Heading in the Wrong Direction

Governments exist to deal with the complexity that arise from a large number of humans living together. When societies of people arise, the need for a structure for the provision of common goods and services and the need for a system whereby activities may be organized in order to benefit people also arises. Governments exist to serve this need. The primary purpose of a government is to serve the people by monitoring law and order so public and private goods and benefits are secure and the individual can continue to flourish in a societal setting. It can also expand to serve other needs such as providing common minimum standards, education, health and other such services as societies get more complex. The point still remains that governments exist to serve the individual and the society formed by individuals coming together. Governments do not exist for themselves and to flourish at the expense of the individual and the society. And yet, that is what governments across the world can be seen to do today and I am not talking only about the banana republics.

The Supreme Court of the US, always served as a crucial arbiter in the checks and balance system that reined in the powers of the government and in many cases protected the rights of the individual as enshrined in the constitution of the USA. During Bush Jr.'s administration two SC justices were appointed. This has resulted in the court definitively swinging towards the conservative end of the spectrum. Before this point, some justices were swingers on certain issues. Now on many of the issues that are central in the political arena, there is almost no swinging allowing the neo-conservatives to hold sway.

It is with a heavy heart that one watches the co-opting of this institution which in its recent decisions has become less an arbiter and more a tool of the ruling government. Individual rights have received some of the heaviest blows seen in decades at the expense of institutions of power. The government's "rights" have been protected at the expense of the individual. Freedom of speech, expectation of due process, equal rights- these are but some of the areas where the SC has dealt a severe blow to the individual and shamed itself by breaking with precedent and siding with the state and industry.

Any person who serves in the highest court in the land should be able set aside politics, to think for themselves and think back to the final authority- the Constitution. They should think about what it was the constitution enshrined and protected. If even the SC turns partisan, what hope is there for the people? An omnipotent government only serves itself, not the people.

"Inevitable" Deaths in Immigration Custody

Over 60 human beings have died in immigration custody in the last couple of years. Immigration officials claim that some deaths are inevitable! Guantanamo already made it clear to us that human liberty and rights mean little to this administration. But to hear of the same callous disregard for life, in addition, only reiterates the erosion of democracy that this nation is and has been undergoing. Of course, the easy answer to this is that holding non-Americans and not treating them humanely, to the extent of participating in their untimely death, does not affect the democratic status of this country. However, I believe that no democratic nation state can flout its own principles of the dignity of human life and rights thereof.

We live in a time when the most developed nations have set the example of fighting for the rights of their citizens only. This is a shame. A citizen of the United States is in no way a more worthy human being than any other. Everyone is deserving of the same respect and rights. Some of those dead might not have been citizens but they were in many cases permanent residents. Permanent residency is the step before one is granted citizenship in this country. Having attended a ceremony where they spouted a few words and pledged allegiance to a flag would not have morphed these people into better human beings but in the eyes of this nation, it would have made them more deserving of a humane treatment.

Why is it that only those who were related to these people who died are crying and feeling the pain? We should all feel it. Is this too far-removed from you because you are an American? It shouldn't be because there, but for the grace of fate, go you.

Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right

Israel continues its war against Palestinians relentlessly. When I was growing up in India, we learned that the Palestinian people were struggling for freedom and independence under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. India has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. Having itself borne the brunt of Colonial demarcations foisted on local populations, perhaps India saw in the mid-east situation- where a militarily strong group (the Israelis) supported by the west had not only wrested land from the inhabitants of the land but were continuing to subjugate them- a repeat of the might is right argument. All I remember is the feeling that there were still groups around the world fighting for independence as India had done decades before I was born.

Moving to America resulted in a change in my view-point. I read about the history of discrimination faced by the Jewish diaspora (pogroms in Russia, pre Soviet as well as Soviet; and ghettos all over Europe) eventually culminating in the holocaust. How enterprising as a people the Jews were and how this often lead to their being persecuted and restrained (this from a dear Jewish friend from long ago). And now, here were these same people at last in the place they could call Israel, which is where they originated from millenia ago. They were hemmed in all sides by vicious and opposing Islamic forces and had to fight for their very existence.

It has taken me many years again to see that the colonials tore out a chunk of land where lives were being lived and gave it as their "gift" to a people who were owed compensation for the mistreatment meted out to them collectively by the west (I include Russia here since it does want so badly to be counted in Europe than Asia and aspires to be G8). So how come the Palestinian people, who were at the time the indigenous population of present day Israel, ended up being the bad guys? Palestine has been a festering wound in the middle east that has served as a focal rallying cry. If you were to meet your average Palestinian, they are not fundamentalist. In fact, Palestineans were and are considered more progressive than many other Islamic people in the mid-east.

Palestine has been under siege for a very long time and in all that time, Israel has only kept creeping out of its borders, and restricting Palestinian lives. Palestinians who go abroad to find a livelihood are severely restricted from returning and even lose their residency rights. But what is there to stay in Palestine for? Israel has done its best to try and settle Israeli families and drive Palestinians out through economic, geographical and financial restrictions. The fabric of a whole society torn asunder! Families separated, hospitals destroyed, self-esteems destroyed, checkposts created, children scattered, schools destroyed, guns distributed. You would think the one people who would have learned the meaning of compassion based on their own horrific past would know better than to visit such pain on others.

I don't condone violence. It was wrong for it to have been used against the Jews in the first place. But their historic suffering does not give them a free pass to do violence unto others in the name of protecting themselves. Israel's actions have been egregiously violent and we have not had enough leaders stand up and call it to task for it.

Healthy, Wealthy & Wise

My daily commute from home to work in Birmingham (the original city in the UK) was about 5 miles alongside canals. I would run or bike. When I started out, I was mostly walking or running to work. I bought a car for work since I was expected to eventually carry equipment to GP offices to gather data for the study we would be running. But I did not need the car for well over a year. Frank brought me my bicycle from the States after I had found a place. So some days I would bike and others I would run. It was a form of exercise when I started out, so I'd gear up and then at work, I'd shower change and get to work. Same routine back in the evenings.

On the few occasions that I took the car to work I realized how amazingly pleasant my bike commute was compared to my auto-commute. No stopping and going. My jams were at worst a gaggle of geese who decided to cross the path and were being hissy to protect the goslings. It was beautiful. I slowly changed from seeing the bike ride as exercise to seeing it more as my transportation system. And while that may not seem like a great change to most, it was something that I had to learn from Jurriaan who came from Amsterdam.

To Jurriaan, the bike is a very practical and efficient form of transport for any journey that was about 10 miles or less. And if one did not treat it as a workout, then biking at a leisurely pace not only got you where you were going, but you didn't really have to gear up and change before and after since you would not be sweating like crazy. I decided to give it a try. Wow! To integrate a bicycle into your everyday life is a very liberating experience in more ways than one.

I am in Europe again, this time in Netherlands & Belgium. These two countries are awash in bicycles and cyclists. Everybody hops on a bicycle and pedals off to daily life. To work, to grocery stores, with children to the park, to schools, to pubs... I think the bike-culture is at least one factor in the consistently high ranks north western European nations receive in the best-place-to-live polls. More on how I think this plays out in future blogs. Also pictures! :)

Man the Borders - the Huns are Coming!

In April, I saw a news report where Bush (jr.) was visiting some border patrols facing southern borders and congratulating them on amassing arsenal, building fences and beefing up security. He made a speech about how more needed to be done to prevent others from "sneaking in." I have a serious issue with the tone and manner in which the immigration debate (more like propaganda) has been conducted. This nation stands for freedom and self-determination. Immigrants flock to it to be free of their domestic persecutions and for new opportunities to hew a better life. One could argue that many of these south of the border immigrants have more legitimate rights to be here, given the historically contiguous nature of this region as well as perhaps closer blood-ties to the original inhabitants of the Americas.

Early arriving Europeans wrested this nation from its original inhabitants. Many European Americans feel sad about their history and feel that were mass European migration to the Americas to happen today, perhaps everyone would be treated differently. And yet, this nation's leader seeks to demonize immigrants who might, had the US not been colonized, be moving across this landscape quite legitimately. Where's the hope for redress of historic ills when present day politics continue to make some people the blessed and the others the invaders?

Cross-border immigration is even tied to the war on terror in order to motivate the security forces further. Such rhetoric and propaganda has resulted in spawning vigilante justice along the border where man attacks man in the name of land and law.

Human migrations have existed since humans existed. To me it seems a very basic right that the movement of living beings not be curtailed. There are natural self-correcting mechanisms affected by environmental, ecological and individual conditions to name but a few. In fact, it is these forces that are driving current day migrations just as they did in the past. But today, we have stopped up borders on one side of which lies starvation and on the other side waste.

Here's a fact that is not as well known as it should be. You know that fight against poverty that everyone is talking about? Money being sent by migrant workers to their families exceeds all foreign aid put together. $110bn annually! And remember that most of these guys often work the lowest paid jobs. And in case you are thinking that the transfer of money comes at the expense of the rich nations, think again. I have one quote from a World Bank report on migration and development here: "...free migration could double world income..." (See links.) It takes a different tone from the political vitriol being spewed at migrants in most of the developed, benevolent, western nations.

It seems to me that we like to pat ourselves on the back too much for being civilized and enlightened in the 21st century. As long as national borders exist and people treat each other unequally based on differences, we cannot claim to have moved into a compassionate era of mutual and beneficial co-existence.

Chinese Juggernaut (not economics but politics)

The Chinese regime has shown itself to be one of the least humane and continues to roll over other nations and people with complete disregard. In March, China proclaimed that any movement by Taiwan to declare itself independent will be seen as a criminal act. The Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao in his speech to the Chinese Congress said, "We firmly believe that with the efforts of all Chinese people, including our Taiwan compatriots, complete reunification of China will definitely be realised." China has also increased its defence expenditure for 2007 by 17%. Looks like the plans for world domination continue apace.

One cannot dismiss China's regular spats with Taiwan as internal politics. The one-China principle which China has consistently pushed is a very scary notion for the world because China does not seem to stop aggresive incursions on its neighbors. Its boundaries keep expanding and one has to wonder whether one-China will eventually lead to world domination, especially keeping in mind the emphasis on military expansion.

A few examples of China's designs. Tibet was invaded in 1959 by China. Tibet is a peaceful Buddhist nation that presented no threats to anyone. This nation has suffered tremendously under China's military boot. There is systematic negation of the Tibetan psyche and culture. Over a million Tibetans have died or disappeared since China decided that Tibet was part of one-China. Tibetan leaders have either been killed or have fled and sought refuge in other countries.

In 2005 Chinese soldiers entered the independent kingdom of Bhutan under the pretext of bad weather and they were granted permission by the kingdom on humanitarian grounds. Since then infrastructure for transportation is being built by the Chinese on Bhutan's territory. When Bhutan raised the issue with the Chinese, it was told that it was "over-reacting" and that the border remains disputed.

China has another land dispute on the borders of Tibet. India's eastern-most state of Arunachal Pradesh is claimed by China as, in their words, "Chinese territory." While no overt hostilities have resulted, army presence of the respective nations is heavy in this area. In my opinion, China has put this issue on a back burner till it has more resources to free up after having absorbed some other more key areas such as those mentioned previously. It is futile at this point to bring up another region of northern India that China usurped in the 1950s claiming it was Chinese.The sad fact is that China does not believe in dialog or respecting people. It only cares about territory. And it is a creeping giant whose boundary lies just outside its boundary.

I am a big admirer of Chinese history and the former Chinese culture. The latter was annihilated by the communists. I can be persuaded that most of the troubles of the region have their basis in short-sighted and, in some cases, malicious policies of colonizing nations. However, at least at this juncture, nations who in ancient texts referred to each other as brother and sister cultures, should find common ground and work together. China's need for an ever-expanding border is not one that bodes well for the South-east and South Asian region. The next major world conflict could have its roots here and we need to work to forestall it.

Building heaven

So I had an interesting conversation the other day.

I was at our local playgroup with my 4yr old daughter and 10-month-old son.

I struck up a conversation with a local father who’d brought his delightful tornado of a boy. I’d noticed that he arrived in a Suburu sporting Nader bumper stickers, which is always a good sign. As it turns out, he is working as a volunteer with our local land use committee, drafting new legislation to prevent terrible things like development and people living in trailers.

Now, you should know that I think the field of land use planning is fascinating – worked on a fair number of land use planning projects myself. Have a really good friend who is a top land use planner in New York State. Sadly, my messy pony-tailed hair and banana-smeared t-shirt had apparently relegated me to the ranks of the unwashed, uneducated masses. Plus, I’m a girl. I wouldn’t know a thing about land use planning or the evils of development.

We debated the effects of 25 acre zoning in the agricultural regions. I feel that they should be using multiple tools – not just one. He thinks we need to protect farmland at any cost. I point out that NO ONE is farming in the town anyway – they’ve all been priced out. And 25 acre zoning means I won’t be buying any land any time soon. I suggest we ought to be spending as much time on hamlet revitalization.

He snorts – says that’ll never happen.

Are you getting the general tone of the conversation? It gets better.

The world is going to hell in a hand basket. It’s the military industrial complex. It’s the president. It’s Clinton, it’s Gore, it’s BUSH. (The last spat out with indescribable contempt.) Rural supervisors ought to march on the Capital – demand the money that is owed to them – money that is being sent abroad, to Iraq, to Afghanistan. We should write to our politicians.

Why? Because it is the only way to do it. This father of a tornado KNOWS. Because he is a 51 yr old former founder of Greenpeace. He can list Big Accomplishment A and Big Accomplishment B. (I don’t remember what they were – they were really impressive, world-saving things, to give appropriate credit.)

I point out that it doesn’t seem like doing these things have given him any peace at all. He is frustrated. And deeply negative, though I didn’t say that out loud. It was becoming a real downer of a talk. I mean, honestly, we were at PLAYGROUP.

I said I would not write any more letters to politicians. I will not march on Washington (or Albany, or any where else) or condemn my neighbors for their votes or show up at local board meetings to demand my five minutes. I won’t forward any more stupid emails about saving the artic national refuge. Those actions are, in my opinion, utterly ineffective, though if he feels like it gives him a sense that he is in control, making a difference…well, great. Go for it.

Predictably, that enraged him.

He suggested that I left him finish, though I didn’t really remember interrupting him. He would like to “explain it to me – it’s really simple.”

I wish I could remember what the details were – those last words really annoyed me. But I let him finish, hearing his complaint that my sister, who’d wandered away with her daughter, had mentioned wanting to find one of the big plastic (eeek!) dolphin seesaws that his son and my daughter were fighting over. (My sis hasn’t tied herself to any trees lately, but she is committed to feeding organic foods to her 20-month-old nursling – and she’s frugal – she wanted a used plastic dolphin for her backyard.)

He eventually came back from peeling several children off of a mountain of folding chairs, and did not seem eager to reenter a conversation with me. I guess he thought there was nothing left to say.

I’m involved in an ecovillage project, I began. He looked uninterested. I continued. In order for us to construct even 10 homes, under the new zoning, my group would have to come up with the capital for at least 100 acres. We’d be using 5 acres (probably less) to construct those 10 homes, and the left would be open space and farmland. And we’d actually FARM it. We are working to make a lot of those homes affordable for everyone, too. He shrugged. Just a different flavor of the same – still development. And still evil.

I suggested that we can both save the world. I can do it without writing a single letter to a congressperson – without any protest marches. I can do it without 4 million on-line signatures. And I will do it without slandering my elected officials, without propaganda thinly disguised as public information forums, without sleepless nights worrying about what horrible thing is going to happen next.

He snorted again. Unbelieving. I’m a Pollyanna.

It’s not that I don’t think horrible things are happening. I can read.

(I didn’t mention to him that I am presenting my PhD propsectus in June – not even after he explained to me what civil servants are – and I have been engaged in decision, judgment and sustainability research for years. He might enjoy his status as a founding father of Greenpeace, but I prefer to let my intelligence speak for itself.)

I know what the IPCC is predicting. I also know that it is nothing that the Limits to Growth studies haven’t been predicting for over 30 years now. Our economic situation is tenuous, at best. Our desire to export our culture has ensured continued war around the globe.

But we have a choice – we either let this situation kill us – or we build a positive alternative. Build living models that are different, are better. Make them happen. Figure out the leverage points, and create change. Tornado dad grumbled and pointed out that that sort of stuff takes money. Shrug. I don’t know – it might. Our ecovillage project has cost us some gas and some photocopying bills – otherwise it has just taken time and passion. We’ll eventually have to pony up the hard cash for land and building, but we’ll make that cash work in ways that will nurture the birth of a sustainable culture.

You do not change minds by beating people over the head with your version of the facts. You can’t simply “educate” them into being better residents of the earth. But if you create something wonderful – if you create a better way of living, people will replicate your model, because it is the path of least resistance. And people are, and will always be, attracted to beauty.

So… to my marching, letter writing, Greenpeace-founding, angst-ridden, depressed friend:

it’s simple. Let me explain it to you: If everything is going to hell - well, damn it, you'd better start building heaven.