the end of poverty, pt.1

Just finished reading The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs. First off, it was at the same time an inspiring and an infuriating read; in fact, I'm sure it was meant to be so. The foreign aid and world poverty situation is absolutely unnecessary, and relatively easy to solve; this makes the topic itself infuriating. But very few people are aware of the facts, and even differing opinions on the issues, and the ones that do have too many other concerns, bureaucratic obstacles, and idealistic differences to create true change. I'm not going to sit here and repeat everything he says either, and I have my skepticism as to the volition of Americans and other rich countries to give their money to the poorest of the poor, as well as to their citizen's goodwill at the expense of their own wealth (this includes me, but now I feel like I need to do something... ...wow, sad that I need a kick in the butt too). But I do agree that this is a solvable issue. Sachs says the whole can be solved with foreign aid given to state governments, who must submit a plan of action to the UN, and be supervised by its agencies on the field. The argument is that monetary aid to individuals, or private program aid, does not solve the problems of the countries in any sustainable manner; these are merely stopgap or localized measures. Commendable, to be sure, but they don't solve all of the problems.

Foodies

So it seems the food crisis keeps getting worse, and all people can talk about is stopping biofuels. How about we give these people some food, and raise our own? No, that would be too much of a sacrifice. Maybe if we tell some state governments (Haiti, for example) to spread their wealth, while giving them some monetary aid to do so? No, that would be hypocritical and would take funds away from the iraq war. Take away subsidies from American farmers, to even out the playing field and create an actual free market? No, that would be unpatriotic. Send over farming technologies that these people can easily learn how to use but cannot afford? Nah, we would probably need the "wonderful efficiency" of biofuels to transport that and people forced us to stop making them...riiight.
Well, I think it's timeour governments make some actual sacrifices. Or else we'll be the only ones left standing. Maybe that's less of a burden on our shoulders. Since we've done all we can, there's no reason to feel guilty, right?

Earth Day!

Earth Day is upon us, and while I usually gloss over holidays, occasions, and anniversaries, I feel this one is specifically noteworthy, especially considering the need for a global shift in environmental policy. I'm not incredibly radical in this issue, not going so far as saying we all have to completely change the way we eat, produce, supply, or live. At least not yet, maybe. I think. We do have to begin making changes that are easier and simple, while making some bigger strides in our personal/community lives. But organizing on local, regional, and global scales has become a necessity.
Political action is crucial to resolving, or even making strides towards resolving, our ecological issues; here our old friend explains why.
More than changing the exposure politicians give to environmental issues, or invoking the participation of the US in international environmental agreements, the politicization of this "agenda" will lead to better public transportation, transit laws, alternative energy funding, zoning/code changes to allow more green roofs and urban gardens. These and other political moves will set up an infrastructure of progress and sustainability, from which people will comfortably change the way they live. But then the question becomes: if people are not willing to change the way they live within the status quo, why would they fight to create a situation for change? There's less personal investment necessary in the latter, I would argue, and it is almost universally accepted that a crisis is at hand. Some people have no sense of urgency about the situation, some people are just plain selfish, while others just don't know what to do about it. What needs to happen is that those of us with some more information about the situation need to take positions of leadership on all scales (local, regional, global), and share this information. Figure out how to give someone a personal stake, an immediate interest in the situation. We need to find out how to best petition our political representatives to make sure they include the environment on their agenda. We must insert global warming and other environmental issues into the presidential and other political campaign dialog. We must to mobilize the global citizenry to alter the course of the world. Every day shall be Earth Day if we follow with this declaration.

My commitment is renewed today.

The NJ4

Ran across this little public service announcement, about homophobic brutality in NYC, and the consequences to those who fight back. Here's a blog entry on this incident.

While I think people should never resort to aggression, and I do separate aggression from self defense, and I do believe (from the descriptions of the incident) that at least one of the women was aggressive, I don't think they would have harmed the man in question unless they were seriously threatened. They were trying to intimidate the man, to make him leave them alone. Not to mention that it seems they did not apparently commit any serious crime, and that three men who entered the fry were responsible for the "victim"'s wound. Anyway, they are heading to jail for 3 1/2 to 11 years, for trying (albeit aggressively) to defend themselves. Some justice...

WTC plans

A homeless man found a couple of sets of drawings on the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center, and of course The Post made a fuss about it. Then, in true architect fashion, the bloggers and posters at archinect decided to make light of the whole thing...

The lessons: beware of homeless terrorists, old drawings and all the wasted paper at my firm do have post-consumer use, believe everything you read, and never trust architects.

Green Publication

New York Times magazine is publishing its green issue today. I haven't seen the paper copy; I wonder if it's made from recycled paper, or if they just refused to print it and gave people a link to the website instead...
Just began reading some of the articles, and I'm actually quite impressed. I didn't expect the writers to have much knowledge on the topic, and while they don't necessarily convey any information i didn't know before, the articles seem to give a full spectrum of the situation, not just relying on carbon offsets and biofuels. Maybe this will actually inform some readers.

Maybe then issues like this will be moot:

“People react really negatively to phrases like ‘density,’ but they react really positively to phrases like ‘walkability.’ ”

Matt Lerner, developer, walkscore.com

Chinese characters

yeah, right...

The Chinese Government, in conjunction with its Olympic Committee, is halting construction for this summer's games in Beijing. This and other measures (temporary factory closures, traffic restrictions) are being done to clean up the extremely polluted air of the city... ..for the occasion of the Olympics themselves. But what about the future? With the world's largest population and fastest growing economy/infrastructure/urbanity, China has positioned itself to be the world's biggest polluter very soon, surpassing the country whose wastefulness it has made a model for its growth and "modernity": the US. I'm wondering why, if they have a clue about what to do to contain pollution (which they obviously do, judging from their strategies), why they don't put some real policies into practice full-time. Could it be because the Chinese government wants to make as much economic headway as possible, as fast as possible? And are all Chinese actually benefiting from this, even in the short term?
The other major issue in Chinese policy coming to the forefront due to the Olympics is the imprisonment of the state of Tibet within the Chinese Republic. The torch relay has become a constant platform for protests, with the current trek through India (with its thousands of Tibetan expatriots) as possibly the most combustible stop yet. It's even sparked an alternative torch relay for human rights. But while these recent events may have woken up the IOC (somewhat) and prompted China's bullshit positive spin measures, it does not seem to have fazed the people of the host country. Apparently, Chinese citizens are taught from early on (through history classes and other propaganda) about the lack of patriotism and generally defiant behavior of the devious Dalai Lama and his cronies... ...in fact, a friend of mine living in China (who sent me that article) describes her experiences in trying to discuss the issue with the young Chinese this way:

...afraid i'm not in close contact with lots of chinese friends. my closest chinese friend might as well be american. talked to another chinese friend about all it. she just kept saying she's so angry and she doesn't understand why people are protesting. she feels T is a part of china. i asked her why and she just said that from a young age that's what they learn. most chinese people don't ask why, they just accept things and sometimes arguments aren't arguments at all. then she wanted to know what i think. i said that i just think it's unfair that their own leader is exiled. and that americans value freedom and that's why most of us feel T should be on its own. i tried explaining that they have their own language and culture, but she just said that many parts of china have their own language and culture - which is true, but their languages are dialects. this friend is one of my favorite chines friends, but that doesn't matter. think about all the history textbooks and propaganda every country has. and then talk to them about what their gov't does wrong. ***note: i've left out referencing any country in particular; i'm pretty sure all these emails get scanned for specific words. with the limited information that is in the media, one wouldn't be able to understand the whole situation with important pieces of information missing. to question what you think your gov't does requires you to step out of being a part of that country and looking in. that's near impossible for a country with a majority of citizens who are extremely nationalistic. so i'm sort of moving towards imposing my opinion, but yeah...that's been my experience so far. i don't really get a chance to talk to chinese people about it - mostly because my friends are not chinese, but also because i'd have to comfortable enough to talk to a chinese friend about it in the first place.

I guess I have to add that she's not going to be able to read this bog there, because the federal government of China censors access to websites of a certain nature, blogs being one of them. Iran, for all the villifying done of its society by the Bush administration, has almost complete internet freedom, with few exceptions. This accentuates just how necessary the Chinese federal government (rightfully) sees its control of the ignorance of its populace.
Even the most educated of the Chinese, even those that live in other countries where they are exposed to different opinions, if raised in mainland China can keep some of these views. A co-worker of mine is quite intelligent, articulate, and generally a person compatible with me morally (besides religion). But when any negative press about China is reported (poisoned toys, pollution, rapid suburban expansion), she strives to remove any culpability from her native people and government. Maybe it's the latent feeling of patriotism that i have as well, but more likely it's imbedded idealism. My patriotism doesn't prevent me from criticizing the corruption and injustices of my country, it's governments, it's police, etc. In fact, my patriotism hinges on being able to criticize my country's actions, and react in a way that I think will improve it, and consequently the world. China, and its people, need to do the same, and quickly/actively. The fate of the world may just rest on them.