Ok ok, i've been pushed into writing more blog entries. Matt, at the blog The Hopeful Gardner, is right. You don't have to be a fantastic writer or have something completely original to write in order to post a blog entry. Just write, and let the chips fall where they may. And, i'm taking Matt up on his offer to write every week and to keep the blog entries short.
"You Gotta Have Faith, a Faith, a Faith"
Is it just me, or is the Dow Jones Industrial Average a complete fabrication? We've heard over the past few months some simple truths about the stock market: nobody knows what the numbers mean, what they equate, or even how the thing works. In theory, it is supposed to represent the value of the companies that are listed in its index. However, this value is based on popular perception, not on capital assets. So, we've based our entire modern world, all of our savings and retirement and future, into the perception that if we put our money into the stock market, it will increase in value. If, however, we perceive the market to be worth less than it is, then we stand to lose everything. The number is just that, a number. When we hear "Bill Gates lost 20 Billion dollars last year because of the recession", did he really lose that money? Did Bill Gates have 20 Billion dollars in a room somewhere that someone came and took from him during the recession? No. He never had that money becuase it doesn't exist. It is only a number on a computer screen. But what if he cashed in his stock? What if he did want his 20 Billion in cash? This would be the surest way to prove that the system is artificial: if everyone wanted their money in cash they would be met with a cold reality: it doesn't exist. That much money is not in circulation and is not in print and is simply not in a bank anywhere. It is perceived value.
So, we are told that the stock market and economics in general is all psychological and therefore we must be optimistic and spend our money for it to work. Modern economists are actually telling us that we should do what is right for the country: spend our money and not save it! The logic is that saving our money in a recession is bad for the economy, as it will contribute to a negative economic growth rate. For the economy to work we must have faith: continue to buy things, consume, consume, and spend money and it will return the favor. For the economy to work, we must have faith. Faith that we are not becoming empty shells of human beings by destroying all meaning of life in favor of commodification and consumption. Faith that the economy will not destory the Earth in extraction of our natural resources. Faith that we will find alternatives to forests and clean water, cheap fuel and clean air when we run out. Faith that a system, any system, can work that is based on continual and perpetual growth.
My question is this: What is the difference between our modern economic system of perpetual growth and a pyramid scheme? This is an honest question and I welcome serious answers. To me, they both appear to be based on the idea that it must grow in order to work. If there is not growth, then the system crashes, and those at the bottom of the pyramid lose their shirts. My question grows out of this concern: what happens when the economy has depleted its natural capital (oil, trees, fresh water, land, etc;)? What happens when we reach a limit that keeps the system from growing (no more cheap natural resources to fuel the growth)? Will it not crash just like a pyramid scheme?
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Thursday, December 11, 2008
On Wes Jackson’s "Becoming Native to This Place" and Sustainable Education
Wes Jackson writes that, “when we humans mess around with an ecosystem, we tend to invert what nature does well. Just as bad, we tend to ignore the question of why nature features ecological mosaics that, until disturbed for human purposes, provide, in the words of John Todd, ’elegant solutions predicated on the uniqueness of [each] place’ ” (p.78). I believe that Jackson is absolutely correct in thinking that the best ways of living are those that work with the environment in which we live rather than by imposing a foreign construct onto a new place. There are many terms for this way of thinking, such as bioregionalism and bio-mimicry. The core notion is that nature, over time, has evolved into an organization of reciprocity that is place-specific and that, more than anything, works. That is, the Earth’s systems have been around for a long time, and species and landscapes have successfully adapted to its biological systems of both limits and bounty. And so when we come to a new place, we are seeing the product of millions of years of trial and error. In order to turn towards sustainable communities, we do not have to re-invent our organizing systems as much as we need to pay attention to the ones that already exist. And to do it, as Jackson suggests, we will need a whole new generation of students who are able to envision this.
Wes Jackson reminds us that we must move away from the concept of economy as our governing principle and replace it with ecology. The author writes that, “to a large extent, this book is a challenge to the universities to stop and think what they are doing with the young men and women they are supposed to be preparing for the future. The universities now offer only one serious major: upward mobility” (p.3). But there is ambiguity for students of what he calls “homecoming,”, or what we call sustainability. The successful examples of sustainability that we read and write about are of people who are living sustainability more than studying it. From the Ladakh to Arcosanti to Wes Jackson, we see people that are actively engaged in a local pursuit to understand their place and to live in harmony with it. And so for students, we ask ourselves, “what can I do?”
For students of other subjects, this may also be a question that they ask themselves, but it is certainly not as pronounced. The study of sustainability, or homecoming, implies that a career is not necessarily our primary goal. It suggests alternative meanings to our lives, which, by default, are difficult to fold into our culture of modern America. It implies additional matters of importance like spiritual growth, outdoor experiences, and deep connections with other people. The study of sustainability is a pursuit to the wholeness of life that is not present in the singular focus of homogenized America. While non-compatible is too strong a phrase to describe the relationship, not-exactly-compatible might fit.
The dilemma for students of sustainability is that we are torn between the academic pursuit of sustainability, and the gut-feeling urge for immediate applicability. The academic pursuit fuels our urge to be successful in the traditional sense and gives us access to positions where we can hopefully be influential. There are political and economic realities to which we must consider. This, however, is not a simple task. Jackson again: “Our task is to build cultural fortresses to protect our emerging nativeness. They must be strong enough to hold at bay the powers of consumerism, the powers of greed and envy and pride. One of the most effective ways for this to come about would be for our universities to assume the awesome responsibility to both validate and educate those who want to be homecomers” (p.97). I agree with Jackson that universities stand at the unique position to facilitate the change that we need by providing an avenue for students to study both the larger concept of sustainability as well as local and place-based issues. Universities are the only institutions that have the capacity to assume such a responsibility. Within its infrastructure is the flexibility to introduce new curriculum and ideas, and the potential political willpower to implement them.
Particularly as cities and universities become strained economically, and budgets are increasingly being cut back, it is more important for universities to use their students as resources to contribute to the local area. We should not only encourage local student research, but we should not be afraid to listen to their conclusions. For example, universities pay private companies for the design and construction of their buildings. This is silly considering that we have departments of both civil engineering as well as construction. A university has virtually all of the resources necessary for planning and development within its student body and faculty, and yet we contract out to other companies. How can we validate the concepts of sustainability if we do not turn to its students for guidance? How can we foster homecomers when their voices are not prominent? Not just students of sustainability, but the entire student body is an invaluable resource for a university and its city. Turning to them would lessen pressure on budgets while at the same time provide an excellent opportunity to apply research to the place in which they live.
Not only capital assets, but students of social science research, economics, food systems, and all other areas of study are invaluable. We can build the fortress that Jackson is referring to - the emergence of sustainability - through an emphasis by universities on in-house research and local issues. More than just a bullet-point on a strategic vision list, universities should be serious about being issue-focused and place-based. The more that a university participates with the town and city that it is in, the more it applies its vast resources – the student body – to the study and appreciation of place, then the more we will protect and nurture the emergence of alternative systems of organizing.
This, however, does not necessarily dispel the dichotomy of going to school in order to “become native.” To be sure, universities have not been successful at holding “at bay the powers of consumerism, the powers of green and envy and pride.” Jackson writes that “the long search and experiment to become native […] will be a struggle, but a worthy one. The homecomer will not learn the likes of Virgil to adorn his talk, to show off, but will study Virgil for insight, for utility, as well as for pleasure” (p.97). In as much as I agree with Jackson, it must be stated that it is quite easy to say that we will pursue upper education solely for insight, utility, and pleasure than it is to practice it. It is common to find frustration in students of sustainability precisely for this reason. While it is noble and rational to attend college for insight, it is also sacrificial. What we need to be careful to do as universities is provide the fortress that Jackson refers to. We can do that by providing opportunities for application.
To do this, I believe that we need to have more internships between university students and the local public administrations in which they live, both county and municipal. Public administrations will provide an excellent opportunity for students to make an impact locally through policy. To go from studying issues of sustainability to positions that influence how we define “public” for our future is integral. Also, part of becoming native and developing a reverence for place means staying in the same place. In that sense, more work-related experiences within the community in which the college is located is more valuable than sending students off around the country for internships that have little to do with their home community. Instead, staying local provides the opportunity for students to build relationships with people and landscapes outside the university setting but within their own community. It adds another layer to the appreciation of place.
In addition to public administrations, we also need internships in not-for-profits and private businesses. We need more fieldwork experiences through the community to foster more relationships. The point here is that while we are searching for alternative ways of living, for alternative ways of organizing our lives, we should not create alternatives that are not connected to our present condition. We should be careful not conceive of alternatives that do not contain threads of continuity with our current systems, or we will become lost in the nebulous of what constitutes “alternative.” Local internships allow for connections not just with current systems of governance and policy, but also neighbors, friends, business owners, mountains, prairies, mountain lions, and all members of the community.
Finally, without direct application of our concepts, we risk falling back to already accepted norms. Jackson writes that “even when we try to think other possibilities, other worldviews, the powerful assumptions stirring within us reassert themselves in unexpected and often undetected ways. So our modern thinking is itself resistant to critique and change, even as the end of the fossil fuel epoch comes in sight” (p.104). The concepts of sustainability are real and true, and the warnings must be heeded. We are already beginning to see the voices of the sustainability community being validated as economic systems are crashing and the idea of ‘being green’ takes hold. Taking our concepts of sustainability and applying them locally will create a compassion for what happens to the place in which we live. To not do so is to fall back to the well-developed stereotype of universities as factories for diplomas. And if this happens, then universities will have failed to build Wes Jackson’s fortress, and the issues of sustainability will be defined by the highest bidder. We must apply our concepts of sustainability locally in order to become ‘native.’ It builds relationships with, people, towns , mountains, streams, and trees. And it is this shared compassion with one another and with the surrounding environment that, in turn, provides the context that we need in order to successfully build community.
Wes Jackson reminds us that we must move away from the concept of economy as our governing principle and replace it with ecology. The author writes that, “to a large extent, this book is a challenge to the universities to stop and think what they are doing with the young men and women they are supposed to be preparing for the future. The universities now offer only one serious major: upward mobility” (p.3). But there is ambiguity for students of what he calls “homecoming,”, or what we call sustainability. The successful examples of sustainability that we read and write about are of people who are living sustainability more than studying it. From the Ladakh to Arcosanti to Wes Jackson, we see people that are actively engaged in a local pursuit to understand their place and to live in harmony with it. And so for students, we ask ourselves, “what can I do?”
For students of other subjects, this may also be a question that they ask themselves, but it is certainly not as pronounced. The study of sustainability, or homecoming, implies that a career is not necessarily our primary goal. It suggests alternative meanings to our lives, which, by default, are difficult to fold into our culture of modern America. It implies additional matters of importance like spiritual growth, outdoor experiences, and deep connections with other people. The study of sustainability is a pursuit to the wholeness of life that is not present in the singular focus of homogenized America. While non-compatible is too strong a phrase to describe the relationship, not-exactly-compatible might fit.
The dilemma for students of sustainability is that we are torn between the academic pursuit of sustainability, and the gut-feeling urge for immediate applicability. The academic pursuit fuels our urge to be successful in the traditional sense and gives us access to positions where we can hopefully be influential. There are political and economic realities to which we must consider. This, however, is not a simple task. Jackson again: “Our task is to build cultural fortresses to protect our emerging nativeness. They must be strong enough to hold at bay the powers of consumerism, the powers of greed and envy and pride. One of the most effective ways for this to come about would be for our universities to assume the awesome responsibility to both validate and educate those who want to be homecomers” (p.97). I agree with Jackson that universities stand at the unique position to facilitate the change that we need by providing an avenue for students to study both the larger concept of sustainability as well as local and place-based issues. Universities are the only institutions that have the capacity to assume such a responsibility. Within its infrastructure is the flexibility to introduce new curriculum and ideas, and the potential political willpower to implement them.
Particularly as cities and universities become strained economically, and budgets are increasingly being cut back, it is more important for universities to use their students as resources to contribute to the local area. We should not only encourage local student research, but we should not be afraid to listen to their conclusions. For example, universities pay private companies for the design and construction of their buildings. This is silly considering that we have departments of both civil engineering as well as construction. A university has virtually all of the resources necessary for planning and development within its student body and faculty, and yet we contract out to other companies. How can we validate the concepts of sustainability if we do not turn to its students for guidance? How can we foster homecomers when their voices are not prominent? Not just students of sustainability, but the entire student body is an invaluable resource for a university and its city. Turning to them would lessen pressure on budgets while at the same time provide an excellent opportunity to apply research to the place in which they live.
Not only capital assets, but students of social science research, economics, food systems, and all other areas of study are invaluable. We can build the fortress that Jackson is referring to - the emergence of sustainability - through an emphasis by universities on in-house research and local issues. More than just a bullet-point on a strategic vision list, universities should be serious about being issue-focused and place-based. The more that a university participates with the town and city that it is in, the more it applies its vast resources – the student body – to the study and appreciation of place, then the more we will protect and nurture the emergence of alternative systems of organizing.
This, however, does not necessarily dispel the dichotomy of going to school in order to “become native.” To be sure, universities have not been successful at holding “at bay the powers of consumerism, the powers of green and envy and pride.” Jackson writes that “the long search and experiment to become native […] will be a struggle, but a worthy one. The homecomer will not learn the likes of Virgil to adorn his talk, to show off, but will study Virgil for insight, for utility, as well as for pleasure” (p.97). In as much as I agree with Jackson, it must be stated that it is quite easy to say that we will pursue upper education solely for insight, utility, and pleasure than it is to practice it. It is common to find frustration in students of sustainability precisely for this reason. While it is noble and rational to attend college for insight, it is also sacrificial. What we need to be careful to do as universities is provide the fortress that Jackson refers to. We can do that by providing opportunities for application.
To do this, I believe that we need to have more internships between university students and the local public administrations in which they live, both county and municipal. Public administrations will provide an excellent opportunity for students to make an impact locally through policy. To go from studying issues of sustainability to positions that influence how we define “public” for our future is integral. Also, part of becoming native and developing a reverence for place means staying in the same place. In that sense, more work-related experiences within the community in which the college is located is more valuable than sending students off around the country for internships that have little to do with their home community. Instead, staying local provides the opportunity for students to build relationships with people and landscapes outside the university setting but within their own community. It adds another layer to the appreciation of place.
In addition to public administrations, we also need internships in not-for-profits and private businesses. We need more fieldwork experiences through the community to foster more relationships. The point here is that while we are searching for alternative ways of living, for alternative ways of organizing our lives, we should not create alternatives that are not connected to our present condition. We should be careful not conceive of alternatives that do not contain threads of continuity with our current systems, or we will become lost in the nebulous of what constitutes “alternative.” Local internships allow for connections not just with current systems of governance and policy, but also neighbors, friends, business owners, mountains, prairies, mountain lions, and all members of the community.
Finally, without direct application of our concepts, we risk falling back to already accepted norms. Jackson writes that “even when we try to think other possibilities, other worldviews, the powerful assumptions stirring within us reassert themselves in unexpected and often undetected ways. So our modern thinking is itself resistant to critique and change, even as the end of the fossil fuel epoch comes in sight” (p.104). The concepts of sustainability are real and true, and the warnings must be heeded. We are already beginning to see the voices of the sustainability community being validated as economic systems are crashing and the idea of ‘being green’ takes hold. Taking our concepts of sustainability and applying them locally will create a compassion for what happens to the place in which we live. To not do so is to fall back to the well-developed stereotype of universities as factories for diplomas. And if this happens, then universities will have failed to build Wes Jackson’s fortress, and the issues of sustainability will be defined by the highest bidder. We must apply our concepts of sustainability locally in order to become ‘native.’ It builds relationships with, people, towns , mountains, streams, and trees. And it is this shared compassion with one another and with the surrounding environment that, in turn, provides the context that we need in order to successfully build community.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
The Race for the White House
This election year is, as everyone has noted, historic. As an Obama supporter, you go through ups and downs according to the news cycle, the attack modes of the candidates, and the polls. I often think to myself "how could they!?", when the McCain campaign introduces a dangerous and inept vice-presidential candidate, or when the candidate herself uses inflammatory comments that seek to incite anger and divisiveness, or when they degrade the national conversation by focusing on sterotypes of 'tax reform' and 'bad government'. Lately, though, i've been much more calm about the petty back and forth that has defined the larger debate. Why? Because if you think about this race in terms of the American history of colonization and manifest destiny, and the rise of American global imperalism today, to elect a progressive, articulate person who is black and named Barack Obama is only going to happen through petty back and forth arguments, slander, and accusations. In a country that has a long history with oppression, where Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered only 40 years ago, 40 years ago, I think we have to accept that the only way this is going to happen is by confronting the entrenched politics of beligerent nationalism. The only way that this could happen is through an up-hill battle, fighting tooth and nail to overcome the status quo. This sense of entitlement that white men have had for so long is on the verge of being broken. And not just white men, but the philosphies of domination and secret wars, the politics of fear and oppression, the marginalization of minorities and alternative cultures and viewpoints.
The Bush administration's wars have been fought by dumbing down the ideas and the conversations that Americans have been allowed to have. The question was not "what does Iraq have to do with this", but instead "you're with us or your with terrorism." Well, given only these two options, what choice did we have? It took years of reflection, bad news, and suicide bombs for Americans to realize that the world is more complicated than us or them, black or white, christian or muslim. The electorate, the same electorate that voted for Bush twice, has been reduced to knee-jerk reactions to almost all aspects of our lives. It is not a coincidence that Republicans and Democrats will vote almost entirely opposite of eachother. How is this possible? Out of 100 issues, how is is possible to disagree with the other party on every single one? Because the decions are not based on issues, not based on reflection or thought. Instead, they are based on emotional responses to values and fear. This is what Karl Rove has done to us, and what we have allowed to happen to us. The complex world has been replaced with this notion of one or the other, with us or against us, good or evil.
This is why this election is so historical. This change in the way we want to discuss the world, in the way we want to see the world, is incredible. It's isn't just that Obama is black, although this is an enormous change in of itself, but it is also that this is a person who wants to talk about issues, who wants to keep policies in the open, and who wants to walk away from the politics of fear and blind nationalism. When compared to our history of hoarding power and money for the few and the privileged, this can only be seen as a dramatic change. And there is just no way that these same ideas of privilege and domination are going to go quietly. So when I hear someone yell "kill him!" and "terrorist!" at a McCain rally, or when Hillary Clinton's aides and Sarah Palin say that Obama is not fundamentally "American", I am no longer surprised. Instead, I now understand that these are the death throes of a terrible beast, screaming and yelling as their reality of entitlement and ownership is shattered.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Can you map racism?
The issue of race has been brought up in this primary election over and over. Is it a factor? Of course it is. Is there racism in this country? You bet there is. As they say in the broadway 'Avenue Q', everybody's a little bit racist. But there are areas in this country where everybody's a lot racist. One way you can read this is by mapping primary results county by county across the United States. One thing you notice right away is Appalachia. As a geographic feature, it goes almost exclusively for Clinton. Obama was never going to win Pennsylvania. The governor of PA, Ed Rendell, acknowledged this at the beginning of the race, saying that he didn't think his state was ready to vote for a black man. In rural areas, where people are generally less educated, have few experiences to have extended interactions with black people, and are generally frustrated because of their finances, could there be a higher tendancy to view black people in an ignorant and fearful way? Check out the map for yourself. The green is where Obama has done well, the red is for Clinton. The greener or redder the color, the stronger they did in that county, the missing states are the states yet to come. Remember that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, so you have to mentally throw that one out.
I think admiting that we have racial issues in this country is important. I think it is also important to admit we have an enormous class divide. As Americans, we tend to sweep our problems under the rug. On the surface, our national media and our politician's are generally quiet about these issues because nobody wants to stir up any controversy. The problem with ignoring these issues is that, as with anything, they become worse. Black men continue to be incarcerated at alarming rates, and inner-city schools continue to be underfunded and undersupported. If you are poor, it is too expensive to have health insurance and you must get used to living without, meanwhile the rich are completely lost in insatiability. The longer we wait to have these discussions, the harder it becomes to have them. Talking about race can quickly become explosive. When a candidate says there is bitterness among some Americans, people don't know how to handle it. These things exist in America, but when someone brings it up on the national stage, journalists and politicians are quick to jump on it to prove their own moral superiority. Every time we do this, we lose an opportunity to actually discuss the issues and maybe, possibly, come up with some better ways of doing things. We are at our best when our journalism and our elected officials wrestle with these issues honestly and openly.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Obamamania
I would love to write an interesting post that doesn't have anything to do with the primary season, but alas, it is all I think about.
It now appears that the Obama campaign is starting to break away from Clinton in a way that would have been unthinkable only two weeks ago. The pastor Wright flap had the potential to actually sink Obama as it played over and over again on cable television. His attraction for so many voters is that he transcends race issues and yet, bam, there it was, Obama's black pastor damning America. This was something that the Clintons had actually wanted for some time, stemming back to the circulating photograph of Obama in a turbin (oh my God!), Obama being generally popular because he is black (Ferraro cires reverse racism), and Obama winning S. Carolina because he is black (Clinton's referense to J. Jackson). It never stuck, though. Actually, it backfired on the Clintons. With Wright, however, we saw a new hate speach that the Clintons only wish they could have created. It looked like one of those moments in a campaign where you say to yourself, "could this be it?" (Think John Kerry's swift boats and Howard Dean's enthusiastic scream).
And yet, in responding to the events, Obama's speech on race actually increased his popularity. From that moment, two weeks ago, things have completely changed for the campaigns. Clinton has been dragged down by her embellishments on foreign policy experience in Bosnia, while Obama has enjoyed the high-profile endorsements of Bill Richardson (member of the Holy Trinity - Gore, the father, and Richardson and Edwards his sons), as well as a previously neutral Senator Casey from Pennsylvania, who is now ushering Obama through western Pennsylvania, sipping beer, eating hotdogs, and bowling. And tomorrow, Monday, another Senator who was previously staying neutral, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, will endorse Obama. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120692054573175525.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news Add to this new reports showing the Clinton campaign has millions in upaid bills, suggesting a fundraising problem, as well as unfavorable op-ed pieces in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30rich.html?ex=1364616000&en=44e3a2bd5e124401&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalinkand a new picture is beginning to emerge. His ratings look good, the endorsements are now starting to come in, and the negative ads should slow down as Dean has warned both campaigns to cool it (evidence of this is Obama saying Clinton should stay in the race as long as she wants tohttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/obama-to-clinton-stay-in-the-race/ ). If it is true that the campaigns have to cool it, and that Hillary has to take the Tonya Harding option off the table, then the Clintons are in trouble. I'm not saying its over (it never is with them), but it doesn't look good for the Clintons. Afterall, the only thing that worked for the Clinton campaign against Obama this entire time has been the kitchen sink strategy. It won her Ohio and the Texas primary, which she got big mileage out of. However, without the Tonya Harding option, what else does she have? To be sure, she will probably win Pennsylvania, giving her new media attention and reason to continue. Even so, taking everything else into account, it just looks good for our guy.
It now appears that the Obama campaign is starting to break away from Clinton in a way that would have been unthinkable only two weeks ago. The pastor Wright flap had the potential to actually sink Obama as it played over and over again on cable television. His attraction for so many voters is that he transcends race issues and yet, bam, there it was, Obama's black pastor damning America. This was something that the Clintons had actually wanted for some time, stemming back to the circulating photograph of Obama in a turbin (oh my God!), Obama being generally popular because he is black (Ferraro cires reverse racism), and Obama winning S. Carolina because he is black (Clinton's referense to J. Jackson). It never stuck, though. Actually, it backfired on the Clintons. With Wright, however, we saw a new hate speach that the Clintons only wish they could have created. It looked like one of those moments in a campaign where you say to yourself, "could this be it?" (Think John Kerry's swift boats and Howard Dean's enthusiastic scream).
And yet, in responding to the events, Obama's speech on race actually increased his popularity. From that moment, two weeks ago, things have completely changed for the campaigns. Clinton has been dragged down by her embellishments on foreign policy experience in Bosnia, while Obama has enjoyed the high-profile endorsements of Bill Richardson (member of the Holy Trinity - Gore, the father, and Richardson and Edwards his sons), as well as a previously neutral Senator Casey from Pennsylvania, who is now ushering Obama through western Pennsylvania, sipping beer, eating hotdogs, and bowling. And tomorrow, Monday, another Senator who was previously staying neutral, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, will endorse Obama. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120692054573175525.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news Add to this new reports showing the Clinton campaign has millions in upaid bills, suggesting a fundraising problem, as well as unfavorable op-ed pieces in the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30rich.html?ex=1364616000&en=44e3a2bd5e124401&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalinkand a new picture is beginning to emerge. His ratings look good, the endorsements are now starting to come in, and the negative ads should slow down as Dean has warned both campaigns to cool it (evidence of this is Obama saying Clinton should stay in the race as long as she wants tohttp://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/obama-to-clinton-stay-in-the-race/ ). If it is true that the campaigns have to cool it, and that Hillary has to take the Tonya Harding option off the table, then the Clintons are in trouble. I'm not saying its over (it never is with them), but it doesn't look good for the Clintons. Afterall, the only thing that worked for the Clinton campaign against Obama this entire time has been the kitchen sink strategy. It won her Ohio and the Texas primary, which she got big mileage out of. However, without the Tonya Harding option, what else does she have? To be sure, she will probably win Pennsylvania, giving her new media attention and reason to continue. Even so, taking everything else into account, it just looks good for our guy.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Peaks issue highlights larger conflict
Here in Flagstaff, AZ, we are waiting on a decision from the 9th Circuit court to determine if our local ski resort, Snowbowl, will be allowed to expand their operation on the San Fransisco Peaks. Snowbowl leases the land from the Unites States Forest Service. They are under contract with the Forest Service, as are most ski resorts, and must have any changes to the resort approved by the Forest Service first. The issue at stake is that snowbowl wants to build infrastructure up the mountain so that they can make artificial snow when there isn't enough from the southwestern winter storms. They want to do this using reclaimed water from treated city sewage. They also want to expand the skiiable terrain and increase the size of the lifts as well as add new buildings to the resort. Basically, they want to expand snowbowl so that it can be a much larger ski resort, being able to operate all season long.
All of the tribes in Arizona consider the S.F. Peaks to be sacred, a piece of the land that carries with it their history and sense of self. The Peaks are a beautiful and dominant part of the physical and cultural landscape of Northern Arizona. For Natives, puting reclaimed water on the mountain is the equivalent of spaying sewage on a church. All of the Arizona tribes and several environmental groups sued the Coconino C0unty Forest Service in 2004 for rubber stamping Snowbowl's expansion proposal. In 2005 a federal judge sided with the Forest Service and Snowbowl. The tribes and environmental groups appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit court where the previous decision was overturned in favor of the tribes. In the response, the judge stated that using reclaimed water on the mountain would be in violation of the tribes' religious rights. The tribes were thrilled www.savethepeaks.org/STPCrulingnewsrelease.html As was expected, Snowbowl appealed. A few weeks ago, the arguments were rested and now we are waiting on a decision. It is expected that no matter what the decision is, it will be appealed again, and this time to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, indiginous people around the world are following this case, as it carries with it an important precedent.
From a larger perspective, we have a case of dominant wester ideology of economic growth versus a non-western ideology of respect for the land and the limits of development that come along with it. At what point do we draw a line in the sand and say no, capitalist ideas are not the most important ideas in the world? Increased economic activity is not the greatest concern of ours? That more importantly, we have to have a healthy environment, ecosystems intact, and respect for the land? When can we stop this force of colonization that continues its oppression of Native people to this day? When can we agree that capitalism and economic development are not the only measurement of our human condition?
This case is a good example of the dilemma we face today in the world as a whole. Do we continue to expand and develop in the name of economic development or do we come up with new ideas and new ways to organize our lives and understand quality of life? Increasingly, we are pushing ouselves as a civilization to the brink of collapse, and this would be a good case to tell ourselves that yes, we are taking it into consideration and yes, we will do so by taking control of and limiting unregulated capitalism in the name of higher principles.
All of the tribes in Arizona consider the S.F. Peaks to be sacred, a piece of the land that carries with it their history and sense of self. The Peaks are a beautiful and dominant part of the physical and cultural landscape of Northern Arizona. For Natives, puting reclaimed water on the mountain is the equivalent of spaying sewage on a church. All of the Arizona tribes and several environmental groups sued the Coconino C0unty Forest Service in 2004 for rubber stamping Snowbowl's expansion proposal. In 2005 a federal judge sided with the Forest Service and Snowbowl. The tribes and environmental groups appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit court where the previous decision was overturned in favor of the tribes. In the response, the judge stated that using reclaimed water on the mountain would be in violation of the tribes' religious rights. The tribes were thrilled www.savethepeaks.org/STPCrulingnewsrelease.html As was expected, Snowbowl appealed. A few weeks ago, the arguments were rested and now we are waiting on a decision. It is expected that no matter what the decision is, it will be appealed again, and this time to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, indiginous people around the world are following this case, as it carries with it an important precedent.
From a larger perspective, we have a case of dominant wester ideology of economic growth versus a non-western ideology of respect for the land and the limits of development that come along with it. At what point do we draw a line in the sand and say no, capitalist ideas are not the most important ideas in the world? Increased economic activity is not the greatest concern of ours? That more importantly, we have to have a healthy environment, ecosystems intact, and respect for the land? When can we stop this force of colonization that continues its oppression of Native people to this day? When can we agree that capitalism and economic development are not the only measurement of our human condition?
This case is a good example of the dilemma we face today in the world as a whole. Do we continue to expand and develop in the name of economic development or do we come up with new ideas and new ways to organize our lives and understand quality of life? Increasingly, we are pushing ouselves as a civilization to the brink of collapse, and this would be a good case to tell ourselves that yes, we are taking it into consideration and yes, we will do so by taking control of and limiting unregulated capitalism in the name of higher principles.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
South Carolina win changes direction of primary
The South Carolina win yesterday was a huge victory for Obama and for Obama supporters. Most importantly, it was a resounding rejection of Clinton politics which, as far as I can tell, is politics as usual. That is exaclty what supporters of Obama are trying to get past, and Clinton's attacks on Obama backfired on her in a big way. For one, it showed her true colors. For anyone that had any doubts about Clinton(s), her actions in the week leading up to the South Carolina primary was a convincing example of why we do not want her and we do not want her old order of politics. We want a government run by and accountable to the people. My generation has never been able to get excited about politics. It has always been so out of reach. It has always been run by the elite and well connected. The week leading up to South Carolina showed that Clinton is part of that old order of American politics, the same politics that has rejected the people, and has lived in a world completely disconnected from the average American.
The win yesterday also shows the strong organizational structrue that the Obama supporters have created, one that is much stronger and wider than the Clinton's. You cannot buy volunteers. The momentum from this win, the resounding victory it has reverberated, will carry him into next Tuesday. It will do so, however, by re-energizing his supporters and allowing us to raise support and awareness for his campaign. Followed with a moving endorsement from Caroline Kennedy in the New York Times on Sundayhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?ex=1359176400&en=d8a4e6707ba8c7f2&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink, likening Obama to her father, Obama is poised to take the primary into a completely different direction. South Carolina was a huge victory, and the energy and inspiration from it and for what Obama stands for and for what his entire campaign is built upon is gaining with its momentum.
Finally, I would like to add that the week leading up to super tuesday is incredibly important, and if you can spare 25 dollars for Obama's campaign, they could use it for field staff and tv commercials. You can do that at www.barackobama.com
The win yesterday also shows the strong organizational structrue that the Obama supporters have created, one that is much stronger and wider than the Clinton's. You cannot buy volunteers. The momentum from this win, the resounding victory it has reverberated, will carry him into next Tuesday. It will do so, however, by re-energizing his supporters and allowing us to raise support and awareness for his campaign. Followed with a moving endorsement from Caroline Kennedy in the New York Times on Sundayhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?ex=1359176400&en=d8a4e6707ba8c7f2&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink, likening Obama to her father, Obama is poised to take the primary into a completely different direction. South Carolina was a huge victory, and the energy and inspiration from it and for what Obama stands for and for what his entire campaign is built upon is gaining with its momentum.
Finally, I would like to add that the week leading up to super tuesday is incredibly important, and if you can spare 25 dollars for Obama's campaign, they could use it for field staff and tv commercials. You can do that at www.barackobama.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)