The List: Yes. No. What?

+YES+
+Ellen Goodman's piece on the Bush "No Regrets Tour." He doesn't worry about history in the short term. He doesn't worry about history in the long term. That's because he has people telling him who the good historians are--see Condi Rice below.

+A simpler Christmas and Holiday season, aided and abetted by a Pacific Northwest snowfall.

+Dan Rather making gains on his $70 Million lawsuit against CBS, which seems to be leading to the conclusion that a) the president did pressure CBS and b) CBS caved to the pressure on the Abu Ghraib story.


-NO-
-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggesting that we will soon thank Bush, and when "Asked about historians who say Bush is one of the worst presidents, Rice said those "aren't very good historians." on CNN.com. Yes, because historians aren't normally trained to look back at things and compare them... they just must be bad ones.

-Lexus commercials for reliving your childhood Christmases by delivering a car to your loved one. 1) these commercials have always been ridiculous, and 2) they are just crass at a time when I have spoken with so many people who have simplified and realized how little they miss all the "stuff."

-Dick Cheney on torture on The Moderate Voice.com “Did it produce the desired results? I think it did…it’s been a remarkably successful effort. I think the results speak for themselves.” Yes, we don't have those bothersome principles to stand up for anymore...


?What?
?Evangelist Joel Osteen's blank stares on Larry King's interview with him, when he was asked about gay marriage, and the article in Newsweek contesting the conservative right's interpretation of it. He claimed to not really have looked into the issue of gay marriage (but he can still oppose it), had not read the article, and indeed, almost seemed to be unaware that there was a printed media outside of his own media circle.

?The Madoff pyramid scheme and the losses to people who should know better. What happened to all of the advice about diversifying your accounts so that you didn't lose everything. Goes to show, once again, that greed trumps common sense when deregulation is the mantra. Does this give you faith in privatizing social security for everyone? Of course it does...

?Obama buddy Axelrod on Rick Warren's presence at inauguration as a "healthy thing." Unless you happen to believe in equal rights, not discriminating, or think that there is such a thing as a kinder, gentler homophobia...

?Chip Saltsman, what are you thinking? "The Magic Negro"? "Star Spanglish Banner"? Who knew that the RNC "big tent" would be back, but for bigots... Must have been going for Colin Powell's vote.

The American Dream, and Stuff...

The New York Times story on the Bush Administration's stoking of the mortgage bonfire demonstrates a couple of interesting points about home ownership in the United States. The first is the fact that there is no "market" when it comes to housing, if you are deregulating and advocating policies that convince more people to borrow beyond their means when it comes to a mortgage. While it is a complete hypocrisy within conservative thought, to believe in a market but toy with the conditions that regulate it, it is not limited to them. The lack of a broad range of ideas regarding property ownership, which excludes everything from Libertarian to Marxist thought, suggests that the only viable parties buy in on this notion of encouraging home ownership at the expense of reasonable consideration of debt.

The other major flaw in this thinking is that it is also a policy that leads us in pursuit of more "stuff." Jerry Seinfeld, when he was first a stand-up comedian used to do a bit on how we got our "stuff," and how often we did not know what our "stuff" was, or how we got our "stuff." The mortgage bonfire, as the NYT calls it is the ultimate example of a focus on consumerism and materialism. The Bush administrations policy, in complicity with both political parties, focused on living out the American Dream through the things we have rather than the relationships we cultivate with friends and family. Instead of making home ownership a possible outcome of the American Dream, it was made a goal of it, and like Seinfeld, we wake up with a stuff hangover that then leads us to ask, as the president is quoted as saying, "How did we get here?"

It is refreshing to see many families focusing on spending time together, doing things with one another, rather than accumulating more stuff. It would be great to see more people considering their spending more consciously, all the way up to and including home ownership. The American Dream should be about the quality of our relationships in our communities and the world, not merely focused on the material world.

Obama and Rick Warren--inclusiveness versus vision

Gay rights activists are upset at the inclusion of Rick Warren for the inauguration, to which the Obama camp replies that they are seeking inclusiveness, and they are reaching out. This is where the future Obama administration needs to distinguish between inclusiveness versus laying out a progressive vision. The choice of Warren is a problem, because it is suggesting that inclusiveness is vision, which it is not.

The United States, especially since the McCarthy era, has demonstrated a notable lack of inclusiveness, discussion over wide-ranging ideas, and a willingness to consider and debate ideas from the left and from the right. That millions of Americans can not only hear about, but actually believe that Obama is a socialist, displays an astounding lack of understanding of what anything remotely on the left stands for, in terms of policy. While this may seem like an unrelated, I would argue the contrary. At this point, U.S. politics has been so devoid of intelligent debate from left, right and center, that we mistake inclusiveness for vision.

Warren can be included by being invited to the inauguration as a guest. However, acknowledging his ideas (which as a Christian, I myself find impossible to get to his oddly split-personality decision) is much different from laying out the the path Obama believes we should take. The use of Warren is not "inclusive," it is tacit approval of his position. Have him there, but then show Warren, Americans everywhere and the world that you have a different and more progressive way of looking at the world; you do this by having someone who is acceptable to the gay community and to those who are supporters of the gay community.

So now we are left to wonder; is Obama really just being inclusive, or is this just a muddled vision?

The List: Yes. No. What?

+YES+
+The World Wildlife Fund's criticism of Brazil's plan for the Amazon. Losing Amazonian forest in chunks the size of Rhode Island is not a plan.

+Jon Stewart's brilliant interview with Mike Huckabee on gay marriage. He goes to the main points incisively, and Huckabee ducks, dodges, and never answers.

+Not often I agree with the Vatican on bioethics, but yeah, don't send in the clones...


-NO-
-The Bush administration's theocratic move eliminating mandatory scientific input for decisions made about federally protected wildlife. Brilliant. Now we should eliminate lawyers from consulting on legal decisions, economists on the economy, and sociologists on social issues. Wait, the last one already happens...

-Voting down an auto deal because you hate the UAW, as southern senators appear to have done. Way to stay focused, keep the salient issues on the front burner. It's those pesky organized laborers that got us into this mess anyway, isn't it...? All cars are designed from the assembly line up... The UAW is not who needs to be watched.

-The brilliant plan to fight abortion by defunding Planned Parenthood, as reported on Slate.com's William Saletan on his blog Human Nature. Planning parenthood would be a natural deterrent to abortion, wouldn't you think?


?What?
?Oregon's own Linn County School Board 3-3 split on whether or not to keep the "Bunny Suicides" in the library. It's like they're neither dead nor alive, just in limbo; what to do... You do have to wonder about the quality of life in Halsey, Oregon, at the moment.

?This should be a "no," but with corruption so blatant, it just defies imagination--how brilliant was Blagojevich? "Are you tapping my phones now? How about now? What if I spoke to someone about selling a senate seat now? What about if I threaten a children's hospital?"

?...And then there was Blago's lovely philanthropic wife cheerleading in the background... Although I have heard "F*ck the Cubs" from Cubbies fans...

Freaky Friday

America's long-term short-term problem strikes again. According to a report from NYSE reporters there was a strong uptick in sales on Black Friday, one of many U.S. days dedicated to consumption. The article talked about how $41 Billion dollars over the Thanksgiving weekend, up over 7 percent from the previous year. How is it that this is possible, as people stare down the barrel of one of the worst recessions in U.S. history?

One of the problems has to do with the fact that we are so focused on consumerism; Rostow (The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto Cambridge University Press, 1960) suggested that this is the highest form of economic development. Whilemuch has been written on economic development since then, I would argue that few concepts have become so ingrained in U.S. economic policy, as well as in our popular culture. One indication of this was the push from the Bush administration after 9-11 to convince people to continue spending, literally as an act of patriotism.

Recently we had friends up from Habitat for Guatemala, and they spoke about how the impact of the problematic global economy is immediate in Guatemala--doubling transportation prices, increased food prices and increased housing costs. People have had to respond immediately to transportation problems, or have suffered right away from increases in food costs. Luis Samoya, Director of HFH openly wondered when we would see the impacts of the recession, while he was already seeing it in Guatemala.

Two things are notable here. First, we live so well that we can be in denial longer than countries who have weaker economies. By this I do not mean that we live within our means, but our expectations are that we can continue to live beyond our means, and that things will eventually get better--even as we see people losing their jobs. One of the quotes I saw on television was (paraphrasing) "that since things were going to get bad, now was the time to get as much cheap stuff as possible on Black Friday." Americans do not have an economic cushion, we do not save enough, but we have a reality cushion which seems to prevent us from acting for long-term good.

We also have economic measures that continue to focus on short-term consumption as being necessarily good. Housing starts, short-term worker productivity, home sales, car sales, buying goods, etc. (and the list goes on) all are ways of measuring how well we are doing according to consumption. In the mid-90s, a group of economists began using an adjusted, Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI)
as a way to include other measures of well-being into our thinking, rather than just focusing on GDP as our measure of economic well-being. You have to wonder, if we were using more of these indicators of the quality of life in our society, such as credit for volunteerism and housework, leisure time, encouraging lower environmental degradation and pollution, would spending on more things on Black Friday be important?

We need to a) decide what a good life is, and b) be willing to make conscious and proactive changes in how we reach those goals, rather than salivating like Pavlov's dog the minute Black Friday comes along every year.

America's Long-term Short-term problem

After paying over four dollars a gallon, the economy going into the tank (literally) and an election that was partially fought on the future of energy policy, you would think that it was time to do things differently in our use of resources. We now have the Big Three auto makers pleading for dollars to keep them afloat; you would think that it is irreversible, but not to fast.

Suddenly, oil prices drop and gas prices go down. All of a sudden there are questions about whether or not we can "afford" to implement some of the policies advocated by those concerned about the environment (including Obama) unless oil prices are high. That is what it takes to be economically viable and "worth" it. This highlights one of the major issues that we have in the United States, not that of economic viability, but the belief that somehow long-term solutions are not worth it unless we have short-term reasons to do the right thing.

In the late 1950s and 1960s Oscar Lewis and others introduced the notion of "the culture of poverty" (1959), which he thought characterized the poor, and prominently among them was the idea of an inability to defer gratification. In 1965 Daniel Patrick Moynihan publishes the now (in)famous Moynihan Report, applying this theory to Black subcultures. These ideas have widely been critiqued and discredited by sociologists and anthropologists, and appropriately so. I would argue further, however, that not only is short-term thinking not a characteristic of the poor, it is actually a characteristic of our dominant culture.

So, basically, we cannot make progress on clean energy, which also gets us off oil dependency, unless it can be sufficiently profitable over another form of energy. Our resolve to do the right thing has to last longer than just during the period of discomfort we feel while gas prices are high. We also need to stop listening to experts who suggest that it is only the market that drives alternative energy in the short-term, rather than long-term viable solutions. One of the major barriers to energy transition is that we need to move beyond the idea of short-term profitability in favor of long-term viability.

The nearing collapse of the U.S. car industry demonstrates the poverty of logic that the industry will do what is best to be profitable. Profitable companies look to the future and make changes which ensure long-term viability and sustainability, but the Not-So-Big Three have long focused on trying to avoid changes. Corporations need to learn that when you sacrifice the longer and sustainable view for short-term, non-sustainable profit, you will lose.

The List: Yes. No. What?

+YES+
+Obama backing the need to address environmental concerns. Yep, it's called science.

+The idea of using an auto bailout to force the big three to make the cars we need, and have needed, for the past 40 years.


-NO-
-Newt Gingrich, the healer. The guy who institutionalized run-you-over-with-a-Hummer, Contract On (sic) America politics now tells us the politics of the past few years can't work.

-Minnesota Nice Elections. Wow. Just, WOW. Hot dish, anyone?

-Bad Karma Award to Ted Stevens International Airport-Anchorage. This is your crash-landing alert...


?What?
?Treasury Secretary Paulson--"Mr. Paulson acknowledged that he had the authority to use bailout money for homeowners, but he insisted that the money should go toward “investment” in financial institutions rather than “spending” on rescue efforts." (NYT) It's called bait and switch, but a nice view into the what is seen as the root of the problem--not helping those who suffered from the Ponzi scheme, but helping out the people who made the mess.

?Nebraska, home of family values. Like dogs getting suspicious about trips to the vet, "Mommy and Daddy want to take the family out for a drive" has new meaning in the Mid-West...

Neo Can't Save Us

For nearly three decades liberalism has had a bad name, beginning with Reagan and ending with Bush II. Even during the Clinton years, Liberalism was a word rarely uttered. As we come to the end of the Bush administration and the transition to the Obama administration, the belief now is that conservatism is dead or misguided or at fault for the problems we currently have. The blame lies not with liberalism or conservatism, but with neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism.

Liberalism, with its roots in the Enlightenment, suggests that through civil society more can be done for the citizen. It is a voice, however narrowly defined and constrained and biased toward Western-European notions of progress; the focus is one that is pro-active and aspires to assessing what is best for its citizens and then delivering upon that assessment. In one of its worst versions it has been associated with the civilization-barbarism dichotomy, in much of Latin America leading to the “second conquest” of the 1800s where the remaining indigenous peoples were dispossessed of their remaining lands. In its finer sense, however, it is forward-looking, it’s sponsors suggest that there is a way forward that is better than what we have in front of us.

On the other hand Conservatism, while having roots in elitism and royalist tendencies, also has its relative merits. Although there are deep concerns with keeping power structures as they are, which was a critique of early liberals, post-modernists suggest that the effects of liberalism (and later modernism) are not all that different if the voices advocating change are from the some basic food groups of people. Conservatism does have its upsides, in that he urges for thoughtful consideration of change, and asks questions of rampant change that is produced culturally and technologically. There is a pragmatic assessment that is part of conservatism that suggests that not all change is necessarily good.

In short, despite concerns with both liberalism and conservatism, their failures are actually better indicators of what I would call, “the human capability to screw up a good theory.” Nowhere is this more evident than in the successor movements of the neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. Each strip the vestiges of reason (amazing, for liberalism!) and humanity out of their respective theoretical frameworks and applies a steamroller approach to their opponents. Neo-liberalism suggests that modernization must be supported at all costs, and in effect institutionalizes what was previously a by-product of liberalism; anyone who does not want to be a part of the system is seen as opting out of progress and citizenship as defined by the elites.

Neo-conservatives on the other hand, as one looks at the work of the neo-cons in Washington, institutionalizes a globalized approach to the creation of international royalty. It strips out the careful consideration of change in favor of maintaining political power and it sacrifices deliberation for justifying the neo-con ends by using any means required. Begun during the Reagan administration with Libya, then Bush I in the Persian Gulf, then Clinton in Kosovo, then Bush II in Iraq, and so on, the United States has pursued a policy of justifying it’s what is convenient to maintaining its power, as opposed to working in consultation with otheres. Thus, combined with the skewed world view that suggests one model of development (neo-liberalism), we find ourselves in a decision-making (neo-conservative) mode of making it happen regardless of justification.

At the end of the day, this is why the United States has become a United States which has favored guarding its personal sandbox of power, as opposed to leading from a democratic and ethical moral high ground. We can, and should be, greater than that. What we should learn from our history is that any theory or system, stripped of a process that questions itself, can be twisted into a mirror image assault on its original form. The process is what counts in determining what is democracy, liberalism, and conservatism, not a system, which as Eisenhower warned, becomes consumed with its own perpetuation…

Fear Itself

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" -Franklin D. Roosevelt

Roosevelt spoke these words to reassure a nation that was sliding into a prolonged economic depression, but these words are also relevant today, although perhaps for different reasons. An undercurrent of the past election campaign, and part of the post-election buzz, is quite literally that of fear. There is fear that Obama will discriminate against Whites, and there is fear and uncertainty over "what" his election means. My own daughters experience this, since they go to school in a place that is quite conservative. There is fear and uncertainty the range from discrimination to the idea that he is a Muslim. It is easy to dismiss these fears, since on the face of it, Obama has neither shown a disposition toward such behavior, nor is he a Muslim (nor should it matter). That being said, it is important to understand where these fears come from.

This is where we need to think of ourselves as a nation, and our trajectory over the past 30 years. Following Carter, who upset people by asking the people of the United States of America to look closely at themselves, the choice was made to look at others. Through our popular and political culture we have created two enemies-the other and each other. The former came in the shape of the fear of the soviets, then Arabs, then extremist Muslims; all seen as a common enemy against we could easily discriminate.

At the same time, we also saw a creation of another enemy--the American who disagrees with us. Beginning with the Reagan administration, but following a thread through every subsequent president, Democrat or Republican, has been a willingness to alienate and run over those with whom we disagree. This was accentuated in the mid-90s, and then came together in one big patriotic bash following 9-11.

So what is the consequence of this? The consequence is that when we discriminate against a whole people, or when we are willing to run each other out of political parties in internecine conflicts, we eventually come to fear that very thing being done to us. It is not that people see actual evidence of an Obama administration doing this to them nor are they imagining it being done to them. No, it is that they have lived it, done, carried it out, and can only imagine what it would feel to be on the end of those same actions. They themselves have provided the concrete model for that which they fear the most.

The fear itself becomes the spark for more fear, and the only a strong counter-dialogue of action may counter it. Words and ideas will not be sufficient, because they are not powerful enough to contradict the reality which has been constructed which has inscribed on our daily lives, on our daily relationships with one another. What we fear is each other at the moment, and it will take time to work out "dies diu".

Post-Election Republicrats

It will be interesting to see what the shape of the Republican "re-tooling" takes over the coming months. Neo-con Bill Kristol made the argument last week that a McCain victory would help "liberalism," among other things, and be a cause for both Democrats and Republicans to rejoice (Hey Liberals...), but now the discussion turns to where they go from here. Undoubtedly, Kristol and others will be making the case that the mistake was going with McCain in the first place, and that Palin will help recapture the true essence of conservative thought, and therefore the vote. The case will be an interesting one to watch. Poll after poll seemed to suggest that the choice of Palin was a drag on McCain, and yet the argument will have to be made on how she is now the most qualified to lead, following a long period of cultivation--longer than most people think, according to the New Yorker's Jane Mayer (Palin: Insider).

We will have to wait and see which pig gets the lipstick, since moderate Republicans like Colin Powell will be making the case that the opposite is the problem; the Republican party has been too divisive. Ever since the Newt Gingrich era in the mid-90s, the Republican party had specifically suggested that it had the high ground and was willing to not only use it against democrats, but it chased moderates out who did not toe the line. Even moderates like Gordon Smith, now locked in a battle at the moment in Oregon, have voted consistently with the party line. The price has been too high to do otherwise on any significant issues.

The Democratic victory is an historic one, but the reaction and debate among the Republicans will be almost as fascinating to watch from now on.

Trip down south to Guaymí, Térraba and Borúca tribes went well. On the way, delivered books to a school for Guaymí, and visited with people from different tribes.

Ron and Jeff delivering books by horseback to Villa Palacios, Guaymí.

Pedro Bejarano, an important figure in Guaymí, along with grandaughter listening.


Bridge over river near Guaymí village.

Guaymí women in traditional "Mother Hubbard" dress crossing bridge.

Boruca mask carver.

maleku, sarapiquis, costa rica, CEDIA

Ron with member of Maleku Tribe

The main path down the middle of the Maleku palenque of Tonjibe.


Maleku carver. First time we have seen carving of "totems".

Ron and Jorge at work in the musuem in Sarapiqui where CEDIA's items are exhibited. Below, one of the panels of Guaymí mastate (barkcloth) art, which we just put up at the museum.

back from Maleku

Ron and I spent a couple of days up in San Rafael Guatoso, mainly hanging out in Tonjibe. Yesterday we had quite the adventure, after taking a taxi out in the early morning, we spent half the day talking with people and waiting for Leonidas, a friend, to show up from town. They have built a new area for tourists and masks, carvings, etc., and we waited until about 2 for him to show. After spending some time with him, we found out that the last bus leaves at 1, and one returns at 4, but then the driver stays in Tonjibe. So, we wound up walking back to the highway (about 7 kilometers) and thinking we would for sure find some kind of a taxi. It was raining pretty good, and we trudged to the highway, then back to Guatoso--not a single taxi in sight. It was a good 2.5 hours hike, and about 10 miles or so, part of it in the dark on a narrow hwy. Heard howler monkeys along the way, and it was good to see the lights of Guatoso and have a beer after the long and wet haul back. But, we did make it, all though with the feet a bit sore. Back in San Jose tonight after a bus ride.

maleku, costa rica, indigenous

We are catching the bus(es) to San Rafael Guatuso, which is closer to the Nicaraguan border. Ron and I will speak with a couple of Maleku leaders and others in local communities. We will head up today and spend a couple of days there, returning either Thursday or Friday, depending on how things go. The Maleku are one of the more acculturated tribes of Costa Rica, having nearly been wiped out by rubbertappers starting in 1940s, they are now reduced to three palenques or small towns. Ron is especially curious about their art, since they seem to be paying attention to the Boruca success with masks and starting to craft some rudimentary masks of their own.

Costa Rica--Blue Jeans Frog and Superman

Back in San Jose, after a great time in Monte Verde, and a couple of days at the Arenal Volcano area. Judy and Hannah got to ride horses, and Miriam and I went on the zip lines again (see Miriam doing "Superman" below. Tomorrow we will be in downtown San Jose, and then on Saturday Judy and family fly back to Oregon, Kathy to California. Just a couple of dings here and there--Hannah has a toe that will need looking at, and Mom/Bestma managed to get one hand in the window and roll it up with the other, creating quite a nice cut.



Blue Jeans Frog up at Monte Verde


Mom and Kathy at Sofias, recommended by Joel and Dave

Judy and Hannah out riding


Violet Sabrewing Hummingbird picture taken by Miriam

Miriam. Is. Superwoman!

costa rica, monte verde

Here are some pictures from the Monte Verde area, which we leave tomorrow morning. In between dumping thunderstorms, we have managed to have a lot of fun, today making it out to the frog pond and back to the reserve. One bummer is the huge mall that is going up between Monte Verde and Santa Elena--hard to believe that people think that is a good idea.

Bestma, Aunt Kathy and Judy on the Monte Verde Reserve trail.

The family at the Sapo Dorado reserve which Joel and Dave recommended. Mauricio, the guide, was great, and much better than the one we had at the coast. Saw the Emerald Toucanet (below) there:


Hummingbirds at Monte Verde.

Emerald Toucanet.
Miriam on the zipline, which she loved!

monte verde RAIN forest

We are currently in Monte Verde rain forest area. Yesterday went to the reserve itself and saw capuchin monkeys, Bestema and Kathy saw a two-toed sloth, and we had great hikes. The stopped off at a co-op that I went to last time with Ron and Jorge for some coffee, and the womens´ cooperative nearby.

Today we did the touristy zip-lines, canopy walks, etc., and had a blast. Miriam especially loved the zip-lines, and we also did insect museum and butterfly exhibit. Not able to get pictures up at the moment, but will try to in the next couple of days. It has been pouring rain now and again, and the lightening makes things iffy for working on electronics. At the end of the tour today we got so wet that I had water running into my shoes and could not have been more wet if I had been thrown in the pool.

esterillos beach pics

Here are some artsy pictures from the beach yesterday.

Croc Day on the Tárcoles River

Today we went up the Tárcoles River to see wildlife and the crocodiles, including an insane guy who feeds them. We didn't think that that was actually part of the trip, but then he hops out. The big one is a croc that is about 18 feet long, and considered the largest in Central America. The other is one of the largest females. Terrific amount of wildlife, including birds and iguanas as well.

punta esterillos

Well, after spending four hours yesterday sitting in a car line and waiting to cross two bridges that have been washed out between her and Quepos, we decided not to do that again. So, today we spent our time with Joel and Dave at the beach. We did some Boogie Boarding, and basically hun out, which turned out to be a lot of fun.

Playa Esterillos

We made it to San Jose, and spent the night there, in a nice hotel VERY nearby to the airport--some of the planes take off and fly directly over the street. The next day we rented the car, a few hours late, and then made it to Playa Esterillos late afternoon. Quite a few stops and starts, but then we had some time with Brother Joel and his boyfriend Dave.

Today we went down to the Quepos and hung around the beach. We are going to a reserve tomorrow and hope to see more.

off to costa rica

We are off to Costa Rica tomorrow, first to the coast to meet up with Joel and Dave, and then to Monte Verde Cloud Forest, and then north. Then I will be working with colleagues Ron and Jorge doing some interviews until my return on August 11.