Radical Avenue

American politicians like to promote democracy as a polished gemstone behind a plate glass window at the jewelry store, rather than as a diamond in the rough still encrusted in stone. A country’s decision to embrace democratic reform is only the first step in a long, arduous process of political reconciliation. Real democracy requires consensus building among people who disagree about almost everything.

When a country selects its political leaders through legitimate elections, other countries must deal with whomever the citizens choose. In the long run this is preferable to totalitarian governments, where power only transfers from one group to another through violence. If all political organizations in a country agree to peaceful exchanges of power based on elections, it indicates that the nation is ready for long term political stability.

Bolivia
President Evo Morales has encountered a bit of headwind in his sail towards political reform in Bolivia. Over half of Bolivia’s regional governors have rejected a vote on whether they should stay in office and instead are calling for early general elections.

Last week Tarija became the fourth province to vote for greater independence from the central government. The war of words seems likely to continue for a while. At least these skirmishes are decided by results from the ballot box.

Kosovo
In a similar rebuke of national solidarity, Kosovo’s minority Serbs have assembled their own parliament in the northern town of Mitrovica, rather than assent to the terms of Kosovo’s new constitution. It may be hard to envision how this separate parliament will govern effectively, but it’s easy to see that plenty of animosity remains in this part of Europe.

Democracy, Bolivia, Evo Morales, Kosovo

Even the dark cloud over US foreign policy left behind by the Bush administration has a silver lining. Other countries now know that they can’t count on America for political leadership, so they’ve taken a more active role in pursuing their own diplomatic initiatives.

Kurdistan, Iran and Turkey
No group has embraced the new reality of Iraq more than the Kurds. Residents living in and around Erbil enjoy a relatively peaceful, modern life in what they call Iraqi Kurdistan. Unfortunately, the behavior of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, has alarmed the neighbors.

A top Turkish general recently confirmed that his forces are coordinating their attacks on Kurdish rebels with the Iranians. Saddam Hussein’s iron fist impeded Kurdish ambitions to create an independent state carved out of northern Iraq, southern Turkey and western Iran. The power vacuum left by Hussein’s removal opened the door to new battles over these disputed territories.

Turkey, Syria and Israel
Ongoing fighting with the Kurds hasn’t left Turkey entirely preoccupied. Turkey is also hosting a series of peace talks between Israel and Syria. Syria serves as a conduit for Iranian aid to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. An enforceable peace treaty with Syria therefore would reduce Iranian influence in the region and help stabilize Israel’s northern border.

The Bush administration rejects any diplomatic contact with Syria, which they accuse of supporting terrorists in Iraq. That’s why Israel turned to Turkey, a friendly, majority Muslim country in the region.

Israel, Iran and Lebanon
Israel hopes that a peace agreement with Syria will also bring them closer to a lasting truce with Hezbollah, which now exercises veto power over the government of Lebanon, and Hamas, which runs part of the Palestinian territories. The Bush administration opposes all talks with Hezbollah and Hamas because it considers them terrorist organizations.

Hamas and Hezbollah came to power through elections. Essentially the Bush administration wants to spread democracy throughout the middle east, but voters may only elect politicians friendly to the United States – or else. The president’s point of view is preposterous, and everyone knows it. The US needs a president who can handle reality.

Kurdistan, Turkey Iran, Syria, Israel, Iran

King Henry VIII had the Tower of London. Nikita Khrushchev had the Gulags of Siberia. Guantanamo Bay seems to be George Bush’s barbaric detention center of choice.

During previous conflicts, US troops near the front lines took the lead in processing battlefield detainees. But as with every other military precedent, the Bush team figured they knew a better way. So detainees rounded up in 2002-2003 were shipped off to secret prisons around the world. Many of these men ended up in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Bush administration spinmeisters then came up with the term “illegal enemy combatants” to describe fighters captured in Afghanistan, as though these prisoners were completely different from any other soldiers seized by American forces in the past. Here again the president employed misleading rhetoric designed to keep Americans from learning the truth about his legally and ethically questionable decisions.

The Geneva Conventions apply to enemy soldiers captured by US forces on the battlefield. According to this international treaty signed by the United States, prisoners must be humanely treated, and must at all times be protected “against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.”

The Bush administration’s relentless drive to bypass co-equal branches of government has left the Guantanamo detainees in legal limbo for six years. The Supreme Court recently blocked the president’s latest power grab by ruling that the Guantanamo Bay prisoners indeed have the right to challenge the legality of their detention in Federal Court.

Respect is a two way street. George Bush has shown no respect for international law, for the US Constitution or for those who disagree with him. That’s why so many people have lost respect for his presidency.

Guantanamo Bay, George W. Bush, Bush Administration, Prisoners of War, Enemy Combatants, Geneva Conventions

The National Basketball Association has a credibility problem. At some point in the last twenty years, the NBA morphed into a launching pad for young athletes building a following through ESPN highlights, rather than a serious professional sport played according to established rules. And recently, former longtime NBA employee Tim Donaghy submitted statements under oath indicating that two NBA officials conspired to fix a playoff game in 2002.

NBA Commissioner David Stern has blithely suggested that Donaghy would say anything to stay out of jail. That’s true. Donaghy would probably even be willing to spill the beans and tell everything he knows about dirty backroom deals in order to avoid prison. Lying under oath about this conspiracy will expose Donaghy to perjury charges. That would result in more jail time, not less. Donaghy is motivated to come clean.

Jose Canseco was intensely criticized for naming names in Juiced, his book about the Major League Baseball steroid scandal of the 1990s. Everyone called Canseco a liar. It turns out that virtually every one of the players he identified has now admitted to using steroids or human growth hormones.

Even if Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals wasn’t fixed, NBA officiating tends to alternate between horrendous and baffling, depending on the game. According to the rules, players must keep one foot planted when they have the basketball and are not dribbling. In the NBA, superstars tuck the ball under one elbow and take three extra steps on the way to the hoop. They pivot with the right foot when they can’t get a good shot off after four pivots with the left foot. And spot up shooters usually take a two foot hop before launching a three pointer. Traveling is now subjective in the NBA, like all the other rules. What ever happened to the game of basketball?

Bored with News and Politics? Have a look at these Celebrity Fashions, or check out these Trashy Celebs.

NBA, David Stern, Tim Donaghy

With each passing day our country edges closer to a truly momentous occasion. The upcoming presidential election promises to be an acrimonious affair pitting the young idealist intent on etching his profile in stone against the battle scarred veteran determined to keep the brash rookie at bay. In this strange new millennium, so many of the old barriers have already been demolished. Race no longer disqualifies. Women battle toe to toe with men on the campaign trail. Age is an attitude. Now, as destinies collide…

When did history get to be so melodramatic?

Obama doesn’t have much time
Yes, yes, the democratic nominee has a mere five months to tell Americans about his plans for the country. With only a few hundred million in the bank, he’ll need to spend carefully. And the networks will never cover an improbable story like the first black presidential nominee of a major US political party.

Let’s remember, most households now have fewer than five working televisions, three internet connections, a couple of cellular phones, one blackberry and a boombox out in the garage. So Americans have a limited capacity to acquire information as well.

He’s under pressure to pick Hillary
Senator Obama is under pressure to win. A strong running mate helps, so his staff will assemble a bunch of advisers in a room. He’ll get to see charts, read polls and hear competing opinions. If a certain Senator from New York ends up on the top of his wish list, Hillary will receive a phone call.

It has to be devastating
The 3,000 Continental Airlines workers headed for the unemployment line may be a little late with their sympathy cards to disappointed presidential contenders. Several commander in chief applicants have interviewed well, but there’s only one position available at this time. All of the candidates are free to apply again in four years.

Obama, presidential election

Remember this jingle? “…we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” In other words, our leaders expected us to believe that Iraq had the bomb, but they didn’t plan to tell us that directly. Based on former presidential spokesman Scott McClellan’s accounts, the Bush administration used innuendo to describe the nuclear threat from Iraq.

If another country has a nuclear bomb which they intend to detonate inside the United States, then the president should warn the American people about that forthrightly. These words would be appropriate: “the United States government believes that country XYZ has an atomic weapon which they will soon use in an attack against us.”

Americans have no reason to oppose the president’s legitimate attempts to protect the country. But that’s not how things played out during the run up to the war in 2002 and 2003. Instead some pollster came up with a clever turn of words and Mr. Bush used them to toss us in the spin cycle.

October 7, 2002: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

January 28, 2003: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Insincerity is not appropriate when the elected president of the most powerful nation in the world sets out to identify the most serious threats known to mankind. Effective leaders recognize when candor is absolutely essential. It’s disheartening to realize that our president places partisan politics above all else, including the personal safety of American and Iraqi citizens.

George Bush, mushroom cloud, smoking gun

Apparently President Bush isn’t the only politician wondering about his legacy these days. With Mr. Bush’s approval ratings now below freezing, and no indication that Americans will ever warm up to W again, former presidential spokesman Scott McClellan became the first of the longtime Texas insiders to jump ship.

In his new book, What Happened, Mr. McClellan makes it clear that he now considers the War in Iraq a serious strategic blunder:

“As I have heard Bush say, only a wartime president is likely to achieve greatness, in part because the upheavals of war provide the opportunity for the transformative change that he hoped to achieve. In Iraq, Bush saw his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness.

I do not know how the war will be viewed decades from now. What I do know is that war should be waged only when necessary and the Iraq war was not necessary. Waging an unnecessary war is a grave mistake. But I’ve come to believe that an even more fundamental mistake was made - a decision to turn away from candor and honesty when those qualities were most needed.

In the autumn of 2002 Bush and his White House engaged in a carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval to our advantage.”

Iraqi Nuclear Threat Vastly Overstated
The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945 killed around 70,000 people, many of them instantaneously. A second nuclear device which the US detonated over Nagasaki, Japan shortly thereafter resulted in similar casualty figures. These events brought an end to World War II and changed the planet forever.

No chemical or biological weapon has ever approached the destructive capacity of an atomic bomb. By lumping nuclear weapons in with chemical and biological weapons, American politicians have purposely misled the public for partisan political reasons.

WMD Propaganda
The phrase “Weapons of Mass Destruction” is a product of the Bush-Cheney propaganda machine. Scott McClellan described it like this: “the administration chose a different path - not employing out-and-out deception but shading the truth; downplaying the reason for going to war; trying to make the weapons of mass destruction threat and the Iraqi connection to terrorism appear just a little more certain than they were; quietly disregarding some of the crucial caveats in the intelligence and minimizing evidence that pointed in the opposite direction.”

“They also encouraged Americans to believe as fact some things that were unclear and possibly false (for example, that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program) and other things that were overplayed or wrong (for example, that Saddam might have had an operational relationship with Al-Qaeda).”

Iraq had no atomic bomb and no capacity to build one when the United States invaded in 2003. George W. Bush promised to restore honesty and integrity to the office when he became president seven years ago. Instead he led the country into war based on false pretenses. The United States can’t afford such recklessness from its commander in chief.

Scott McClellan, WMD

With municipalities restricting home water usage because of drought conditions, it’s time to start saving every drop of rain that falls from the sky. Back on Grandma and Grandpa’s farm they might still use a cistern in the basement to collect groundwater. It probably comes in handy when the local water tower runs dry.

We now call linking gutter downspouts to stainless steel tanks “rainwater harvesting”. Rainwater crops are primarily collected during the winter months. According to the new tradition, gracious landowners are then expected to share their liquid bounty with grass and vegetable gardens throughout the summer. Early autumn picnics on the lawn kick off a new cycle.

North Carolina already offers tax incentives for rainwater harvesting. Other states and the federal government should consider similar inducements. Since many of us pay a flat rate for water, we have no real financial incentive to install rainwater harvesting equipment.

Rainwater harvesting systems provide communities with the following benefits:
• Reduced runoff means fewer pollutants washing into storm drains, and less local flooding.
• Water captured from the sky is normally cleaner than water piped in from a river or reservoir.
• Municipal water districts save energy by pumping less water out to homes and businesses
• Collecting rainwater isn’t rocket science. Connect a couple of 50 gallon drums with some pipe, direct a gutter downspout into one of them and you’re on your way.
• Rainwater farmers can filter and drink the water if they so choose.
• Apocalyptic Mad Max style future now seems more remote, but still entertaining to consider.

rainwater harvesting, cisterns

According to reports from devastated Sichuan province, the Chinese government has devoted substantial resources to ongoing earthquake rescue and recovery efforts. China’s emergency response now stands in stark contrast to the corrupt Burmese military’s tepid reaction to their recent catastrophe.

The SARS epidemic of 2004 seems to have lead to something of an epiphany for the Chinese ruling party. No one condemned them for the natural disaster itself. Instead they were blamed for their selfish efforts to downplay the scope of the crisis and for their callous disregard for public safety.

China has now changed its ways. Foreign journalists are allowed to cover natural disasters from inside the country. Chinese citizens have more access to information sharing over the internet. And the government has mobilized its military to lead the recovery efforts. These are all positive developments for the Chinese people.

One Party Rule Better than Dictatorship
Unlike some socialist countries, Chinese leaders do not serve life terms. Under single party rule, there are at least small opportunities for enlightenment as new leaders within the dominant party introduce reforms. Dictatorships have no such dynamic.

Chinese Military Respects Civilian Authority
In Burma, a military junta runs the government. The generals in charge base their decisions on protecting territory. World opinion matters little to them. Civilians are expendable. The civilian leaders of China look positively magnanimous by comparison.

Isolationism Rejected
Modern Chinese leaders have clearly dismissed the isolationism and paranoia of Chairman Mao, although they would probably never admit it. Maybe China will indeed become a full fledged democracy one day soon.

China, earthquake, Sichuan province, Burma

An angry cyclone pounded Burma last week and left a bitter cloud of despair in its wake. As entire villages now battle to survive, thousands of aid workers sit just over the borders waiting for the call to go in and help. By refusing to allow relief agencies into their country, the murderous Burmese military has once again demonstrated a complete disregard for the welfare of the Burmese people.

The United Nations is full of professionals with extensive experience in responding to exactly this type of emergency. Too often American politicians beat up on the UN as a way of scoring cheap political points at home. While some UN guests do criticize America, how many other nations have enough confidence in their government to invite hostile foreign leaders into their political forums?

If not for the unfortunate political situation in Burma, the United Nations would now be airlifting massive shipments of relief supplies into the most remote corners of that country. This should be a tremendous source of pride for the United States, which has always been closely associated with the UN.

In 1945, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill led the effort to establish the United Nations. They specifically wanted to prevent a repeat of the horrific series of events which spawned World War II. Prior to that, President Woodrow Wilson worked tirelessly to promote the League of Nations, which went out of business but served as a model for the United Nations. Today the United Nations has 192 members. By now those other countries know that UNICEF and UNESCO did not just spring forth from thin air.

The United Nation’s ability to provide emergency humanitarian aid is unparalleled in the history of the world. Let’s hope the Burmese military will get out of the way soon so that the UN can do its job.

Burma, United Nations, UNICEF, UNESCO

Don’t look now, but the Straight Talk Express has derailed again. Lately, the senior Senator from Arizona has been serving up enough whoppers to make the Burger King proud.

Surely by now someone in the McCain campaign has noticed that 70% of Americans disapprove of President Bush’s leadership on the economy. You’d think McCain would be distancing himself from Bush’s policies. Instead McCain has embraced Bushonomics wholeheartedly.

Economics for Dummies
In 2001 McCain opposed Bush’s economic prescription because he “could not in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us.” McCain has since flip flopped on the matter. He now hopes to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Extending the Bush legacy will cost an estimated $2 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group.

But wait, McCain also wants to lower corporate tax rates, reduce the estate tax, allow accelerated write off of corporate investments and completely eliminate the Alternative Minimum tax. These proposals will cost America more than $550 billion a year, around $6 trillion over 10 years. Nevertheless McCain says he’ll produce a balanced budget by the end of his first term.

The Numbers Don’t Add Up
McCain says he’ll compensate for his massive reduction in federal revenue by eliminating earmarks and “changing the way Washington does business”. Both of these statements are ludicrous. Earmarks have constituencies. McCain won’t likely veto the many spending bills which benefit American veterans. And you’d have to go all the way back to FDR to find a transcendental president. Roosevelt took office in the midst of the Great Depression. We haven’t fallen to that level of desperation yet in this economy.

For argument’s sake, let’s say that McCain ends all earmarks. That would save the country around $18 billion annually. McCain says he would save another $32 billion annually by closing tax loopholes, program review and through reduced Medicare benefits. The budget would still be well over $500 billion in the red under those circumstances. A third grader could figure it out. The Republican candidate must think Americans don’t do math.

McSame, McCain, economy, taxes

It’s back to the future all over again for the environmental movement. Maybe those Bronze Age architects with their homes of straw and sod had the right idea after all. Indeed modern builders have now returned to these old school building materials and are leaving bricks and asphalt behind.

Sod Roofs
Whatever happened to the first person to make this suggestion: Let’s move large sections of our landscape, plants and all, up to the top of our buildings? As it turns out, the plan has its advantages.

• Sod roofs, also known as green roofs, collect and store rainwater, thereby reducing runoff from storms. This helps prevent local flooding, keeps contaminants out of the groundwater and lessens the burden on water treatment facilities.

• Rooftop greeneries trap airborne particulates, counteract air pollution and are fire resistant.

• Dark asphalt roofs act as a heat sink, especially when they dominate a neighborhood. It raises the temperature all around. Green roofs and walls do not reflect energy from the summer sun and instead help cool the air.

• Sod roofs provide excellent insulation and last longer than conventional roofs.

• Birds love the extra garden space. It gives them more places to hide and hunt for food.

• Green roofs are aesthetically pleasing.

Straw Bale Walls
Straw Bale houses can be constructed to look like any other modern suburban home on the outside. But the distinctive thick walls create an old world ambiance inside. Those walls can insulate a home enough to completely eliminate the need for air conditioning, even in 100 degree heat. This, of course, reduces stress on our overtaxed electrical grid and takes greenhouse gas emitting air conditioners offline.

sod roof, green roof, straw bale home, straw bale construction

While oil companies and public utilities continue to seek the Holy Grail of alternative energy, smaller businesses are quietly developing innovative new ways of reducing power consumption. The latest devices on the market conserve energy by automatically adjusting artificial light during the day. Several promising technologies have emerged.

Daylight Harvesting
Conventional light fixtures always burn at the same intensity. Manual dimmers have been around for a while now, but as the name suggests, they require someone to adjust the brightness by hand as called for during the day. However the newest light fixtures can automatically dim in proportion to the glow from the sun. So now that funky skylight will finally come in handy for something other than leaving a weird fade pattern on the carpet.

A Nebraska company called Axis Technologies has introduced a type of florescent lighting ballast that turns itself down gradually with an increase in sunlight. According to the company their product “allows significant and sustained lighting energy reduction without compromising lighting quality and can be integrated into new and existing fluorescent lighting without special requirements”.

Variable Lighting
American workers often ply their trade in cubicles or small offices with overhead fluorescent lights that stay on all day. Smarter lights that turn off or dim when a workspace occupant leaves use less energy according to a Canadian study.

The study was conducted in partnership with Canada’s Program on Energy Research and Development, Public Works and Government Services Canada, BC Hydro Power Smart, and Ledalite Architectural Products. Three lighting control devices showed promise: occupancy sensors that gradually switch off lights when people leave a work area, light sensors that slowly dim lights when there is enough daylight to maintain illumination levels, and personal lighting controls that workers operate from their computer screens.

Energy Conservation, Light Conservation, Daylight Harvesting

Ghana
The peace loving citizens of Ghana have seen their diamond encrusted West African neighborhood explode in violence over the past two decades. Fortunately, the civil wars in Liberia, Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone are now over and Ghana’s vibrant democracy gives this region hope.

When Ghana gained independence from Great Britain in 1957, it became the first sub-Saharan African nation to break free from colonial rule. Ghana and its tiny neighbor Benin have had several elections followed by peaceful transfers of power since then. With the battle scared countries along the coast now holding free elections, democracy is on the rise in Africa.

Nepal
The untimely demise of King Birendra in 2001 shook Nepal like no earthquake ever will. This Himalayan country situated between India and Tibet doesn’t often make headlines, but the news accounts of multiple assassinations inside the Royal Palace read like a story from medieval times.

Birendra and several members his family were shot to death, apparently by Crown Prince Dipendra, before Dipendra turned a gun on himself. The comatose Dipendra actually became King for several hours before his death.

This episode places the fragile and inherently unstable nature of ruling monarchies on full display. Voters in Nepal have now elected a 601 seat Constituent Assembly, and have tasked them with writing a new Constitution.

Bosnia
Years of sectarian bloodletting in the 1990s make consensus building a monumental task in the Balkan States. But recently Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Muslims all compromised on security reforms as part of Bosnia’s effort to join the European Union. These once warring factions have already proven that they can work together for a common purpose when given the right incentive.

Paraguay
After six decades of single party rule, Paraguay elected an opposition party leader as their new president last week. This peaceful transfer of power is a necessary part of fair elections, and comes as welcome news to those concerned about the status of democracy in South America.

Ghana, Nepal, Bosnia, Paraguay

It seems fairly certain that any serious US response to the humanitarian crisis in Colombia will have to wait until after the next president takes office. The 3.8 million Colombians currently living in exile have failed to penetrate the presidential bubble. And don’t bother asking Dick Cheney about this tragedy either. It’s not something he reflects on while fly fishing.

Dropping the remaining tariffs on products shipped between Colombia and the United States would certainly provide a revenue boost to the merchants now paying those taxes. But violence from the forty year old drug war in Colombia still scares away investors. The conflict has crippled the region and a free trade agreement won’t matter to millions of impoverished Colombians.

Trickle Down vs. Rising Tide
President Reagan justified tax cuts for wealthy Americans under the theory that well funded entrepreneurs would grow the economy through their wise investments. However the “trickle down” effect did not make up for lost federal revenues and the deficit grew during Reagan’s presidency.

On October 3rd, 1963 in Heber Springs, Arkansas President John Kennedy described how public works projects benefit an entire nation.

These projects produce wealth, they bring industry, they bring jobs, and the wealth they bring brings wealth to other sections of the United States. This State had about 200,000 cars in 1929. It has a million cars now. They weren’t built in this State. They were built in Detroit. As this State’s income rises, so does the income of Michigan. As the income of Michigan rises, so does the income of the United States. A rising tide lifts all the boats and as Arkansas becomes more prosperous so does the United States and as this section declines so does the United States. So I regard this as an investment by the people of the United States in the United States.

Since the United States is Colombia’s leading trade partner, this rising tide approach to public spending could also apply to our investment in Latin America. The Colombian free trade agreement currently pending in Congress however relies on the trickle down plan. It offers tax cuts to wealthy Colombian merchants as a panacea to the countries’ problems.

Reagan is the lazy farmer who dumps all of his seeds in the most fertile corner of the field. Kennedy prefers to carefully till the entire field and spread the seeds around evenly. Some of the plants will die in either case, but Kennedy’s egalitarian approach will result in a more bountiful harvest.

In Kind Aid
According to the World Economic Forum, Latin American countries have fallen behind European and Asian nations when it comes to internet network readiness. Upgrading information systems infrastructure in Colombia would give more Colombians access to the World Wide Web and an opportunity to trade directly with Americans here in the States. I’m sure eBay wouldn’t mind the extra traffic.

Providing foreign aid in the form of public works projects has the added benefit of preventing corrupt local politicians from diverting public funds to private accounts. Put people to work wiring up remote villages and self serving politicians will have a much harder time appropriating that investment for their own purposes. The local governor may insist on having the new server farm named after his favorite polo pony, but that shouldn’t hold things up too much.

Colombia, humanitarian crisis, foreign aid investment, trickle down, rising tide