YOU SAY MACRO, I SAY MICRO

How do you save Cambodia?

How do you save Sudan?

How do you save Bangladesh?

And what does that mean, anyway -- how do you 'save' a country? Are some countries doomed, simply because of their location and their leaders?

No, according to Jeffrey Sachs, one of the world's foremost macroeconomics gurus who is trying to figure out a way to stop poor countries from being poor.

His answer, as detailed in a New York Times story that ran last weekend, is simple: Money.

Lots and lots of money.

Simple.

Simplistic?

I kinda think so.

Now, I'm no economist. I took no poli-sci, economics, or development classes in university. (You're looking at a guy who dropped out of Grade 11 Accounting after a month, and whose idea of a good history lesson at the time was Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.)

But I'm living in Cambodia, and work for an NGO, so I'll put in my two cents worth.

You can inject all the money you want into these poor, desperate countries in South-east Asia and Africa, and Sachs is probably right -- more money IS what is needed.

The problem, however, is...

1) Where will the money go? Most likely, right into the pockets of the charming, benevolent governments that lead most third-world countries. They don't care about the poor. They care about lining their own pockets with all the goodies that they can.

(Oh, sure, they care, yes, but in the same way that everybody cares about poor people. Nobody likes to see it. Nobody likes to think about it. And it all comes down to the individual and the individual's own life -- if he can improve it, he will. If he can use the money to get him out his own dire circumstances, he will. Why wouldn't he? He's been through hell and back, most likely. He's seen his family starve, die, beg. The biggest governments and wealthiest nations are still just groupings and gloppings of individuals who are looking after their own self-interest first, period. Any good that arises is a trickle-down side effect.)

2) Assuming that the money gets where it's supposed to go, will it be used efficiently? Probably not, because the people in charge of the governments of most of the poor countries in the world don't really know what the hell they're doing. They either siphon the money into their own bank accounts, or, should the money actually be used how it is intended to be, it will probably be used in a wasteful, inefficient manner.

Why? Well, they don't have the skills. They don't have the know-how. They don't have the time or the energy to implement the skills or the know-how, either, because life is short and projects are long and it's difficult to create something out of nothing. Difficult to build castles in the sand. Easier to watch them wash away as you kick back in your villa with a pina colada in one hand and the remote in the other.

This is not to say that there is no hope, because I think there is, but it lies in the next gen -
eration, and the generation after that, and the generation after that. And so international experts -- carrying lots and lots of cash, as Sachs suggests -- have to dig in deep and prepare for the long haul and do the best they can, with what they have, to help train and implement, by hook or by crook, government and community programs that are relatively easy to run. You have to train the young and hope that they can somehow break the endless cycle of dependen-
cy and corruption that so many third-world countries revolve around.

So, I think Sachs is right, to some extent -- it takes cash. But cash alone ain't enough, and I think he approaches everything from a macro-economic perspective.

All well and good, for the big issues.

But life is lived on the ground level, on a micro-scale.

Life is lived in inches.

ACID ATTACKS AND LOGIC BUBBLES

The Phnom Penh Post is a bi-weekly paper that prints somewhat extensive coverage of news stories that are making waves in Cambodia. They have one section in particular that is a must-read, if you are inclined to stories of a slightly morbid nature. It's basically a police blotter, detailing all the nefarious acts of violence that occurred through Cambodia in the previous two weeks.
Aside from the usual tales of robbery and incest, there are -- for a westerner -- crimes that seem uniquely, well, odd. (Not that robbery and incest aren't, you know, odd, but I'm talking about odd odd, uniquely Cambodian odd.)

Cases in point:

1) Acid attacks. If a woman finds out that her husband is cheating on her, it is rather disturb-ingly common for the wife to get a jar of acid, confront the guilty mistress, and douse her from head to toe (or as much flesh as she can possibly reach.) This does a nice job of scarring and disgfiguring the guilty tramp for life.

2) Anything involving an axe. There are gun crimes here, of course, and they usually involve AK-47s. But more common are axes. Oh, and knives. Can't forget about the knives. I think it's easier to shoot someone, personally -- not that I've ever done it, although I wouldn't mind trying. (A joke. A joke.) But an axe. Man. That takes proximity. That takes in-your-faceness. That takes metal striking flash. And blood, as Anthony Perkins moaned in Psycho. Blood...


Not that I'm an expert, but it seems here that crime is often triggered by something petty, and small, and sometimes slightly ridiculous -- like a cow that wanders over into the wrong field, or a pig-castrater being attacked by an unruly mob. (Then again -- is there any other kind of mob but an unruly one? I guess not.) And yes, there are such jobs as pig castrators, and it's not as easy as it looks.

The thing is, Cambodian society is, for the most part, very relaxed, laid-back, congenial. People have warm smiles and friendly eyes. But there's a lot of anger and frustration being reigned in. A lot is being witheld. And when tensions rise, and the temperature soars, and the stomach is empty -- stuff happens.

People are good, people are kind, and the world really could fit, quite comfortably, into an episode of FULL HOUSE -- I do believe all of that, to a certain extent. The majority of people do not want to strike out and bash someone. The majority of people are not interested in dousing acid in people's faces.

And yet --

Poverty tends to erode the moral values that we grow up with. Relentless, unending poverty does more than erode those values; it can, over time, obliberate them in a single, red-tinged blast. When you have no job and you have nothing to eat and you've never drinken clean water in your life and you have six kids to feed and it looks like the rain won't come for awhile so you can kiss those rice crops good-bye for another few weeks, thank-you very much --

When that's the case, and your angry neighbor comes on over to yell at you about your cow, and that axe is hanging just over there, on the wall, well.
Blood happens, sometimes.

Which doesn't justify it. Which doesn't condone it. But you gotta be able to piece together why bad things happen to good people, as the book says.

************************************************************************************


Speaking of piecing things together, here's one more thought about the reaction to Bush's re -
election, and it has to do with empathy. It has to do with imagination. It has to do with pro -
jection.

The great lateral thinking guru Edward Debono (www.edwdebono.com) talks about universes and logic. More specifically, 'logic bubbles'.

Everybody is in their own little universe. Doesn't matter whether you're black, white, Canadian or Cambodian, you're in your own little world. As Frasier asked Cliff Clavin on Cheers:
"What colour is the sky in your world, Cliff?"

Well, we're all Cliff Clavin's. We all see the sky a little bit differently. And, based on how we were raised, and by who we were raised, we all think and act differently. We all react according to our own logic.

So all those millions of Americans and Canadians and Europeans and Japanese and everyone else in the world who are flabbergasted, absolutely gobsmacked by Bush's reelection, and just can't believe how an idiot like that could be elected again, well, all of those people are approaching the issue in the wrong way, I think.

Meaning, they're judging book according to their logic bubble. According to their logic and the way that they see the world, view the world, understand the world, there's no reasonable manner in which anyone, well, reasonable could possibly vote for Bush. It doesn't add up.

Well, yes, but...

Look.

Look closer.

Step out of your logic bubble. Let it burst -- but just for a moment. You can go back to it. I promise.

Look at it this way.

You are a born-again Christian, as a heck of a lot Americans are. You got two kids. Church on Sunday. A mortgage you'll be paying for a good twenty more years. A nation under attack.

And the man leading your country is also a born-again Christian. He talks in a way that you can understand. He says he's gonna protect your country, and he's done that for the past three years. He believes what you believe. And the French and the Italians may not like it, but, well, heck, you weren't planning on going over there anyways anytime soon. Gotta look after your own soil first, right?

If you try and think about things according to not your own logic bubble, but somebody else's, well, I think it's easy to see how Bush was re-elected. I think it makes sense if you look at it that way.

I'm not saying it's good that Bush won. I'm not saying I would have voted for him. (And I'm Canadian, and I can't vote, but you get the drift.)

I'm saying this lack of understanding reflects a lack of curiosity, and a lack of imagination -- an imagination that requires to step outside of our own beliefs and values and try to under -
stand somebody else's -- not agree with those values, or even respect them -- just understand.

And if I'm a hard-core Christian, what' s the most important thing in my life?

My relationship to God and Christ.

And if there's a leader who shares those identical concerns, and is a tough, plain-speaking son of a gun to boot, well, he's got my vote.

Simple.

Never underestimate the power of religion in American society.

And remember that your logic bubble is extremely, completely irrational to millions of other people.

In Ontario, if a fifteen year old decided to shave his head and don the robes of a Buddhist monk for a few years, he would probably be taken to a counsellor.

In Cambodia, he would gain the respect of his family and the reverance of the whole society.

It's all about perspective.

Last thing: You can't reason somebody out of something that they weren't reasoned into believing.

Are people reasoned into their particular religious beliefs? No. It comes from childhood, or it comes from emotional crises, or it comes via revelation.

You can reason all you want, via facts and figures and news articles, about how much of a twit Bush is.

But if he's a Christian, and I'm a Christian, well, he ain't usin' reason to get my vote.

He's speaking to my beliefs.

And beliefs will trump reason every single time.

You gotta project.

Break out of your logic bubble every now and then.

Consider life from that strange, distinctly other way of life, and you may be surprised what you find.

FOREIGN AND TRUE

A few weeks ago I was on the back of a moto coming back from work, and I noticed a young tourist bopping around with the typical tourist attire -- white t-shirt, black shades, copy of LONELY PLANET CAMBODIA gripped tightly in his fist, walking in that slow, slightly hesitant gait that all travellers from time immemorial have somehow patented and passed on.

The only difference?

The dude had only one arm.

A few minutes later I saw a Cambodian walking across the street, and he only had one arm, but it took me a few seconds for that to register.

The thing is, in Cambodia, there's a lot of amputees -- I mean, a lot. Arms, legs, hands, feet -- you name it, a lot of them, tragically, are missing it, due to the millions of unexploded mines left by the Khmer Rouge, not to mention unexploded bombs that Nixon and Kissinger dropped oh so many moons ago. (Thanks, guys.)

So why didn't I notice the Cambodian guy? Because I'm used to it. Because I see it everyday. Because the more you see something, the more it becomes routine, every-day, unextraordin-
ary. A white guy walking around missing his right arm? I don't see that every day. It's novel. It's patently unique.

Living abroad forces you to notice. At home, where you're from, you're lulled into a safe slumber of innocence. This is the way the world works, and this is the way that traffic lights work, and this the way that they count their change for you at the convenience store when you buy your six pack of MOUNTAIN DEW. It's all so routine that you don't even realize it's routine. You're in a bubble, a universe of your own, without even knowing it.

And then I went to Japan, and my universe exploded, and I realized that no, no, things are done differently here. You can spend years examining, exploring and trying to figure out those differences. (I know. I did.)

The thing is, after a few years in a foreign land, the very things that first freaked you out or amazed you or simply caused you to shake your head in stupefied bewilderment gradually become as ordinary as the linoleum on the kitchen floor in the house that you grew up in. (Do you remember what that looked like? Maybe. But you may have to think about it for a second or two. It being so ordinary and all...)

Even Cambodia -- fascinating, godforsaken country that it is -- can become routine.

The trick is, you have to look for the things that will transport you out of yourself and into that wonderful state of being which is so transcendent but so elusive, too, that realm known simply and irrevocably as: curiosity. Curiosity as a state of mind. Curiosity as a philosophy. Curiosity as a means of satisfying some unknown intrigue inside of you that is desperate to find out more, more, more about the people and places around you. Too many people are only curious about what is next on t.v. tonight. The limit of their curiosity is the edge of the remote control.

So, my unasked for advice: Be curious. Look around. Look twice at things you look once at every day. Examine them closer. See what makes them tick. Take nothing for granted.

You may find something you didn't expect. You may be elevated out of the routine and end up someplace foreign and true.

Dubya

A couple of uninformed Canadian thoughts (via Cambodia) on Bush's re-election:

1) The fact that Bush received millions of more votes than Kerry, and that everyone in the media was really, really surprised by this, proves that the media is a lot more liberal than I realized. For the past year there's been so much hatred spewn out at Bush on the news and on the Net that you could get the impression that Bush was clearly unloved in his own land, at the bottom of the list ahead of Jeffrey Dahmner and just below Ben Affleck.
Uh-uh. Not the case.

The media doesn't focus on the millions and millions of evangelical Christians in the U.S., especially the ones who didn't vote.

Bush's campaign team did. And has been doing so for the last four years.

Praise Jesus. 'Cause they sure as heck are. And maybe they're onto something...

2) Someone made a good point: Clinton and Carter were two liberals who grew up in the conservative south. They spent their lives learning how to talk about their own political views (which were those of the minority in Arkansas and Georgia) in a way that was clear, friendly, respectful and persuasive. Kerry grew up in the north, surrounded by the wealthy liberal elite, and so he never had the opportunity, or needed the opportunity, to hone and refine the sweet-talkin' sensibility needed to woo somebody of a different political persuasion over to your side.

When necessary, Clinton and Carter can both sound like two country-bumpkins. A lot of words come to mind when talking about Kerry -- but 'bumpkin' ain't one of them.

3) Another good point someone much smarter than me made a few years back: How different is your life when a new leader takes office? I'm not talking about the changes in foreign policy, of domestic issues, or the economy -- I'm talkin' about your daily, everyday, go-to-work-and-come-on-home life. How different is it? Granted, some people are affected by presidential or prime ministerial switcheroos -- especially those in the military. But for most people, well, their lives stay pretty much the same. They go to work, and their taxes may increase a little bit, and they may get irritated or angry over the direction of the overall country -- but is their family much different? Is their social life or working life radically altered?

I dunno.


4) Another point somebody much smarter than me made: Bush is probably the best politician of the last forty years. Not the smartest leader. Not the most competent, or even likeable, head of state. But the best politican. Even better than Clinton. Why? Well, everyone agrees that Bush ain't too swift, is alienating the world, and has had everything given to him on a silver platter.

But he's been elected president.

Twice.

With more of the popular vote than anyone in twenty years, I think.

A young government official once asked former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien what the definition of a good politician is:

"The guy who wins," Chretien said.

Malcolm X, Scott Baio, Yao Ming...

My old dormitory friend, a bright young Albertan I'll call "Jacoba" (because that's, um, her name) who is currently articling her brains out in a law firm somewhere, made an interesting point to me in an e-mail. She's smart, this kid is (or she was when I knew her, way back when, before the crack and the speed finally took hold -- which is a joke, Klinger, a joke), and she said that she thinks that we are witnessing the end of the American empire, with the dawn of a new one yet to be determined.

Seems a strange thing to say, what with the Yanks kicking major Rambo butt around the world, but perhaps the Americans have reached as far as they can go. When you reach the top, the pinnacle, there's nowhere else to go but down, right?

And so the next great empire is...

If you ever read The Autobiography of Malcolm X, you'll notice that at the end of the book, (which was the end of his life, too) Malcolm talked about how he wished he had time learn Chinese and Arabic, because those were the two major languages that would come into play in the coming years.

Can you say "right on the money?"

It certainly seems like China is poisted, in the next thirty years, to change the global course of the economy, and the military, and possibly even every major sports, except for hockey. (Yao Ming, anyone?)

And there's no question that the Arab world will be at the heart of international relations for the next generation or two.

But wait...

Maybe we're all too dualistic in nature. Maybe we've bred by the Cold War to think of everything in terms of dualities -- of good and evil, left and right, the West and the East, Joanie versus Chachi.

Maybe, instead, there will be the U.S. in this corner. And over there, wearing the red trunks with yellow stars, weighing in at a whopping one billion people, there will be China. And somewhere in the middle, and off to the side, and look, over in that corner there, will be a series of multiple contenders for the belt. Smaller states, lessened in military and economic power, yes, but potent in geography and geo-social-political-bubblicious strategic position.

Maybe, instead, we will stop thinking of the world in clean-cut, divisible entities. There is a merging and a blending going on -- of people, ideologies, political philosophies.

Everyone's got a place at the table now.

And whether "Jacoba's" right, and this really is the end of the American empire, well, who knows? It will be a hell of a show to watch, I know that much.

Get me ringside seats to that one.

PARTIES AND DISTANCE

The twenty-ninth of October was a Friday, which also happened to be the coronation day of the new king, son of the old king, and it also happened to be my birthday, conicidentally enough. There was lots of fireworks, and singing, and speeches transmitted over loudspeakers, not a word of which I could understand, mostly because the sound quality was poor, and it was in Khmer, and I was very, very high up, on top of a building, waiting for dinner.

On top of INTERED, this would be, which is a language school here in Phnom Penh; there is a lovely outdoor restaurant just down the hall from the classrooms. If the students don't want to learn English, they can eat. And drink Coke. And be merry.

As was I, that night. It was a good night, with American and Indian and Khmer and Filipino friends. A mix of the world, drinking and laughing and eating together. Talking about nothing much at all. Forcing me to do my imitation of university staff members. Eating too many french fries and drinking too many Cokes (my diet mercifully suspended, if only for a day.)

Somewhere, just down the road, behind the palace gates, there was a new king being crowned. I'm no king, and no crown was placed on my head, but it was a royal night, I must say, a royal night.

************************************************************************************

If you mention that Cambodia is halfway around the world from Canada, requiring almost twenty hours of flight time, that sounds like a long way. As was Japan -- a minimum of twelve hours, Tokyo to Toronto. A fair hike.

But is it really all that far? Isn't it relative?

Less than a day, is all. From Cambodia to Canada, from cultures so extremely different that they appear to exist not in the same universe, let alone on the same planet. And you can go from here to there in a day and a bit. A lot of waiting in airports, yes, and you will have passed through five airports and four countries, too, but still. Not that long, in the grand scheme of things.

Where I grew up, in St.Catharines, Ontario, the big shopping mall was (and still is, I'm presuming) the Pen Centre, and that was a good fifteen, twenty minute drive from down where I lived. Twenty whole minutes. You take the bus, you're talking a solid half hour. At age twelve, that was far. That was far. I think you even had to transfer at the downtown terminal. In high school I met some people who actually lived down that way, which seemed incredible to me. And Fort Erie, where we would often drive to on weekends to visit friends, was, like, forty-five minutes away.

So, in the space of about ten or twelve years, I've gone from considering my house to the Pen Centre to be far, to believing that Cambodia to Canada isn't all that far.

Progress?

HOW TO LOSE FORTY POUNDS IN FIFTEEN MONTHS (AND GAIN A LITTLE BACK)

1) Move to Cambodia.

2) Get Dengue Fever as soon as possible. (Dizziness, puking, no energy, metallic taste in your mouth, body covered in spots -- great substitute for exercise.)

3) Run one hour five days a week.

4) Sweat.

5) Gain some of the pounds back.

6) Run some more.

7) Go to Canada, and gain even more pounds back.

8) Do the opposite of the Super-Size Me movie -- cut out all pop, pizza, potato chips, choco -
late, ice cream, candy, hamburgers, french fries, hot dogs, and Coke. And Pepsi. And Sprite. And 7-Up. And...

9) Be patient. And forgiving.