kinds of not-so-positive things to happen. However, in Hollywood, it appears to be the standard. But I guess that shouldn't be so surprising for an industry that is based on escaping reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)