There is an expression that if voting could change things it would be illegal. While in little ways voting does change things, for the main foreign policy direction this slogan holds some water. While the momentum of a McCain white house might have been more belligerent in its prosecuting of war against Iraq and Afganistan, the direction would likely be the same, quagmire in Iraq and deeper in Afghanistan. While not overly surprised with the direction of the Obama Whitehouse, I am disappointed that at least we are not seeing some movement to draw down troops in Iraq.
The antiwar efforts that have been shunted into working for the Obama campaign last year, has also helped to elect several Democrats in congress and among them are many progressive Democrats who seem to be standing up against the war. The Question now is whether they will have the courage to resist the pressure coming from the administration. The word is that the Democratic party leadership is playing hardball against the Progressive Democrats demanding a vote and threatening to cut off access to the Whitehouse and to withhold support in the next election.
I wonder if the wars are becoming like abortion, a wedge issue for the Democratic party. For Republicans abortion is a heated issue for it’s conservative religious base but in spite of having control of 3 branches of government abortion is still legal. Abortion turns out the votes. Is the war the same kind of issue? Will we here in 2010 that we just need to elect a few more democrats and then they will stop the wars?
Since 2002 Democrats have been wooing the peace movement to support Democrats as the way to end the war in Iraq. This argument has worked and unfortunately probably at the cost of not enough action in the streets. Elements of the peace movement have at times acted in ways that I have felt misguided, for instance MoveOn.org people lobbying for the weaker of two pieces of legislation and in the end getting nothing. On the other hand there have been Democratic congress people who have been consistently good on the war. Their home is the Congressional Progressive Caucus of the Democratic. If ever the peace movement’s electoral strategy had a moment of truth it would be now.
It will be interesting to see if the Democrats who have opposed this supplemental spending bill will to continue to do so. We need to keep the pressure on. You can call the congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121 and then ask for your congress person and ask then to oppose the supplemental spending bill for Iraq, Afghanistan and the IMF. I don’t have much faith in voting changing things on it’s own, Voting and citizens action? Let’s see.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Buckminster Fuller 30 years ago and the search for vision today
I was going to try to post my thoughts on Obama’s first 100 days but last night talking with my friend Joel I noticed that I needed more vision in my life, more of the utopian calling for another world , a better world, but one that lives dormant in the potential of this world. So vision takes precedence over the president.
2 days a go I pulled the book, Synergetics 2 by Buckminster Fuller, from the Ahern Library, a collection of books residing in our garage formerly belonging to my friend Rich Ahern (now deceased). I pulled it from the shelf to practice bibliomancy, the art of randomly opening a book and reading what is there as an answer to your question. This I was doing as a party game.
Today I came to the book more seriously and read the opening section. This section was heavily underlined by my friend Rich and at the end he had written “the most potent 8 pages of modern times May 1 1981” It addresses the material needs of humans and the potential to meet them. For my part I found it interesting enough to quote here at length. Remember it reading visionary work the key is not to pick apart minutia but to let it inspire
“Now in the 1970s we can state an indisputable proposition of abundance of which the world power structure do not yet have dawning awareness. We can state that as a consequence of the myriad of more-with-less, invisible, technological advances of the 20th century, and employing only well-proven technologies and already mined and even more copiously recirculation materials, it is now technically feasible to retool and redirect world industry in such a manner that within 10 years we can have all of humanity enjoying a sustainable higher standard of living—with vastly increased degrees of freedom—than has ever been enjoyed by anyone in all history.
During this 10-year period we can also phase out all further use of fossil fuels and atomic energy, since the retooled world industry and individual energy need will have become completely supplied by our combined harvests of electromagnetic, photosynthetic, chemical and biological products of daily energy income initially produced by Sun and gravity. Industry, retooled from weapons production to livingry production will rehouse the developed phases of world-humans by single-humans by single family, air-deliverable, energy-harvesting, only-rentable dwelling machines. When humans are convergent, they will dwell in domed-over, moon-crater cities that will be energy-harvesting and –exporting centers rather than energy sinkholes.
All the foregoing makes it possible to say that since we now know that there is a sustainable abundance of life support and accommodation for all, it follows that all politics and warring are obsolete and invalid. We no longer need to rationalize selfishness. No one need ever again “earn a living.” Further living for all humanity is all cosmically prepaid.
Why don’t we exercise our epochal option? Governments are financed through taxation and would have no way of putting meters between the people and their directly received individual cosmic incomes. So too private enterprise should no more meter the energy than it meters the air. But all of Earthians’ present power structures—political, religious, or capitalist—would find their interests disastrously threatened by total human success. They are founded upon the assumption of scarcity: they are organized for and sustained by the problems imposed by the assumption of fundamental inadequacies of life support.
Why does not the public itself demand realization of its option for a revolution by design science? Less than one percent of humanity now knows that the option exists; 99 percent of humanity cannot understand the mathematical language of science. The people who make up that 99 percent do not know that science has ever found out is that the Universe consists of the most reliable technology. They think of technology as something new; they regard it as threatening both in terms of modern weaponry and as job-eliminating competition for their life sustaining opportunity to “earn a living.” Ergo, humanity thinks it is against technology and thinks itself averse to exercising its option
The fact that 99 percent of humanity does not understand nature is the prime reason for humanity’s failure to exercise its option to attain universally sustainable physical success on this planet. The prime barrier to humanity’s discovery and comprehension of nature is the obscurity of the mathematical language of science. Fortunately, however, nature is not using the strictly imaginary, awkward, and unrealistic coordinate system adopted by and taught by present-day academic science.”
and later
“At present 99 percent of humanity is misinformed in believing in the Malthusian concept of the fundamental inadequacy of life-support, and so they misuse their minds to develop only personal and partisan advantages, intellectual cunning, and selfishness. Intellectual cunning has concentrated on how to divorce money from true life-support wealth: second, cunning has learned how to make money with money by making it scares. As of the 1970’s muscle, guns, and intellectual cunning are ruling the world affairs and keeping then competitive by continuing the false premise of universal inadequacy of life support. If mind comes into supreme power with in the decade, humanity will exercise its option of design revolution and will enter a new and lasting epoch of physical success for all. If not it will be curtains for all humanity within this century.”
If there was truth in this statement it looks only more accurate today. Even with a population that has doubled since the 1970’s and threats of global warning and shrinking of fossil resources I think we have the potential in the next few years to pull this plane called humanity out of a nose dive.
I think that an understanding that all humans can get their needs met with the resources and technology at had is reassuring.
I don’t think that the problems we face are primarily material or technological, but I do think that addressing the question of material conditions is interrelated with the solution to perhaps more significant social issues. It is not sufficient to make food enough for everyone, distributing it is also essential. Buckminester Fuller understands this, but does not fully address it. Rich also saw this shortcoming, a 3 by 5 note-card that he left in this section of the book says,
“The unstated assumption here is that the only cause of war is scarcity of materials of natural resources, so that abundance will change all that; but are not fear of strangers and power-hunger/(thirst for power and immortality) and a sense of manifest destiny equally powerful reasons for war? If so then political solutions must still be found, to problems of sharing the knowledge and wealth with all peoples & religions answers must be sought for the problem of immortality.”
I don’t know exactly what Rich means by immortality but I do think that socialisms best hope rests on the fostering of human closeness, a closeness that does not rest on physical proximity, fondness. Call it solidarity if you wish, when humans see in others the worth and goodness that is naturally within each of us, we have the capacity to overcome what Buckminister Fuller calls the misuse of “minds to develop only personal and partisan advantages”
2 days a go I pulled the book, Synergetics 2 by Buckminster Fuller, from the Ahern Library, a collection of books residing in our garage formerly belonging to my friend Rich Ahern (now deceased). I pulled it from the shelf to practice bibliomancy, the art of randomly opening a book and reading what is there as an answer to your question. This I was doing as a party game.
Today I came to the book more seriously and read the opening section. This section was heavily underlined by my friend Rich and at the end he had written “the most potent 8 pages of modern times May 1 1981” It addresses the material needs of humans and the potential to meet them. For my part I found it interesting enough to quote here at length. Remember it reading visionary work the key is not to pick apart minutia but to let it inspire
“Now in the 1970s we can state an indisputable proposition of abundance of which the world power structure do not yet have dawning awareness. We can state that as a consequence of the myriad of more-with-less, invisible, technological advances of the 20th century, and employing only well-proven technologies and already mined and even more copiously recirculation materials, it is now technically feasible to retool and redirect world industry in such a manner that within 10 years we can have all of humanity enjoying a sustainable higher standard of living—with vastly increased degrees of freedom—than has ever been enjoyed by anyone in all history.
During this 10-year period we can also phase out all further use of fossil fuels and atomic energy, since the retooled world industry and individual energy need will have become completely supplied by our combined harvests of electromagnetic, photosynthetic, chemical and biological products of daily energy income initially produced by Sun and gravity. Industry, retooled from weapons production to livingry production will rehouse the developed phases of world-humans by single-humans by single family, air-deliverable, energy-harvesting, only-rentable dwelling machines. When humans are convergent, they will dwell in domed-over, moon-crater cities that will be energy-harvesting and –exporting centers rather than energy sinkholes.
All the foregoing makes it possible to say that since we now know that there is a sustainable abundance of life support and accommodation for all, it follows that all politics and warring are obsolete and invalid. We no longer need to rationalize selfishness. No one need ever again “earn a living.” Further living for all humanity is all cosmically prepaid.
Why don’t we exercise our epochal option? Governments are financed through taxation and would have no way of putting meters between the people and their directly received individual cosmic incomes. So too private enterprise should no more meter the energy than it meters the air. But all of Earthians’ present power structures—political, religious, or capitalist—would find their interests disastrously threatened by total human success. They are founded upon the assumption of scarcity: they are organized for and sustained by the problems imposed by the assumption of fundamental inadequacies of life support.
Why does not the public itself demand realization of its option for a revolution by design science? Less than one percent of humanity now knows that the option exists; 99 percent of humanity cannot understand the mathematical language of science. The people who make up that 99 percent do not know that science has ever found out is that the Universe consists of the most reliable technology. They think of technology as something new; they regard it as threatening both in terms of modern weaponry and as job-eliminating competition for their life sustaining opportunity to “earn a living.” Ergo, humanity thinks it is against technology and thinks itself averse to exercising its option
The fact that 99 percent of humanity does not understand nature is the prime reason for humanity’s failure to exercise its option to attain universally sustainable physical success on this planet. The prime barrier to humanity’s discovery and comprehension of nature is the obscurity of the mathematical language of science. Fortunately, however, nature is not using the strictly imaginary, awkward, and unrealistic coordinate system adopted by and taught by present-day academic science.”
and later
“At present 99 percent of humanity is misinformed in believing in the Malthusian concept of the fundamental inadequacy of life-support, and so they misuse their minds to develop only personal and partisan advantages, intellectual cunning, and selfishness. Intellectual cunning has concentrated on how to divorce money from true life-support wealth: second, cunning has learned how to make money with money by making it scares. As of the 1970’s muscle, guns, and intellectual cunning are ruling the world affairs and keeping then competitive by continuing the false premise of universal inadequacy of life support. If mind comes into supreme power with in the decade, humanity will exercise its option of design revolution and will enter a new and lasting epoch of physical success for all. If not it will be curtains for all humanity within this century.”
If there was truth in this statement it looks only more accurate today. Even with a population that has doubled since the 1970’s and threats of global warning and shrinking of fossil resources I think we have the potential in the next few years to pull this plane called humanity out of a nose dive.
I think that an understanding that all humans can get their needs met with the resources and technology at had is reassuring.
I don’t think that the problems we face are primarily material or technological, but I do think that addressing the question of material conditions is interrelated with the solution to perhaps more significant social issues. It is not sufficient to make food enough for everyone, distributing it is also essential. Buckminester Fuller understands this, but does not fully address it. Rich also saw this shortcoming, a 3 by 5 note-card that he left in this section of the book says,
“The unstated assumption here is that the only cause of war is scarcity of materials of natural resources, so that abundance will change all that; but are not fear of strangers and power-hunger/(thirst for power and immortality) and a sense of manifest destiny equally powerful reasons for war? If so then political solutions must still be found, to problems of sharing the knowledge and wealth with all peoples & religions answers must be sought for the problem of immortality.”
I don’t know exactly what Rich means by immortality but I do think that socialisms best hope rests on the fostering of human closeness, a closeness that does not rest on physical proximity, fondness. Call it solidarity if you wish, when humans see in others the worth and goodness that is naturally within each of us, we have the capacity to overcome what Buckminister Fuller calls the misuse of “minds to develop only personal and partisan advantages”
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Criminal Justice and American Crimes of Torture
This week Obama took the bold step of releasing legal memos from the Bush administration that advocated torture, that is physical and psychological pain as techniques of interrogation. When he released this information he also was clear that his administration would not prosecute anyone acting on the advice of these memos. And he would defend anyone prosecuted for such crimes. He is arguing that we need to go forward rather than looking backwards.
Most astute civil rights defenders are arguing that to go forward we must first address the crimes of the past. If we don't do that it is argued that a de facto precedent is set supporting the legitimacy of of these torture techniques. In light of present legal principals I would have to agree. international law is clear that acting on orders from a superior does not absolve an individual of guilt. I'm no lawyer but by my understanding, if individuals who were involved in torture are not investigated and brought to trial in the context of the American system of justice, then it seems that the US is condoning their actions.
Now we get to the question of the American judicial system. There are 3 arguments in favor of incarceration, Punishment for punishment sake, Punishment as deterrent, and protection and prevention. Punishment for punishment sake is of course the mind set of the torturer, we don't want to recapitulate that mentality. The general evidence from criminal justice research is that deterrence does not happen. This is true for run of the mill criminals, maybe for those involved in crimes of the state deterrence works better. I'm open to that possibility , but I don't think we have evidence to support that. Finally prevention stands as the only potential legitimate rational for incarceration. Certainly we saw many of the political criminals of the Iran Contra scandal reemerge in the second Bush administration. Perhaps the world would have been safer if they'd been thrown in jail for life. Since a president might pardon anyone convicted of torture incarceration does not guaranty prevention from future crimes.
There are two other approaches to justice, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. Certainly a clear articulation from the present administration can do much to rehabilitate those who were acting on the Bush administration memos. Their crime was the torture techniques, but they were following orders, something we assume they will continue to do. Finally this brings us to restorative justice, in restorative justice the parties involved work together to identify ways that justice can be restored. Restorative justice at the political level might follow the model from South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Of those approaches and options regarding justice I suppose I favor truth and reconciliation. But if Obama wants to focus on the future and forget past acts, perhaps this principal can be applied to the vast number of people now behind bars. Nowhere does this make more sense than for the thousands incarcerated for non-violent drug crimes. For my part I'd like to see it applied to my friend who was recently sentenced to 22 years for acts of eco-sabotage done nearly 10 years ago.
What ever I think or Obama thinks, the responsibility of perusing and prosecuting the Bush approved torture rests with Eric Holder. Mr Holder is obliged to act regardless of what president Obama wants. Time will tell if he does.
Most astute civil rights defenders are arguing that to go forward we must first address the crimes of the past. If we don't do that it is argued that a de facto precedent is set supporting the legitimacy of of these torture techniques. In light of present legal principals I would have to agree. international law is clear that acting on orders from a superior does not absolve an individual of guilt. I'm no lawyer but by my understanding, if individuals who were involved in torture are not investigated and brought to trial in the context of the American system of justice, then it seems that the US is condoning their actions.
Now we get to the question of the American judicial system. There are 3 arguments in favor of incarceration, Punishment for punishment sake, Punishment as deterrent, and protection and prevention. Punishment for punishment sake is of course the mind set of the torturer, we don't want to recapitulate that mentality. The general evidence from criminal justice research is that deterrence does not happen. This is true for run of the mill criminals, maybe for those involved in crimes of the state deterrence works better. I'm open to that possibility , but I don't think we have evidence to support that. Finally prevention stands as the only potential legitimate rational for incarceration. Certainly we saw many of the political criminals of the Iran Contra scandal reemerge in the second Bush administration. Perhaps the world would have been safer if they'd been thrown in jail for life. Since a president might pardon anyone convicted of torture incarceration does not guaranty prevention from future crimes.
There are two other approaches to justice, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. Certainly a clear articulation from the present administration can do much to rehabilitate those who were acting on the Bush administration memos. Their crime was the torture techniques, but they were following orders, something we assume they will continue to do. Finally this brings us to restorative justice, in restorative justice the parties involved work together to identify ways that justice can be restored. Restorative justice at the political level might follow the model from South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Of those approaches and options regarding justice I suppose I favor truth and reconciliation. But if Obama wants to focus on the future and forget past acts, perhaps this principal can be applied to the vast number of people now behind bars. Nowhere does this make more sense than for the thousands incarcerated for non-violent drug crimes. For my part I'd like to see it applied to my friend who was recently sentenced to 22 years for acts of eco-sabotage done nearly 10 years ago.
What ever I think or Obama thinks, the responsibility of perusing and prosecuting the Bush approved torture rests with Eric Holder. Mr Holder is obliged to act regardless of what president Obama wants. Time will tell if he does.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Supporting the Obama Agenda in questioning recent Obama administration actions.
Let’s assume that presidential candidate Obama was sincere when he spoke out against the violations of habious corpus at Guantanamo and rendition of individuals to secret prisons. Obama has also been outspoken in favor of transparency. Obama’s agenda represents the political refutation of the excesses of the Bush administration.
I’m glad that President Obama has issued orders to close the Guantanamo prison and the secret, so called black sites. Obama has taken action on transparency for instance issuing orders that FOI request be responded to with as little information withheld as possible.
Recently some positions taken by the Obama administration seem to go against habious corpus and transparency. First is the issue of the Bagram prison in Afganistan. Apparently the administration is now arguing that prisoners can be taken from other countries to Bagram, and be kept there indefinitely without due process. This is a continuation of the Bush Administrations position. A judge has ruled that the same rules that apply to Guantanamo apply to Bagram. Another point of concern is the Obama Department of Justice invoking state secrets and even creating a new term “sovereign immunity” in a case of illegal spying from the Bush Administration. Sovereign immunity virtually dismantles judicial checks on spying from the executive branch. The State Secrets Protection Act, legislation originally written by Clinton and Biden in response to Bush’s evoking of state secrets, has been reintroduced by Senators Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, and Pat Leahy.
No doubt the Obama agenda as articulated during his campaign is being challenged by the politics of the office of the presidency. I would like to have a greater insight into the pressures that push the administration away from the agenda. In the meantime supporting the State Secrets Protection Act is something we can do to support the original Obama agenda.
I’m glad that President Obama has issued orders to close the Guantanamo prison and the secret, so called black sites. Obama has taken action on transparency for instance issuing orders that FOI request be responded to with as little information withheld as possible.
Recently some positions taken by the Obama administration seem to go against habious corpus and transparency. First is the issue of the Bagram prison in Afganistan. Apparently the administration is now arguing that prisoners can be taken from other countries to Bagram, and be kept there indefinitely without due process. This is a continuation of the Bush Administrations position. A judge has ruled that the same rules that apply to Guantanamo apply to Bagram. Another point of concern is the Obama Department of Justice invoking state secrets and even creating a new term “sovereign immunity” in a case of illegal spying from the Bush Administration. Sovereign immunity virtually dismantles judicial checks on spying from the executive branch. The State Secrets Protection Act, legislation originally written by Clinton and Biden in response to Bush’s evoking of state secrets, has been reintroduced by Senators Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, and Pat Leahy.
No doubt the Obama agenda as articulated during his campaign is being challenged by the politics of the office of the presidency. I would like to have a greater insight into the pressures that push the administration away from the agenda. In the meantime supporting the State Secrets Protection Act is something we can do to support the original Obama agenda.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Words I never thought I'd hear
"We can't reduce the threat of a nuclear weapon going off unless those that possess the most nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia, take serious steps to reduce our stockpiles," These are words I never thought I'd hear from a sitting American President. Sure I never thought I'd see a non-white president, but lets judge people by the content of their character not the color of their skin. Yes, I still oppose Obama's troop build up in Afghanistan. One has to take into account that this speech was really aimed at mobilizing world leaders against North Korea. And any politicians words are only as good as the actions they translate into. But even if he wasn't serious about cutting nuclear arms by one third in the next year and eventually eliminating all nuclear weapons, the notion that we would not have a double standard regarding nuclear weapons and military threat is unimaginable up to now in US foreign policy.
I think that we in the peace movement should have a celebration over this initiative.
I think that we in the peace movement should have a celebration over this initiative.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
universal coverage vs public health
Universal medical coverage and comprehensive public health are not at odds. Each should further the goals of the other. But in thinking about policy that moves our society towards a more healthy citizenry looking at each of these goals as separate and even contrasting them may be helpful in getting direction. The tendency of the liberal left is to focus on universal coverage. I would concur that the value of society caring for all of its members is paramount. But the failure to provide comprehensive and unbiased public health education and interventions may have a greater impact on people’s health than universal access to primary, tertiary and pharmaceutical care. This post is meant as an exploration of this question, not an answer.
Public health includes many foci: Education for self care which includes information on lifestyle choices that promote decreased morbidity and increased longevity, and information on the prevention of the spread of infectious diseases. Interventions to promote a healthy environment, this includes promotion of sanitation, creation of healthy options and actions to address toxic hazards. Management of communicable infectious diseases, this can involve health screening, immunization and treatment.
Universal coverage generally includes expansion of medical coverage to everyone. While at the present virtually anyone can legally walk into an ER and be treated, this is very limited care, and even this many people avoid for fear of the bill or quality of care. Primary care is regular access to a clinician or clinic where a medical overview can be kept, sometimes called a medical home, or your regular doctor. Tertiary care includes advanced hospital care and medical procedures. Finally many don’t have access to needed pharmaceuticals. These are the major challenges of universal coverage.
Early public health problems included problems of sanitation and control of infectious disease. The role of sanitation probably has more to do with improved health statistics than any amount of medical care. World wide this is still a major problem. In the US it has generally been addressed with exceptions largely related to poverty, aging infrastructure and privatization of water systems. Successful elimination of small pox is perhaps the greatest single disease focused public health success stories. We are now only a few hundred cases away from the eradication of Polio from the planet in the same way. With greater acknowledgment of the problem and public health efforts to contain it, the HIV virus might have never spread as broadly as it has.
The major health problems facing the US today are largely chronic diseases. These diseases are rooted in problems of the dominant contemporary lifestyle. This lifestyle includes lack of physical activity, excessive and inadequate nutrition, high levels of psychological stress, and exposure to environmental poisons. Physical exercise is naturally reduced by convenience devices, not the least of which is the personal automobile, but there are ways of promoting exercise that don’t involve eliminating the car. Much could be said about the nutritious roots of chronic disease. Beyond admonishments to eat your vegetables, Americans suffer from a excess of unhealthy fats and sugar, and inadequate amounts of many essential nutrients. Most people don’t realize that the stress in their lives has costs beyond its psychological impact. Stress contributes to the metabolism that leads to obesity and the many chronic diseases that are related to it. Finally we don’t know nor can we adequately measure the effects of the thousands of new chemicals that are released into our environment every year.
Lets look at the central chronic disease complex that faces adult Americas today. At the pinnacle is heart disease, cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death in America. But Obesity and Diabetes rates are on the rise. 1/3 of Americans meet the criteria of Obesity and it is estimated on current trends that 1/3 of children born today will have diabetes in their lifetime. In 2005 the New Engalnd journal of medicine published an article indicating that although the life span for humans had consistently increased for 200 years, we are now facing a likely decrease in life expectancy. The rational for this conclusion was the rise in obesity and diabetes. Diabetes contributes to the risk of heart disease, obesity contributes to the risk of diabetes and heart disease. Together risk markers for these three medical conditions make up what is called metabolic syndrome. The likely contributing factors for metabolic syndrome include: Consumption of a diet rich in simple sugars, or what is often called glycemic load. Trans fats, artificially hardened oils that are not found in nature. Excess and unhealthy dietary fat, and unbalanced ratios of healthy fats such as the omega 3 fatty acids. Not eating enough vegetables, or a lack of adequate and diverse phytonutriants. Insufficient cardiovascular exercise. Lack of strength building exercises. Smoking and consumption of other drugs that have significant cardiovascular effects. Exposure to environmental toxins including heavy metals and zenobiotic. Stress also plays a role in the development of Metabolic syndrome.
Clinical interventions regarding these risk factors might include some brief education, a hand out, and occasional referral to further educational or behavioral change programs. In reality even the briefest education is skipped over in most clinical visits. Public health interventions could address any of these contributing factors in a wide variety of ways. I will give several example of potential public health interventions that could improve Americas nutritional habits as they relate to metabolic syndrome. This is not intended as a proposal or an endorsement, but as evidence of the power of public health interventions. Any public health intervention merits careful consideration regarding its full effects, its costs, risks and adverse consequences as well as its potential benefits.. Nonetheless many of the examples I give have been used to reduce tobacco smoking. And some are being tried regarding food.
Public education regarding healthy nutrition, such as a national add campaign, limitations on the advertising of unhealthy foods fast food chains restricted from advertising on television, or require labeling of foods with information about their health risks or benefits, food labels do have quite a bit of information but for instance information about glycemic index and glycemic load could be helpful in identifying healthier carbohydrates. Taxing or preventing the sale of food substances or additives, new york city for instance has moved to stop the sale of trans fats within the city, mandating a variety of food options in a given area, one city in California has placed limits on the number of fast food places that can operate in a specific community. Promote research to further develop our understanding the role of improper nutrition in the development of metabolic syndrome. Cut subsides to corn which is a subsidy to high fructose corn syrup and to the cattle industry. Instead, subsidies the growth of garden vegetables. If the USDA is correct that a significant number of Americans diets are deficient of several essentials nutrients including vitamins A, C and B complex, calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc to name a few, providing discounted or even free multi vitamins might have major heath benefits. Establish national broccoli day. The possible public health actions one might imagine are unlimited.
Public health interventions are of course limited by corporate political pressure. For instance, a recent major study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that red meat consumption associated with increased mortality. It is unlikely that that the cattle industry will let this information work its way into America’s public health policy
Nonetheless, my premise is that public health measures are better for providing preventive medical care, universal coverage provides improved quality of disease management and care. When thinking about individuals and their health and suffering I think that prevention may be more important than disease management.
Let me offer two scenarios: In the first case there is universal coverage, everyone gets insurance as good as those in congress have, but chronic disease rates continue to clime. The second scenario involves public health measures that result in substantial reduction in chronic disease rates but coverage continues at it’s present levels. Lets look at these scenarios in terms of mortality and morbidity, morbidity being a measure of ongoing physical disability and suffering. Scenario one might result in a shorter life expectancy for many, perhaps some who had not been insured but had become insured might live longer than they would have. But if the JAMA article is correct chronic disease would likely overwhelm those gains. In scenario two we might see people on the whole living longer although those with out insurance would not get care that might help them to live longer in certain circumstances. Disability and suffering is much the same. Chronic disease brings with it morbidity, health care can mitigate but not eliminate morbidity. Public health can not make all disease go away and those with out full access to medical care suffer more. One might think of it as a trade off suffering of those who don’t have insurance or suffering of those who will get a preventable chronic illness. I think it is possible that life expectancy would be longer and more suffering would be eliminated by instituting reasonable measures to reduce preventable chronic diseases than by providing universal access.
From a strictly utilitarian standpoint public health may win out. But principal of fairness and equality also need to be considered. At first glance it may be the working poor who suffer most if coverage is not extended to all, but the burden of chronic disease is not spread evenly, it too has a class bias against the poor. One might think that this is just due to coverage but we see the same pattern in countries with universal health coverage.
There are serious issues related to the government taking a heavy hand in directing lifestyle choices, particularly when the government so often represents corporate interests.
Finally cost is a complex issue beyond the realm of this post.
This post is speculative, I don’t have the facts or numbers to back up a case for greater public health over universal coverage, and I hope it isn’t a choice one or the other.
Public health includes many foci: Education for self care which includes information on lifestyle choices that promote decreased morbidity and increased longevity, and information on the prevention of the spread of infectious diseases. Interventions to promote a healthy environment, this includes promotion of sanitation, creation of healthy options and actions to address toxic hazards. Management of communicable infectious diseases, this can involve health screening, immunization and treatment.
Universal coverage generally includes expansion of medical coverage to everyone. While at the present virtually anyone can legally walk into an ER and be treated, this is very limited care, and even this many people avoid for fear of the bill or quality of care. Primary care is regular access to a clinician or clinic where a medical overview can be kept, sometimes called a medical home, or your regular doctor. Tertiary care includes advanced hospital care and medical procedures. Finally many don’t have access to needed pharmaceuticals. These are the major challenges of universal coverage.
Early public health problems included problems of sanitation and control of infectious disease. The role of sanitation probably has more to do with improved health statistics than any amount of medical care. World wide this is still a major problem. In the US it has generally been addressed with exceptions largely related to poverty, aging infrastructure and privatization of water systems. Successful elimination of small pox is perhaps the greatest single disease focused public health success stories. We are now only a few hundred cases away from the eradication of Polio from the planet in the same way. With greater acknowledgment of the problem and public health efforts to contain it, the HIV virus might have never spread as broadly as it has.
The major health problems facing the US today are largely chronic diseases. These diseases are rooted in problems of the dominant contemporary lifestyle. This lifestyle includes lack of physical activity, excessive and inadequate nutrition, high levels of psychological stress, and exposure to environmental poisons. Physical exercise is naturally reduced by convenience devices, not the least of which is the personal automobile, but there are ways of promoting exercise that don’t involve eliminating the car. Much could be said about the nutritious roots of chronic disease. Beyond admonishments to eat your vegetables, Americans suffer from a excess of unhealthy fats and sugar, and inadequate amounts of many essential nutrients. Most people don’t realize that the stress in their lives has costs beyond its psychological impact. Stress contributes to the metabolism that leads to obesity and the many chronic diseases that are related to it. Finally we don’t know nor can we adequately measure the effects of the thousands of new chemicals that are released into our environment every year.
Lets look at the central chronic disease complex that faces adult Americas today. At the pinnacle is heart disease, cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death in America. But Obesity and Diabetes rates are on the rise. 1/3 of Americans meet the criteria of Obesity and it is estimated on current trends that 1/3 of children born today will have diabetes in their lifetime. In 2005 the New Engalnd journal of medicine published an article indicating that although the life span for humans had consistently increased for 200 years, we are now facing a likely decrease in life expectancy. The rational for this conclusion was the rise in obesity and diabetes. Diabetes contributes to the risk of heart disease, obesity contributes to the risk of diabetes and heart disease. Together risk markers for these three medical conditions make up what is called metabolic syndrome. The likely contributing factors for metabolic syndrome include: Consumption of a diet rich in simple sugars, or what is often called glycemic load. Trans fats, artificially hardened oils that are not found in nature. Excess and unhealthy dietary fat, and unbalanced ratios of healthy fats such as the omega 3 fatty acids. Not eating enough vegetables, or a lack of adequate and diverse phytonutriants. Insufficient cardiovascular exercise. Lack of strength building exercises. Smoking and consumption of other drugs that have significant cardiovascular effects. Exposure to environmental toxins including heavy metals and zenobiotic. Stress also plays a role in the development of Metabolic syndrome.
Clinical interventions regarding these risk factors might include some brief education, a hand out, and occasional referral to further educational or behavioral change programs. In reality even the briefest education is skipped over in most clinical visits. Public health interventions could address any of these contributing factors in a wide variety of ways. I will give several example of potential public health interventions that could improve Americas nutritional habits as they relate to metabolic syndrome. This is not intended as a proposal or an endorsement, but as evidence of the power of public health interventions. Any public health intervention merits careful consideration regarding its full effects, its costs, risks and adverse consequences as well as its potential benefits.. Nonetheless many of the examples I give have been used to reduce tobacco smoking. And some are being tried regarding food.
Public education regarding healthy nutrition, such as a national add campaign, limitations on the advertising of unhealthy foods fast food chains restricted from advertising on television, or require labeling of foods with information about their health risks or benefits, food labels do have quite a bit of information but for instance information about glycemic index and glycemic load could be helpful in identifying healthier carbohydrates. Taxing or preventing the sale of food substances or additives, new york city for instance has moved to stop the sale of trans fats within the city, mandating a variety of food options in a given area, one city in California has placed limits on the number of fast food places that can operate in a specific community. Promote research to further develop our understanding the role of improper nutrition in the development of metabolic syndrome. Cut subsides to corn which is a subsidy to high fructose corn syrup and to the cattle industry. Instead, subsidies the growth of garden vegetables. If the USDA is correct that a significant number of Americans diets are deficient of several essentials nutrients including vitamins A, C and B complex, calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc to name a few, providing discounted or even free multi vitamins might have major heath benefits. Establish national broccoli day. The possible public health actions one might imagine are unlimited.
Public health interventions are of course limited by corporate political pressure. For instance, a recent major study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that red meat consumption associated with increased mortality. It is unlikely that that the cattle industry will let this information work its way into America’s public health policy
Nonetheless, my premise is that public health measures are better for providing preventive medical care, universal coverage provides improved quality of disease management and care. When thinking about individuals and their health and suffering I think that prevention may be more important than disease management.
Let me offer two scenarios: In the first case there is universal coverage, everyone gets insurance as good as those in congress have, but chronic disease rates continue to clime. The second scenario involves public health measures that result in substantial reduction in chronic disease rates but coverage continues at it’s present levels. Lets look at these scenarios in terms of mortality and morbidity, morbidity being a measure of ongoing physical disability and suffering. Scenario one might result in a shorter life expectancy for many, perhaps some who had not been insured but had become insured might live longer than they would have. But if the JAMA article is correct chronic disease would likely overwhelm those gains. In scenario two we might see people on the whole living longer although those with out insurance would not get care that might help them to live longer in certain circumstances. Disability and suffering is much the same. Chronic disease brings with it morbidity, health care can mitigate but not eliminate morbidity. Public health can not make all disease go away and those with out full access to medical care suffer more. One might think of it as a trade off suffering of those who don’t have insurance or suffering of those who will get a preventable chronic illness. I think it is possible that life expectancy would be longer and more suffering would be eliminated by instituting reasonable measures to reduce preventable chronic diseases than by providing universal access.
From a strictly utilitarian standpoint public health may win out. But principal of fairness and equality also need to be considered. At first glance it may be the working poor who suffer most if coverage is not extended to all, but the burden of chronic disease is not spread evenly, it too has a class bias against the poor. One might think that this is just due to coverage but we see the same pattern in countries with universal health coverage.
There are serious issues related to the government taking a heavy hand in directing lifestyle choices, particularly when the government so often represents corporate interests.
Finally cost is a complex issue beyond the realm of this post.
This post is speculative, I don’t have the facts or numbers to back up a case for greater public health over universal coverage, and I hope it isn’t a choice one or the other.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Be the stimulus you want to see in the world
The economic state of the world is nothing if not unsettling these days. But unsettling is not always entirely bad. I don't negate the suffering of those out of work, the anxiety of those who might soon be, and the discomfort of those who's retirement has grown uncomfortable. For many of us our lives go on with minimal change except an awareness of the depth of the situation. But first what is the problem we face.
At it's extreme we could be watching the end of growth capitalism. Peak Oil and other resource limits playing out. The economist Herman Daly talk about steady state economics, what does he mean by this? Certainly steady state doesn't work with capitalism as we know it. Growth is a central element of capitalism. Capitalists get very unhappy when their capital does not grow. But some assume that natural resources like cheep and abundant fossil fuel are what has allowed for growth. What if these resources are no longer so plentiful?
Perhaps we are just in a slow down in capitalism but given time to correct it will start up again. This could be bad like the great depression or another year of recession and we're back on our feet. in this case the key is stimulus by any means.
In the first scenario, solutions might range form in the streets revolution, to relocalization of the economy, to new structures we haven't yet imagined. The second scenario suggests taking what ever actions that best maintain ones personal resources during the crises, but whatever best promotes economic activity at large. This raises a paradox is often observed by economic pundits. At the individual level saving makes sense but saving keeps the economy from moving forward.
So facing various paths before us and various interests and goals what actions can we take as individuals? My answer is be the stimulus you want to see in the world. Let me spell out an example. If you are like me a home owner and have any extra money spending it on weatherization, and if that is done as much as you can, invest in home energy systems, solar hot water systems, photovoltaic arrays, even home wind systems. This approach, like saving will offer financial returns, many weatherization efforts have a payback period of only a couple years or less. Green rehabilitationg will also be an economic stimulus, spurring economic activity in areas we would like to grow. the main clue I get from Herman Daily about what he means by steady state economics is the distinction between economic growth, and economic development. Growth is more development is better. Green energy improvements are clearly a positive development.
On the other hand if your unemployed what might you do? To be the stimulus you want means taking initiative, There are plenty who are unemployed from the building trades such people are well suited for transitioning to green housing work. My own experience from working in a house painting collective is that we made better wages than those who worked for a company. (I did that work during the early 80's the time that present unemployment rates are being compared to.) Another do it yourself employment opportunity that I think a small group of people with just a little capital could start would be a compact florescent canvas. Spend a day knocking on doors in wealthy neighborhoods canvasing for money to provide compact florescent light bulbs to low income people. Then do exactly that with the funds you raise. Helping the poor and the environment at the same time. I can't speak about other communities, but in a liberal town like Ann Arbor I think there is room for another canvas.
These quickly outlined ideas are just to suggest that there are proactive approaches that may be worthwhile is the economy resumes its course or if we start anew. Even under revolutionary situations creating real wealth is beneficial, work collectives and door to door canvases are potential proto revolutionary organizations of work and community organizing. on the other hand if they just move along the material conditions of the moment, and reduce the contribution to global warming that's meaningful as well. I not trying to be prescriptive. My point is that creativity can be directed from individual and grassroots action to stimulate a new direction.
At it's extreme we could be watching the end of growth capitalism. Peak Oil and other resource limits playing out. The economist Herman Daly talk about steady state economics, what does he mean by this? Certainly steady state doesn't work with capitalism as we know it. Growth is a central element of capitalism. Capitalists get very unhappy when their capital does not grow. But some assume that natural resources like cheep and abundant fossil fuel are what has allowed for growth. What if these resources are no longer so plentiful?
Perhaps we are just in a slow down in capitalism but given time to correct it will start up again. This could be bad like the great depression or another year of recession and we're back on our feet. in this case the key is stimulus by any means.
In the first scenario, solutions might range form in the streets revolution, to relocalization of the economy, to new structures we haven't yet imagined. The second scenario suggests taking what ever actions that best maintain ones personal resources during the crises, but whatever best promotes economic activity at large. This raises a paradox is often observed by economic pundits. At the individual level saving makes sense but saving keeps the economy from moving forward.
So facing various paths before us and various interests and goals what actions can we take as individuals? My answer is be the stimulus you want to see in the world. Let me spell out an example. If you are like me a home owner and have any extra money spending it on weatherization, and if that is done as much as you can, invest in home energy systems, solar hot water systems, photovoltaic arrays, even home wind systems. This approach, like saving will offer financial returns, many weatherization efforts have a payback period of only a couple years or less. Green rehabilitationg will also be an economic stimulus, spurring economic activity in areas we would like to grow. the main clue I get from Herman Daily about what he means by steady state economics is the distinction between economic growth, and economic development. Growth is more development is better. Green energy improvements are clearly a positive development.
On the other hand if your unemployed what might you do? To be the stimulus you want means taking initiative, There are plenty who are unemployed from the building trades such people are well suited for transitioning to green housing work. My own experience from working in a house painting collective is that we made better wages than those who worked for a company. (I did that work during the early 80's the time that present unemployment rates are being compared to.) Another do it yourself employment opportunity that I think a small group of people with just a little capital could start would be a compact florescent canvas. Spend a day knocking on doors in wealthy neighborhoods canvasing for money to provide compact florescent light bulbs to low income people. Then do exactly that with the funds you raise. Helping the poor and the environment at the same time. I can't speak about other communities, but in a liberal town like Ann Arbor I think there is room for another canvas.
These quickly outlined ideas are just to suggest that there are proactive approaches that may be worthwhile is the economy resumes its course or if we start anew. Even under revolutionary situations creating real wealth is beneficial, work collectives and door to door canvases are potential proto revolutionary organizations of work and community organizing. on the other hand if they just move along the material conditions of the moment, and reduce the contribution to global warming that's meaningful as well. I not trying to be prescriptive. My point is that creativity can be directed from individual and grassroots action to stimulate a new direction.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Comments on Obamas talk to congress
I have listened to Obama probably more than any other mainstream politician. Some of this comes from the nature of Obama's politics. Some of it comes from the youtube phenomena. I was able to listen to his address to congress about an hour after he gave it.
I found his speech only occasionally informative. mostly covering an agenda already familiar to me,and describing a state of the world only too familiar to most of us.
If we had an opportunity to act on his speech, say go out an vote for him, it might have been inspiring. (more on that later). But as the president describing what legislation and policy would do, hoping is now replaced with waiting. Will things work out as we hope?
Let me turn to specifics of his speech:
* The recovery package, will save or protect jobs we are told. And surely it will compared with doing nothing, or only cutting taxes for the rich. But the economy is still shrinking. We don't know how bad it will get or how long it will last.
* The credit crunch is perpetuating the down turn, and the banks seem unwilling to loosen lending. Obama indicated that further funds will be needed for the banks, funds beyond what has already been allocated. This is disappointing not only because the greater price tag, but also because his administration won't consider nationalizing the banks. If as some economists claim the big banks are already essentially bankrupt propping them up is just chasing bad money with good. taking over the banks would allow the government to at least keep the banks functional.
* Budget transparency was on Obama's agenda. This is good but claims about bringing down the federal debt are only guess work. Remember that any calculations about this were made by economists, remember how well they predicted the stock bubble of the 1990's and the housing bubble we just watched pop? A legitimate question is what if the economy doesn't get going again? Peek Oil might be a reason it wouldn't get started again. Oil prices are down because of the recession but the recession may have been effected by oil prices. If the economy gets going oil prices will shoot up even more and this will just put breaks on the economy.
* The president has set out energy goals that are optimistic. Renewable energy includes, bio-fuel, Hydro-electric, Geothermal wind, solar, wood and waste last year that amounted to about 10% of our energy needs. over 60 % of that comes from wood and hydroelectric, but these have been the slowest growing sectors in the past 10 years possibly even shrinking. they are unlikely to grow much in the next few years. Bio-fuel has grown by a factor of 6 in the past 10 years, wind energy production has increased by a factor of 15. For these growth sectors, wind and biofuel to grow at a rate that would double total renewable energy in three years they would each have to nearly triple their output each year.
*Obama recommitted to addressing Health care this year, but here he was perhaps most vague. Sort of the I'll form a committee approach. Unless the insurance racket , and big Pharm are controlled you can reshuffle the deck all you want but the cards will be the same. Mark Hyman MD will be testifying before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions tomorrow, he says he intends to tell congress that "we must change not only the WAY we do medicine, but also the medicine we DO." I think he is right but will anyone be listening? Part of the different medicine we need to do is focusing more on public health oriented interventions (I'll be posting on that in a separate post soon).
*Around education Obama set a goal that I hadn't heard before. "by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world." I'm all in favor of a greater focus on education, but this we're # 1 crap is a mistake. There is no value in being better than others. The goals we should have are just being the best we can be. On education he called on every American to pursue at least one year of college, and he reiterated the importance of individuals turning off the TV. (more on this below).
*Regarding the middle east the message was wait and see, we're reviewing and will soon present our position on Iraq and Afghanistan & Pakistan. Well Afghanistan deserves a longer discussion, but I'm certainly not pleased with the additional troops sent there a few days ago.
OK its not perfect but there are some good goals, can they be obtained? A growing economy frees up resources to do things like address our environmental problems but a growing economy creates environmental problems too. some of how this balance will play out depends on our choices. both our collective choices, policy choices, and our individual choices. Similarly our health care costs are a reflection of our health choices. Obama made a personal appeal to citizens around education, an appeal for direct action, actions that individuals can take that can make a difference in the bigger picture, we should apply the principle of direct action to health care and energy issues. Here we get back to the notion of a movement to change America that is larger than Obama or his administration. Change happens through direct action, in this case it could be the action of weatherizing a house, or switching to compact florescent lights. it could be getting regular exercise and eating right as a step towards health care reform. So I think Obama's speech was important only as a preamble to a call for action.
I found his speech only occasionally informative. mostly covering an agenda already familiar to me,and describing a state of the world only too familiar to most of us.
If we had an opportunity to act on his speech, say go out an vote for him, it might have been inspiring. (more on that later). But as the president describing what legislation and policy would do, hoping is now replaced with waiting. Will things work out as we hope?
Let me turn to specifics of his speech:
* The recovery package, will save or protect jobs we are told. And surely it will compared with doing nothing, or only cutting taxes for the rich. But the economy is still shrinking. We don't know how bad it will get or how long it will last.
* The credit crunch is perpetuating the down turn, and the banks seem unwilling to loosen lending. Obama indicated that further funds will be needed for the banks, funds beyond what has already been allocated. This is disappointing not only because the greater price tag, but also because his administration won't consider nationalizing the banks. If as some economists claim the big banks are already essentially bankrupt propping them up is just chasing bad money with good. taking over the banks would allow the government to at least keep the banks functional.
* Budget transparency was on Obama's agenda. This is good but claims about bringing down the federal debt are only guess work. Remember that any calculations about this were made by economists, remember how well they predicted the stock bubble of the 1990's and the housing bubble we just watched pop? A legitimate question is what if the economy doesn't get going again? Peek Oil might be a reason it wouldn't get started again. Oil prices are down because of the recession but the recession may have been effected by oil prices. If the economy gets going oil prices will shoot up even more and this will just put breaks on the economy.
* The president has set out energy goals that are optimistic. Renewable energy includes, bio-fuel, Hydro-electric, Geothermal wind, solar, wood and waste last year that amounted to about 10% of our energy needs. over 60 % of that comes from wood and hydroelectric, but these have been the slowest growing sectors in the past 10 years possibly even shrinking. they are unlikely to grow much in the next few years. Bio-fuel has grown by a factor of 6 in the past 10 years, wind energy production has increased by a factor of 15. For these growth sectors, wind and biofuel to grow at a rate that would double total renewable energy in three years they would each have to nearly triple their output each year.
*Obama recommitted to addressing Health care this year, but here he was perhaps most vague. Sort of the I'll form a committee approach. Unless the insurance racket , and big Pharm are controlled you can reshuffle the deck all you want but the cards will be the same. Mark Hyman MD will be testifying before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions tomorrow, he says he intends to tell congress that "we must change not only the WAY we do medicine, but also the medicine we DO." I think he is right but will anyone be listening? Part of the different medicine we need to do is focusing more on public health oriented interventions (I'll be posting on that in a separate post soon).
*Around education Obama set a goal that I hadn't heard before. "by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world." I'm all in favor of a greater focus on education, but this we're # 1 crap is a mistake. There is no value in being better than others. The goals we should have are just being the best we can be. On education he called on every American to pursue at least one year of college, and he reiterated the importance of individuals turning off the TV. (more on this below).
*Regarding the middle east the message was wait and see, we're reviewing and will soon present our position on Iraq and Afghanistan & Pakistan. Well Afghanistan deserves a longer discussion, but I'm certainly not pleased with the additional troops sent there a few days ago.
OK its not perfect but there are some good goals, can they be obtained? A growing economy frees up resources to do things like address our environmental problems but a growing economy creates environmental problems too. some of how this balance will play out depends on our choices. both our collective choices, policy choices, and our individual choices. Similarly our health care costs are a reflection of our health choices. Obama made a personal appeal to citizens around education, an appeal for direct action, actions that individuals can take that can make a difference in the bigger picture, we should apply the principle of direct action to health care and energy issues. Here we get back to the notion of a movement to change America that is larger than Obama or his administration. Change happens through direct action, in this case it could be the action of weatherizing a house, or switching to compact florescent lights. it could be getting regular exercise and eating right as a step towards health care reform. So I think Obama's speech was important only as a preamble to a call for action.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Marie Mason
Last Thursday my friend Marie Mason received a sentence of 22 years in prison for an act of sabotage against genetically modified organism (GMO) research 9 years ago. This is the longest sentence given to any eco-activist doing time in the US. I am sad about this extreme sentence and I am hopeful that it will be shortened in the pending appeal.
For more information about Marie and her case: http://supportmariemason.org/
For more information about Marie and her case: http://supportmariemason.org/
Monday, February 2, 2009
a groundhogs day leter (the personal is political)
02/02/2008
Dear Friends
February 2nd comes around again, so again I am writing my annual Groundhogs day comments. We a re already a month and a half from the solstice, and equally far from the solar calendars marking of spring.
This letter will include a bit of my life, and then my thoughts on the world.
My life:
A year ago I started a new job, working with a doctor with a holistic practice with a focus that I usually refer to as nutritional medicine. The basic approach of what we do is two fold. We identify and try to eliminate nutritional problems such as food allergies, microbial overgrowths, and poor dietary patterns and choices. We also recommend natural and generally nutrient based supplements that support our patients' internal biological processes. This approach is often called functional medicine. We are an integrative practice, meaning that we also use conventional medications when it makes sense. OK that's not all that we do but it gives you an accurate general picture. The job has been a thrill in terms of all I have learned and am still learning.
My family is strong. Beth and I work well with each other and our love continues to deepen. The struggle is finding time together alone. Teo is now in first grade and Zev is in third grade, they both attend the city's "open school". It's not exactly Summerhill, http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/ but the students do get to make choices about their studies, and generally our kids like it. As the boys grow their personalities also flourish. There was a time when I couldn't tell if differences between them were just related to differences in age, but more and more I appreciate their unique personalities and interests. That said, they are still such good friends, and they both amaze me some times with their kindness to each other and to others.
I continue to enjoy my close association with the cooperative house next door. We share cooking and meals, and meetings, and community. Coop living reminds me that utopia is a constant dinner party. I often live close to utopia.
My year was punctuated by what are becoming somewhat regular events. I had the good fortune to attend 3 co-counseling workshops including a trip to New York and a trip to Vermont (co-counseling http://www.cci-usa.org/ is a peer based emotional support process that I have been involved with for several years now). In November our family went to the demonstration against the School of the Americas http://www.soaw.org/type.php?type=8 at Fort Benning in Georgia. This is an annual action to try to close Americas military training camp for Latin American military personal who too often go on to commit atrocities against their people. Since my parents and sister live in Atlanta the trip is also a good opportunity to visit them.
I went to seminars in San Antonio, in Pittsburg. If I'm going to tally up all my travels, I was in Toledo on Election Day, helping Obama take Ohio. This year included more travel than typical for me.
I was modestly involved with the Obama Campaign, in addition to dragging a couple of friends to Toledo to knock on door, I registered a handful of people to vote, shuffled some papers for canvassing packets and did some door knocking in Ann Arbor to clarify where likely Obama voters lived.
This fall I've found my way a bit more on to the internet. In November I started to blog http://gaiaonpolitics.blogspot.com/ I'm trying to post something every week or so. The energy the blog takes probably exceeds the influence it has, but it's a good way to work on my writing. I always enjoy when people comment on my blog, so if your there leave your two cents. I've also started playing around with facebook. (if your on facebook but not connected to me, please look me up)
The World:
Things are not really improving yet but at least the potential for things to improve has improved.
I worked (to the extent that I did) to get Obama elected so that we would again have a US president who would listen to progressive perspective, and so that grassroots political action would again have some force.
In this first few weeks of the new administration some good thing have happened perhaps most important an order to close Guantanamo and the secrete CIA prisons. But the order hasn't been carried out yet. We will get plans from the generals regarding withdrawal from Iraq, and a man known to successfully negotiate peace is now the US Middle East Special envoy. Again encouraging but still peace is not yet here. It's hard to imagine that the US will change it's relationship to Israel, last year funding the Israeli military at 2.4 billion dollars. It's scheduled to increase to 3.1 billion in the next 10 years http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf . At least a more engaged policy will likely cut down of the violence. Some bad things have continues, for instance, drone planes attacking Pakistan, this being particularly troubling because it continues a policy of preemptive attacks. War is the greatest moral scourge that we face.
At what point does a recession become a depression? And how much can a stimulus packet do? I am glad that there are some funds for green energy, medical record technology may improve the quality of care, and certain infrastructure work is probably worthwhile. I'm not in favor of lots of road work. We need to be moving away from our car and long distance transport oriented culture. While financial approaches to help forestall the mortgage crisis will help people in need, I'd rather see legal approaches to preventing foreclosures. However one chooses to describe our economy it represents the greatest immediate challenge that we face.
I still hold to the understanding that in the big picture the two biggest problems we humans face are the running down of liquid fuel related to peak oil production http://www.postcarbon.org/ and global climate change. As we pass the point of maximum oil production most of the assumptions of modern society will need to be reworked. It is hard to imagine that we will be able to have an economy that continues to assume unlimited growth (and in turn ongoing profits from that growth) since cheep fuel has been the lynch pin for perpetual growth. Those expecting profits will try various destructive strategies. They will try to extract more from the poor, those least able to defend themselves, and to turn to all other energy sources including coal. Coal, of course, contributes to global warming (if clean coal technology is anything more than science fiction it is still costly, and no strategy for profit maximization.)
Solutions may be available, the question is implementation. For instance wind power is an increasingly hopeful alternative energy source but present global production of wind energy amounts to about 1.5 percent of the worlds total electricity production. It has increased by about 30% every year for the last 10 years. By one scenario 50% of the world electricity could be generated by renewable sources by 2017 http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=224&Itemid=40 . And then there is the need for an electric vehicle fleet…
Politically the capital of the US is not the only place were progressive governments are on the rise. Two days ago Bolivia approved a new constitution by popular vote re establishes water access as a right, and gives national control to natural resources (Bolivia holds over half of the worlds lithium, needed for lithium ion batteries). Amazingly, Obama has congratulated Bolivia for the passing of this constitution.
Yesterday I went to a meeting of grassroots community activists discussing the situation in Gaza. What was inspiring about the meeting was the sense that again there was space for activist movements to grow.
There are also structural forces that oppose change, but even they are changing. Chaos can be the prelude to an emerging, at first hardly perceivable system that is growing up along side the collapsing monolith. Change can some times happen quickly. Problems persist, but we can begin to vision a better world, yes another world is possible, increasingly more possible, and in that things look much more promising.
With love and growth,
Gaia
Dear Friends
February 2nd comes around again, so again I am writing my annual Groundhogs day comments. We a re already a month and a half from the solstice, and equally far from the solar calendars marking of spring.
This letter will include a bit of my life, and then my thoughts on the world.
My life:
A year ago I started a new job, working with a doctor with a holistic practice with a focus that I usually refer to as nutritional medicine. The basic approach of what we do is two fold. We identify and try to eliminate nutritional problems such as food allergies, microbial overgrowths, and poor dietary patterns and choices. We also recommend natural and generally nutrient based supplements that support our patients' internal biological processes. This approach is often called functional medicine. We are an integrative practice, meaning that we also use conventional medications when it makes sense. OK that's not all that we do but it gives you an accurate general picture. The job has been a thrill in terms of all I have learned and am still learning.
My family is strong. Beth and I work well with each other and our love continues to deepen. The struggle is finding time together alone. Teo is now in first grade and Zev is in third grade, they both attend the city's "open school". It's not exactly Summerhill, http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/ but the students do get to make choices about their studies, and generally our kids like it. As the boys grow their personalities also flourish. There was a time when I couldn't tell if differences between them were just related to differences in age, but more and more I appreciate their unique personalities and interests. That said, they are still such good friends, and they both amaze me some times with their kindness to each other and to others.
I continue to enjoy my close association with the cooperative house next door. We share cooking and meals, and meetings, and community. Coop living reminds me that utopia is a constant dinner party. I often live close to utopia.
My year was punctuated by what are becoming somewhat regular events. I had the good fortune to attend 3 co-counseling workshops including a trip to New York and a trip to Vermont (co-counseling http://www.cci-usa.org/ is a peer based emotional support process that I have been involved with for several years now). In November our family went to the demonstration against the School of the Americas http://www.soaw.org/type.php?type=8 at Fort Benning in Georgia. This is an annual action to try to close Americas military training camp for Latin American military personal who too often go on to commit atrocities against their people. Since my parents and sister live in Atlanta the trip is also a good opportunity to visit them.
I went to seminars in San Antonio, in Pittsburg. If I'm going to tally up all my travels, I was in Toledo on Election Day, helping Obama take Ohio. This year included more travel than typical for me.
I was modestly involved with the Obama Campaign, in addition to dragging a couple of friends to Toledo to knock on door, I registered a handful of people to vote, shuffled some papers for canvassing packets and did some door knocking in Ann Arbor to clarify where likely Obama voters lived.
This fall I've found my way a bit more on to the internet. In November I started to blog http://gaiaonpolitics.blogspot.com/ I'm trying to post something every week or so. The energy the blog takes probably exceeds the influence it has, but it's a good way to work on my writing. I always enjoy when people comment on my blog, so if your there leave your two cents. I've also started playing around with facebook. (if your on facebook but not connected to me, please look me up)
The World:
Things are not really improving yet but at least the potential for things to improve has improved.
I worked (to the extent that I did) to get Obama elected so that we would again have a US president who would listen to progressive perspective, and so that grassroots political action would again have some force.
In this first few weeks of the new administration some good thing have happened perhaps most important an order to close Guantanamo and the secrete CIA prisons. But the order hasn't been carried out yet. We will get plans from the generals regarding withdrawal from Iraq, and a man known to successfully negotiate peace is now the US Middle East Special envoy. Again encouraging but still peace is not yet here. It's hard to imagine that the US will change it's relationship to Israel, last year funding the Israeli military at 2.4 billion dollars. It's scheduled to increase to 3.1 billion in the next 10 years http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf . At least a more engaged policy will likely cut down of the violence. Some bad things have continues, for instance, drone planes attacking Pakistan, this being particularly troubling because it continues a policy of preemptive attacks. War is the greatest moral scourge that we face.
At what point does a recession become a depression? And how much can a stimulus packet do? I am glad that there are some funds for green energy, medical record technology may improve the quality of care, and certain infrastructure work is probably worthwhile. I'm not in favor of lots of road work. We need to be moving away from our car and long distance transport oriented culture. While financial approaches to help forestall the mortgage crisis will help people in need, I'd rather see legal approaches to preventing foreclosures. However one chooses to describe our economy it represents the greatest immediate challenge that we face.
I still hold to the understanding that in the big picture the two biggest problems we humans face are the running down of liquid fuel related to peak oil production http://www.postcarbon.org/ and global climate change. As we pass the point of maximum oil production most of the assumptions of modern society will need to be reworked. It is hard to imagine that we will be able to have an economy that continues to assume unlimited growth (and in turn ongoing profits from that growth) since cheep fuel has been the lynch pin for perpetual growth. Those expecting profits will try various destructive strategies. They will try to extract more from the poor, those least able to defend themselves, and to turn to all other energy sources including coal. Coal, of course, contributes to global warming (if clean coal technology is anything more than science fiction it is still costly, and no strategy for profit maximization.)
Solutions may be available, the question is implementation. For instance wind power is an increasingly hopeful alternative energy source but present global production of wind energy amounts to about 1.5 percent of the worlds total electricity production. It has increased by about 30% every year for the last 10 years. By one scenario 50% of the world electricity could be generated by renewable sources by 2017 http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=224&Itemid=40 . And then there is the need for an electric vehicle fleet…
Politically the capital of the US is not the only place were progressive governments are on the rise. Two days ago Bolivia approved a new constitution by popular vote re establishes water access as a right, and gives national control to natural resources (Bolivia holds over half of the worlds lithium, needed for lithium ion batteries). Amazingly, Obama has congratulated Bolivia for the passing of this constitution.
Yesterday I went to a meeting of grassroots community activists discussing the situation in Gaza. What was inspiring about the meeting was the sense that again there was space for activist movements to grow.
There are also structural forces that oppose change, but even they are changing. Chaos can be the prelude to an emerging, at first hardly perceivable system that is growing up along side the collapsing monolith. Change can some times happen quickly. Problems persist, but we can begin to vision a better world, yes another world is possible, increasingly more possible, and in that things look much more promising.
With love and growth,
Gaia
Sunday, January 25, 2009
a campaign promess worth breaking
The new administration deserves appreciation for some of its initial actions. It is great progress that Obama has decisively declared an end to torture, that he has committed to close Guantanamo and all of the CIA’s secret prisons. Obama’s commitment to opening up the Freedom of information process is also positive. His instruction to the pentagon to draw up plans for removing troops from Iraq is a good first step. I’m even willing to be hopeful about the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East. All this seems in keeping with campaign promises.
Unfortunately there is one campaign promises Obama seems to be keeping that is a foreign policy boon dog. On the 23rd of January a drone plane flew into Pakistan and killed at least 15 people, possibly an al Qaeda leader, but also at least 3 children. Continuing these attacks was in keeping campaign statements he made. When debating McCain he said, “if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.” In my opinion this position is wrong, and this recent strike was wrong for several reasons: 1) Although governments think they have the right to kill, killing is murder. 2) Collateral damage is another term for killing innocent people, in this case at least 3 children 3) Invading Pakistan like this is not good for building relations with the Pakistani government.4) Extrajudicial assassinations make the kangaroo courts of Guantanamo look like paragons of justice. Finally 5) what this act amounts to is a continuation of the Bush policy of preemptive military action.
The Bush doctrine of preemptive attack undermines the previously prevailing consensus regarding rules of international conflict. If preemptive attacks are justified then any government can claim that their initiation of violence was actually preemptive, an attempt to protect against attack. This was the argument for invading Iraq and has been used in discussions of possible attacks on Iran. Al Qaeda of course is the ultimate boogie man, and it will be argued that since we are in war with al Qaeda we have to strike them wherever they are. But when we strike inside of a country with out that countries approval it is an attack on that country.
This principle of preemptive action can be borrowed and widely spread. I recently read a debate about who first broke the cease fire that led to the recent invasion of Gaza by Israel, but who started it is no longer the question governments have to ask since preemptive actions can be justifiable. This kind of argument makes a difficult situation even worse. As the lone superpower in the world other nations look to the U.S. for the standards of international behavior. Until the Bush doctrine is overturned virtually any military action can be justified.
It is important for those of us working for a less violent world to push Obama to reject the Bush doctrine. This will mean that he will have to go back on that one campaign promise.
Many who want peace are delighted that Obama is in office and the general direction he is moving in. I share that general pleasure. Nonetheless this does not mean that our work is done, rather our work is cut out for us. One of the most refreshing traits of Baraq Obama is that he does listen to people. Now more than anytime that I can recall, our voices do have the potential to be heard. Yes things are better, but here is one area where we need to work for more, we need to demand the braking of a campaign promise.
Unfortunately there is one campaign promises Obama seems to be keeping that is a foreign policy boon dog. On the 23rd of January a drone plane flew into Pakistan and killed at least 15 people, possibly an al Qaeda leader, but also at least 3 children. Continuing these attacks was in keeping campaign statements he made. When debating McCain he said, “if the United States has al Qaeda, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.” In my opinion this position is wrong, and this recent strike was wrong for several reasons: 1) Although governments think they have the right to kill, killing is murder. 2) Collateral damage is another term for killing innocent people, in this case at least 3 children 3) Invading Pakistan like this is not good for building relations with the Pakistani government.4) Extrajudicial assassinations make the kangaroo courts of Guantanamo look like paragons of justice. Finally 5) what this act amounts to is a continuation of the Bush policy of preemptive military action.
The Bush doctrine of preemptive attack undermines the previously prevailing consensus regarding rules of international conflict. If preemptive attacks are justified then any government can claim that their initiation of violence was actually preemptive, an attempt to protect against attack. This was the argument for invading Iraq and has been used in discussions of possible attacks on Iran. Al Qaeda of course is the ultimate boogie man, and it will be argued that since we are in war with al Qaeda we have to strike them wherever they are. But when we strike inside of a country with out that countries approval it is an attack on that country.
This principle of preemptive action can be borrowed and widely spread. I recently read a debate about who first broke the cease fire that led to the recent invasion of Gaza by Israel, but who started it is no longer the question governments have to ask since preemptive actions can be justifiable. This kind of argument makes a difficult situation even worse. As the lone superpower in the world other nations look to the U.S. for the standards of international behavior. Until the Bush doctrine is overturned virtually any military action can be justified.
It is important for those of us working for a less violent world to push Obama to reject the Bush doctrine. This will mean that he will have to go back on that one campaign promise.
Many who want peace are delighted that Obama is in office and the general direction he is moving in. I share that general pleasure. Nonetheless this does not mean that our work is done, rather our work is cut out for us. One of the most refreshing traits of Baraq Obama is that he does listen to people. Now more than anytime that I can recall, our voices do have the potential to be heard. Yes things are better, but here is one area where we need to work for more, we need to demand the braking of a campaign promise.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
babble of homophobes
With Days until inauguration I'll share my thoughts on the pick of Rich Warren. Many on the left have been upset by the selection of Rick Warren to dive the invocation at Obama's Inauguration. I think he is a much better choice than many of Obamas actual appointments. All of his major foreign policy and economic advisers are from the right wing of the movement that got him elected.
Obama should at least have one progressive economist on his team, someone not trained by Robert Rubin. The logical choice would be Dean Baker, the only economist I know of who predicted a housing bubble at least a couple years before the burst.
In foreign policy there is no obvious choice because of the institutional set up that rewards macho. the people we would really want would all be rejected, but he could have found someone who had real and outspoken doubts about the war for a position other than administering the VA. Shinseki was described by the media as a repudiation of the Iraq war by Obama, but he isn't in a place to advise on policy. Our best hope for progress would be the development of a department of peace.
But back to the inauguration and Warren, this is an excellent position to offer to someone to is anti abortion, and homophobic. The culture wars have seen these wedge issues used to elect Republicans again and again. The symbolic hand reached out to across the cultural divide does a lot to undermine elections won on wedge issues, and costs nothing in policy. Policy of course is what we care about regarding reproductive choice and gay rights. The real question on this front is not who will give the invocation but who will Obama appoint when there are openings on the supreme court.
Obama should at least have one progressive economist on his team, someone not trained by Robert Rubin. The logical choice would be Dean Baker, the only economist I know of who predicted a housing bubble at least a couple years before the burst.
In foreign policy there is no obvious choice because of the institutional set up that rewards macho. the people we would really want would all be rejected, but he could have found someone who had real and outspoken doubts about the war for a position other than administering the VA. Shinseki was described by the media as a repudiation of the Iraq war by Obama, but he isn't in a place to advise on policy. Our best hope for progress would be the development of a department of peace.
But back to the inauguration and Warren, this is an excellent position to offer to someone to is anti abortion, and homophobic. The culture wars have seen these wedge issues used to elect Republicans again and again. The symbolic hand reached out to across the cultural divide does a lot to undermine elections won on wedge issues, and costs nothing in policy. Policy of course is what we care about regarding reproductive choice and gay rights. The real question on this front is not who will give the invocation but who will Obama appoint when there are openings on the supreme court.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
A tale of two demos
Last week I attended two demonstrations about the situation in Gaza. The divergence between these two demonstrations reflects the fissures that run through the peace movement in Ann Arbor. This unhealed wound is bleeding what might otherwise be a vibrantly active local peace movement.
The first demonstration was on Saturday afternoon in front of the Federal building, It was attended by about a half a dozen activists who I have known for years. Friends I’ve known since the first gulf war, Some of these activist have held vigil on this street corner for several years now. The crowd maybe maxed at 75 people. It was timely, happening only days after the Israeli bombing started. The chants were loud and militant, many of the signs critiqued Zionism. One chant I could not join in with was “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free.” This chant is a call for the elimination of the state of Israel. I do not agree with the policies of Israel but still essentially acknowledge its right to exist.
The second demonstration was a candlelight vigil on Main st last Thursday. This was sponsored by Interfaith Counsel for Peace and Justice “ICPJ” the local interfaith peace group and Michigan Peaceworks the “big” peace organization in town. I did less of a head count here because my son Zev was with me, but there were about 100 to 150 people attending this vigil. The most common signs at this vigil were calling for a cease fire. Since it was available I held one of these signs, but with Gaza under siege a cease fire is not enough.
Long standing conflicts have existed between many of the activists who were at the first rally and the ICPJ and Michigan Peaceworks organizers. ICPJ and Michigan Peaceworks have been critiqued for failing to take certain positions about Israel and Palestine. There is even a group that calls itself “ICPJ Middle East Task fore in exile.” I don’t know if anyone other than me attended both the first rally and the vigil. Prior to the candle light vigil someone sent an email asking for volunteers to bring large signs so they could stand in front of signs that were deemed unpalatable to the public. I heard that some activists promoted a boycott of the vigil in response to this. Conflict abounds.
I know people on both sides who are deeply dedicated to working for a more just and peaceful world. I think both sides have important things to offer to that struggle. Unfortunately the conflict makes activists on both sides less effective. Those who want peace and a better life for the people in Gaza, when divided, will be conquered.
I would urge my comrades on all sides of this issue to hold out hope for developing a working consensus. Correct ideology alone has never changed anything. Change comes from action and nothing is more powerful than the action of people working together. Consensus does not need to mean agreement on positions or ideology, but consensus suggests that all voices are heard and that the best solution to a problem may be found by working through differences.
The first demonstration was on Saturday afternoon in front of the Federal building, It was attended by about a half a dozen activists who I have known for years. Friends I’ve known since the first gulf war, Some of these activist have held vigil on this street corner for several years now. The crowd maybe maxed at 75 people. It was timely, happening only days after the Israeli bombing started. The chants were loud and militant, many of the signs critiqued Zionism. One chant I could not join in with was “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free.” This chant is a call for the elimination of the state of Israel. I do not agree with the policies of Israel but still essentially acknowledge its right to exist.
The second demonstration was a candlelight vigil on Main st last Thursday. This was sponsored by Interfaith Counsel for Peace and Justice “ICPJ” the local interfaith peace group and Michigan Peaceworks the “big” peace organization in town. I did less of a head count here because my son Zev was with me, but there were about 100 to 150 people attending this vigil. The most common signs at this vigil were calling for a cease fire. Since it was available I held one of these signs, but with Gaza under siege a cease fire is not enough.
Long standing conflicts have existed between many of the activists who were at the first rally and the ICPJ and Michigan Peaceworks organizers. ICPJ and Michigan Peaceworks have been critiqued for failing to take certain positions about Israel and Palestine. There is even a group that calls itself “ICPJ Middle East Task fore in exile.” I don’t know if anyone other than me attended both the first rally and the vigil. Prior to the candle light vigil someone sent an email asking for volunteers to bring large signs so they could stand in front of signs that were deemed unpalatable to the public. I heard that some activists promoted a boycott of the vigil in response to this. Conflict abounds.
I know people on both sides who are deeply dedicated to working for a more just and peaceful world. I think both sides have important things to offer to that struggle. Unfortunately the conflict makes activists on both sides less effective. Those who want peace and a better life for the people in Gaza, when divided, will be conquered.
I would urge my comrades on all sides of this issue to hold out hope for developing a working consensus. Correct ideology alone has never changed anything. Change comes from action and nothing is more powerful than the action of people working together. Consensus does not need to mean agreement on positions or ideology, but consensus suggests that all voices are heard and that the best solution to a problem may be found by working through differences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
