Published in the Connecticut College Voice October 1, 2008
Summary of the Debate
First Question: Where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?
Obama: Discussed the need for oversight, insurance that taxpayers get money back and receive gains “if the market -- and when the market returns,” the need to make sure “that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes,” and the need to address the housing crisis and help homeowners. He ended the segment by declaring that the current crisis “is the final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies,” i.e., the trickle-down theory.
McCain: Stressed the need for bi-partisanship, and for any financial package to include measures for transparency, accountability, oversight, and it must “have options for loans to failing businesses.” He also said that we must create jobs and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
In the follow-up segment:
Obama: Said he was optimistic about the plan, and emphasized that he warned about the sub-prime mortgage crisis years ago. He also criticized the “economic philosophy that says that regulation is always bad,” and said that we must fix both short-term and long-term problems in the financial system concomitantly.
McCain: Seemed flustered about the package, but answered that “sure” he would vote for the plan as a US Senator. He then proceeded to discuss how he too warned about the looming financial crisis, and how his administration will be famous for holding people accountable. McCain also said that he has “a fundamental belief in the United States of America. And…under the right leadership, our best days are ahead of us.”
Second Question: Are there fundamental differences between your approaches to what you would do as president to lead this country out of the financial crisis?
McCain: Said spending must be controlled, particularly earmark spending, and stressed that Obama has requested millions of dollars of Federal money as the Illinois Senator.
Obama: Noted that earmark spending accounted for $18 billion in last year's budget, which is not a lot compared to the $300 billion in tax cuts for wealthy corporations and individuals proposed by McCain. His economic plan calls for a tax cut for 95% of working families.
In the follow-up segment:
McCain: Again stressed the money Obama requested, the threat from earmark spending, and that he has a maverick reputation in the Senate. He also mentioned that Obama’s plan calls for new Federal spending programs, while he wants to cut spending and keep taxes low.
Obama: Rebutted by saying that he proposes to close corporate loopholes, stop providing tax cuts to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas, and “make sure that we have a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage”—earmark spending reform will not be enough.
McCain: Said he wants to cut business taxes to keep businesses in the US and create jobs, and that he wants “every family to have a $5,000 refundable tax credit so they can go out and purchase their own health care…[and] to double the dividend from $3,500 to $7,000 for every dependent child in America”.
Obama: Stressed that McCain’s proposals do not fix corporate loopholes, but just add taxes over them, and that his health care tax credit system is a bad policy because it leaves the health care of individuals to the unregulated open market, which cannot solve everything.
Third Question: As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billions, $700 billion, whatever it is it's going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?
Obama: Said it is hard to anticipate the tax-revenue for future years, especially as the economy is slowing down, but that certain proposals will be delayed. He said we must “eliminate programs that don't work, and…make sure that the programs that we do have are more efficient and cost less”. He gives priority to energy independence, fixing health care, education reform, and rebuilding infrastructure to ensure America remains competitive in the global economy.
McCain: Said that we must cut government spending, and do away with ethanol subsidies and cost-plus contracts in defense spending. He stressed that he was the candidate more fit to bring spending under control.
Follow-up segment: (both were again asked if they were proposing major changes)
Obama: He would look for savings in defense spending, and acknowledged that the current financial crisis will affect the Federal Budget.
McCain: Suggested “a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs,” and criticized Obama’s proposals for inefficiencies, and for their over-spending.
Fourth Question: What do you see as the lessons of Iraq?
McCain: Said “the lessons of Iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict,” and stressed that defeat would have been dangerous—but that the tactics and strategy of General Petraeus have been successful
Obama: Stressed that the real issue was whether we should have invaded in March 2003, and that he opposed it from the beginning because it was a distraction from the fight against al-Qaeda and the search for Osama bin Ladin.
Follow-up segment:
McCain: The next president will have to deal with issues of how and when to exit, and the legacies left behind, not whether we should have invaded. He then stressed his travel experience and the success of the surge, which he had promoted all-along, as evidence that he would better equipped to make decisions. McCain also said that both General Petraeus and bin Ladin believe the central battleground is in Iraq.
Obama: Said that McCain acts as if the war began in 2007 (with the surge), while ignoring the fact that it was a “tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.” He clarified that he opposed increasing defense spending bills without timetables, and that the central front of the war on terror is Afghanistan.
Fifth Question: Do you think U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?
Obama: Said we need more troops, and that we cannot separate Iraq from Afghanistan. He also said that we must pressure the Afghan government to work for its people, get the poppy trade under control, and “deal with Pakistan” (i.e., they have not used the billions of dollars we have given them to get rid of terrorist safe havens).
McCain: Acknowledged it was wrong for us to “wash our hands” of Afghanistan so early on, and that we need a surge in troops there. He said he was not willing to use our aid payments as leverage against the Pakistanis, and that what we really need is for the Pakistani people to be on our side, and for them to help us root out terrorists.
Follow-up segment:
Obama: Clarified that he never said he wanted to attack Pakistan, but that if the US has al-Qaeda members, or bin Laden, etc, “and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.” He also mentioned that our support of Musharraf was part of the reason we have no legitimacy in Pakistan. Also accused McCain of saying we could “muddle through” Afghanistan while focusing on Iraq.
McCain: Emphasized his record of involvement with national security issues, stressing that he was better fit to make tough decisions about military commitments. He also said that General Petraeus acknowledges that we will fail in Iraq if we follow a specific withdrawal timetable (what Obama proposes), and that failing there will have calamitous effects in Afghanistan and American national security interests in the region.
Sixth Question: What is your reading on the threat of Iran right now to the security of the United States?
McCain: Said that a nuclear Iran threatened the existence of Israel, and would likely cause a regional nuclear arms race, and he proposes that a group of democratic states join together to put meaningful sanctions on Iran. Also noted that Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents, and that overall, the country is a threat to global security. He also criticized Obama’s willingness to engage in diplomacy without pre-conditions as naïve and dangerous.
Obama: Said that he thinks the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization, and that they pose a giant security threat. But, unlike McCain, he supports “tough direct diplomacy” with Iran. He also defended his diplomacy proposals—“the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks”—on empirical grounds.
Seventh Question: How do you see the relationship with Russia? Do you see them as a competitor? Do you see them as an enemy? Do you see them as a potential partner?
Obama: Said “a resurgent and very aggressive Russia is a threat to the peace and stability of the region”. He also stressed that we must enforce the cease-fire and removal of Russian troops from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, while also supporting other democracies in the region.
McCain: Criticized Obama’s initial response to the Russian invasion, and spoke of the connections to energy. He also mentioned his travel and contact records in the region.
Follow-up segment:
Obama: Said he did not differ much from McCain, and further drew connections to NATO expansion and energy independence.
McCain: Continued the debate about energy policy.
Eighth Question: What do you think the likelihood is that there would be another 9/11-type attack on the continental United States?
McCain: Stressed that America is safer today than it was on 9/11, but that we have to strengthen our technological and intelligence capabilities—without the use of torture.
Obama: Said that in some ways we are safer, but that we still have a long road ahead: we must deter nuclear proliferation and terrorist groups like al-Qaeda by focusing more on Afghanistan, and that we also must fix America’s poor global image.
Follow-up segment:
McCain: Again remarked that Obama “doesn’t get” that losing the war in Iraq will cause us to lose the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Said Obama does not have the knowledge and experience to make the types of foreign policy decisions required as President, but guaranteed that “as president of the United States, [he knows] how to heal the wounds of war, [he knows] how to deal with our adversaries, and [he knows] how to deal with our friends.”
Obama: Said “we have weakened our capacity to project power around the world because we have viewed everything through this single lens…and the next president has to have a broader strategic vision about all the challenges that we face.”
Highlights of the Debate:
1) Obama repeatedly saying under his breath or over McCain’s comments, “John, that’s just not true….”
2) McCain repeatedly saying that Obama “just doesn’t understand…”
3) McCain’s creepy smile and references to his age (and his old pen).
4) Obama’s tendency to interrupt and speak over McCain and Lehrer.
5) …And the winner: when McCain said, “I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict” (no, really?)
Analysis of the Debate
In the first section of the debate, the candidates were asked three questions about the current US financial crisis. Both candidates repeated the proposals and figures they have been saying all week, but it was interesting to watch them argue back and forth. Stylistically, in this section, Obama certainly had the upper hand. He put a somewhat flustered McCain on the defensive, and articulated his position and policy proposals in a clearer, calmer fashion. As could be predicted, neither candidate was willing to give specifics about the impact of the financial crisis on their administration’s spending, though at one point, McCain suggested “a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs” (I hope he was joking around.) They debated the merits of the trickle-down theory, defense spending, and the funding of Federal programs, all the while agreeing on the need to create more jobs, increase oversight in the financial sector, and cut unnecessary spending. McCain’s focus on earmark spending appeared inane when compared to bloated defense budget figures and the extra Federal revenue expected by closing corporate loopholes.
In the second section, the candidates were asked five questions about foreign policy—particularly about Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and the relative level of security in the US. Stylistically, in this section, McCain, whose area of expertise is national security and foreign policy, controlled the debate, and put Obama on the defensive for most of the time. Obama, however, held his own, knew his facts, and intelligently articulated his point of view. I don’t know how other Americans received McCain’s consistent “Obama just doesn’t understand” approach, but I found it sounded empty, particularly because the debate was less about facts, and more about approach, strategy, and tactics. McCain’s military and travel experience was apparent, and I was surprised that Obama did not mention his usual “fresh face in politics will change things” argument. I was most interested in the areas where they clashed, such as how to deal with Iran, Pakistan, and whether there should be a withdrawal timetable in Iraq. We’ve heard them make all of the same arguments on the campaign trail, but it was interesting to watch them fight it out at the podium.
I thought Obama’s argument for negotiating with Ahmadinejad could have been stronger than “what we have been doing has yet to work,” because McCain’s belief that we do not negotiate with terrorists/rogue states has a deep moral tradition and following in the US. I thought they both made strong arguments for dealing with Pakistan: they both asserted, supported, and defended their individual approaches and willingness to pressure Pakistan. I thought Obama took a bit of a hit when McCain noted that the next President will have to contend with exiting Iraq, not whether we should have invaded in the first place, though Obama’s point about McCain “liking to pretend the war started in 2007” was strong. Both candidates acknowledged that the war in Afghanistan is absolutely related to the war in Iraq, though McCain opposes setting a timetable for troop withdrawal, and Obama was very critical of McCain’s past willingness to declare Afghanistan a success, and move on to Iraq. I wish that the candidates had discussed their proposals for non-military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond the vagueness of pressuring Iran and supporting democracy. Neither saw Russian aggression as fomenting a new Cold War, but both criticized Russia’s actions and called for supporting weak democratic states in the region. Neither candidate made any mention of Chinese ascendancy, or the possible restructuring of the world system and global power distribution, two important things I wish they had discussed.
Overall, I appreciated Jim Lehrer’s efforts to get the candidates to talk to one another, and I enjoyed the liveliness and humor in their attempts to talk over each other. As expected, both candidates proposed vague policies, but, interestingly, were challenged and forced to get more specific in the rebuttal segments. Most objective analysts of the debate declared a tie, with neither candidate dominating the discussion overall nor landing a “knockout punch.” I agree with this assessment, and look forward to this week’s Vice Presidential debate, for that might be more likely to sway the candidates’ pre-election standings.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Buffalo Field Campaign: Connections to Global Injustice
(Published in the Earth First! Journal March/April 2008)
There are times and places, many times and places, where cruelty exists. There are times and places where lives are disrupted, where babies are murdered and mothers taken. Times and places where the unparalleled beauty of the natural world stands in stark contrast to the human activity in the same area. But I do not need to tell you this. You have seen it in the newspapers, heard it in stories and read it in history. Political corruption, government ineptitude, malignant alliances and plundering of the natural world are all rampant. Families who are driven from their homes and rendered into vulnerable refugees are subject to harassment and a deplorable lifestyle that will be ignored by most. They become homeless refugees forced to wander across their homeland. “Management” is used as a guise for power, control and the unfettered ability to accumulate.
This could be the beginning of an article about a whole myriad of issues: worker’s rights in China, the Zimbabwean economy, our forests, the Amazon, the polar ice caps—the list could go on. But this time, it is about the plight of the American buffalo. This issue embodies and exemplifies many larger themes of injustice. The deeper one delves into the politics of the buffalo, the more elucidated its connections to other global social, political, environmental and economic issues become.
Millions of buffalo were slaughtered throughout the 19th century as part of the US government’s calculated plan to “manage” the western US and its indigenous peoples. This systematic killing continued until only 23 of the original tens of millions of buffalo remained, and the people who depended on them were no longer able to live freely. Only after the population had dipped to 23 were plans instated to save the only genetically pure herd of wild buffalo—much to the ire of the livestock industry. Still, buffalo harassment and slaughter has continued.
After the particularly bloody Winter of 1996-1997, when more than a thousand buffalo were killed by the Montana Department of Livestock, Buffalo Nations—now the Buffalo Field Campaign (BFC)—was formed. BFC, co-founded by Mike Mease and Lakota activist Rosalie Little Thunder, has, with the help of more than 3,000 volunteers, spent the past 11 years fighting for greater tolerance and expanded habitat for the buffalo.
As usual, this year’s forecast for the Yellowstone buffalo is grim. In order to find food in the Winter, buffalo migrate outside of the invisible boundaries of Yellowstone National Park and into lower elevations—mainly West Yellowstone and Gardiner, Montana. Once outside of the park, buffalo are no longer considered “wildlife” and are instead classified as a “species in need of disease control,” because politics trumps science. Cattle ranchers fear the transmission of brucellosis and the loss of Montana’s brucellosis-free meat status. Brucellosis is a bacterial disease that affects wildlife and livestock, often causing a miscarriage in an animal’s first pregnancy. It was first transmitted to American wildlife by European livestock in the early 20th century. Though there has never been a documented case of a wild buffalo transmitting the disease to livestock, this inflated potential “threat” frames them as pariahs.
The buffalo’s status as a threat, as well as the protocol for handling them as such, is detailed in the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). The plan was drafted in 1999, by the Montana Department of Livestock, the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks for the long-term “management” of Yellowstone buffalo. This piece of legislature helps the livestock industry at the expense of buffalo and all people and creatures who coexisted and depended on these amazing animals.
There is, however, a brief window of time when buffalo are considered wildlife. For the past three years, from November 15 through February 15, state and tribal hunting tags have been issued. In the 2006-2007 hunt, 67 buffalo were killed, and as of early February 2008, more than 100 have been killed this season. Conveniently, once the hunt is over, buffalo are no longer wildlife in the eyes and policies of the Montana government—and more severe forms of management resume.
Winter is rough on buffalo, but Spring usually proves to be worse. They are hazed, harassed, captured, quarantined and/or sent to slaughter to prevent their presence on their traditional calving lands and historic range. Hazing is when federal and state agents play modern cowboys, using horses, motorized vehicles and even helicopters to force the buffalo back into the park. At times, hazes starkly resemble news footage from other government-sponsored wars and genocidal campaigns across the globe. The IBMP allows for repeated and continuous hazing, even at times of the year when there are no cattle in the vicinity. Brucellosis can only live outside of the body for 24 hours in direct sunlight, a fact that further illuminates how ridiculous it is to haze buffalo months before cattle return to the area. Hazing operations exhaust buffalo—forcing them to run for hours without breaks—and have killed newborn calves. Hazing is a barbarous and inhumane—not to mention wasteful, largely unsuccessful and inept—way to “manage” the last free-roaming and wild American buffalo.
In this issue, like in so many others, taxpayer dollars are funding an asinine policy and aiding in the destruction of the natural world. Meanwhile, Montana cattle ranchers, like agribusinesses across the country and throughout the world, receive huge subsidies.
History provides numerous examples of indigenous peoples being exploited by settlers and corporations. Those whose lives were once so interconnected with the buffalo are no exception. They are also at the heart of this issue. Plans to slaughter buffalo were concomitantly designed to destroy native populations. Just as the buffalo are confined to the national park, reservations have been delineated and assimilation policies legislated for people. A historic connection was severed so that money could be made across a tamed and managed country. Today, many native people are trying to re-establish their ancient relationship with the buffalo and introduce them onto their reservations. In this light, the National Park Service’s announced plans to capture and slaughter upwards of 1,700 buffalo this Spring is even further enraging.
The National Park Service, during its Summer fly-over, counted about 4,700 buffalo—a population size the IBMP deems too large for reasons that are entirely political. Buffalo advocates view this number as a step forward in buffalo restoration, noting that pressure from the livestock industry, not science, is behind the IBMP. Almost 5,000 buffalo should easily be able to survive in this area—as this ecosystem once provided for many, many more. Buffalo could roam, feed and live throughout the greater Yellowstone ecosystem—ideally, all the way to Appalachia. But that will not be the case this year, according to the previously mentioned plan for a Spring slaughter.
BFC is not just a small wildlife advocacy group. It is a group fighting against injustice in both this and so many other causes. The buffalo issue is a microcosm of inequality and injustice on the global level. It is, at its heart, the same battle that Darfur activists fight, and it affects its victims the same way government neglect and other acts of violence do. The campaign’s actions foment change on a local and macro scale.
I am often asked, “Why buffalo? Why the Buffalo Field Campaign?” These are questions to which I might respond with a discussion of how incredible the buffalo are, or how management of them disgusts me. It seems to me that, truthfully, I am fighting the same battle against global injustice as any other activist. This is the same battle against corporate or government greed, the same battle against environmental destruction and the same battle for the rights of the less powerful. This is the same fight for what so many of us believe is right and good.
There are times and places, many times and places, where cruelty exists. There are times and places where lives are disrupted, where babies are murdered and mothers taken. Times and places where the unparalleled beauty of the natural world stands in stark contrast to the human activity in the same area. But I do not need to tell you this. You have seen it in the newspapers, heard it in stories and read it in history. Political corruption, government ineptitude, malignant alliances and plundering of the natural world are all rampant. Families who are driven from their homes and rendered into vulnerable refugees are subject to harassment and a deplorable lifestyle that will be ignored by most. They become homeless refugees forced to wander across their homeland. “Management” is used as a guise for power, control and the unfettered ability to accumulate.
This could be the beginning of an article about a whole myriad of issues: worker’s rights in China, the Zimbabwean economy, our forests, the Amazon, the polar ice caps—the list could go on. But this time, it is about the plight of the American buffalo. This issue embodies and exemplifies many larger themes of injustice. The deeper one delves into the politics of the buffalo, the more elucidated its connections to other global social, political, environmental and economic issues become.
Millions of buffalo were slaughtered throughout the 19th century as part of the US government’s calculated plan to “manage” the western US and its indigenous peoples. This systematic killing continued until only 23 of the original tens of millions of buffalo remained, and the people who depended on them were no longer able to live freely. Only after the population had dipped to 23 were plans instated to save the only genetically pure herd of wild buffalo—much to the ire of the livestock industry. Still, buffalo harassment and slaughter has continued.
After the particularly bloody Winter of 1996-1997, when more than a thousand buffalo were killed by the Montana Department of Livestock, Buffalo Nations—now the Buffalo Field Campaign (BFC)—was formed. BFC, co-founded by Mike Mease and Lakota activist Rosalie Little Thunder, has, with the help of more than 3,000 volunteers, spent the past 11 years fighting for greater tolerance and expanded habitat for the buffalo.
As usual, this year’s forecast for the Yellowstone buffalo is grim. In order to find food in the Winter, buffalo migrate outside of the invisible boundaries of Yellowstone National Park and into lower elevations—mainly West Yellowstone and Gardiner, Montana. Once outside of the park, buffalo are no longer considered “wildlife” and are instead classified as a “species in need of disease control,” because politics trumps science. Cattle ranchers fear the transmission of brucellosis and the loss of Montana’s brucellosis-free meat status. Brucellosis is a bacterial disease that affects wildlife and livestock, often causing a miscarriage in an animal’s first pregnancy. It was first transmitted to American wildlife by European livestock in the early 20th century. Though there has never been a documented case of a wild buffalo transmitting the disease to livestock, this inflated potential “threat” frames them as pariahs.
The buffalo’s status as a threat, as well as the protocol for handling them as such, is detailed in the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). The plan was drafted in 1999, by the Montana Department of Livestock, the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks for the long-term “management” of Yellowstone buffalo. This piece of legislature helps the livestock industry at the expense of buffalo and all people and creatures who coexisted and depended on these amazing animals.
There is, however, a brief window of time when buffalo are considered wildlife. For the past three years, from November 15 through February 15, state and tribal hunting tags have been issued. In the 2006-2007 hunt, 67 buffalo were killed, and as of early February 2008, more than 100 have been killed this season. Conveniently, once the hunt is over, buffalo are no longer wildlife in the eyes and policies of the Montana government—and more severe forms of management resume.
Winter is rough on buffalo, but Spring usually proves to be worse. They are hazed, harassed, captured, quarantined and/or sent to slaughter to prevent their presence on their traditional calving lands and historic range. Hazing is when federal and state agents play modern cowboys, using horses, motorized vehicles and even helicopters to force the buffalo back into the park. At times, hazes starkly resemble news footage from other government-sponsored wars and genocidal campaigns across the globe. The IBMP allows for repeated and continuous hazing, even at times of the year when there are no cattle in the vicinity. Brucellosis can only live outside of the body for 24 hours in direct sunlight, a fact that further illuminates how ridiculous it is to haze buffalo months before cattle return to the area. Hazing operations exhaust buffalo—forcing them to run for hours without breaks—and have killed newborn calves. Hazing is a barbarous and inhumane—not to mention wasteful, largely unsuccessful and inept—way to “manage” the last free-roaming and wild American buffalo.
In this issue, like in so many others, taxpayer dollars are funding an asinine policy and aiding in the destruction of the natural world. Meanwhile, Montana cattle ranchers, like agribusinesses across the country and throughout the world, receive huge subsidies.
History provides numerous examples of indigenous peoples being exploited by settlers and corporations. Those whose lives were once so interconnected with the buffalo are no exception. They are also at the heart of this issue. Plans to slaughter buffalo were concomitantly designed to destroy native populations. Just as the buffalo are confined to the national park, reservations have been delineated and assimilation policies legislated for people. A historic connection was severed so that money could be made across a tamed and managed country. Today, many native people are trying to re-establish their ancient relationship with the buffalo and introduce them onto their reservations. In this light, the National Park Service’s announced plans to capture and slaughter upwards of 1,700 buffalo this Spring is even further enraging.
The National Park Service, during its Summer fly-over, counted about 4,700 buffalo—a population size the IBMP deems too large for reasons that are entirely political. Buffalo advocates view this number as a step forward in buffalo restoration, noting that pressure from the livestock industry, not science, is behind the IBMP. Almost 5,000 buffalo should easily be able to survive in this area—as this ecosystem once provided for many, many more. Buffalo could roam, feed and live throughout the greater Yellowstone ecosystem—ideally, all the way to Appalachia. But that will not be the case this year, according to the previously mentioned plan for a Spring slaughter.
BFC is not just a small wildlife advocacy group. It is a group fighting against injustice in both this and so many other causes. The buffalo issue is a microcosm of inequality and injustice on the global level. It is, at its heart, the same battle that Darfur activists fight, and it affects its victims the same way government neglect and other acts of violence do. The campaign’s actions foment change on a local and macro scale.
I am often asked, “Why buffalo? Why the Buffalo Field Campaign?” These are questions to which I might respond with a discussion of how incredible the buffalo are, or how management of them disgusts me. It seems to me that, truthfully, I am fighting the same battle against global injustice as any other activist. This is the same battle against corporate or government greed, the same battle against environmental destruction and the same battle for the rights of the less powerful. This is the same fight for what so many of us believe is right and good.
Where Is The Green Candidate?
(Published in the Connecticut College Voice September 19, 2008)
Though campaigns tend to be full of rhetoric, and less focused on specific policy proposals, energy policy has been one of the few issues actually discussed on the campaign trail. Both candidates agree that America has an energy crisis, and that our reliance on foreign oil makes us less energy secure. (For the record, we get most of our imported oil and natural gas from Canada, not the Middle East.) And both candidates talk of petroleum alternatives. "Ah, yes," many Americans say to themselves, "oil does seem to be running in short supply, and I suppose we can't ‘drill, baby, drill’ forever, so hooray for petroleum alternatives!"
"Alternative energy," does have a nice ring to it, doesn't it? It conjures images of happy polar bears lounging on Arctic ice, of industrial smoke stacks being dismantled, and of smog-free skies. But does it make you think of enormous, indisposable piles of nuclear waste? Does it make you think of cancer epidemics, poisoned water supplies, and irreparable damage? Does it make you think of dammed rivers without salmon, of millions of acres of corn where tall grass prairies used to stand? Does it make you think of unprotected, poorly paid workers mining toxic chemicals? If it doesn’t, it should.
I don't think I would be surprising anyone by saying most students at Connecticut College support Barack Obama, at least as the lesser of two evils. Obama has created a wildly successful campaign, and has appealed to the youth vote much more effectively than John McCain, or other past presidential nominees. He appeals to the more socially conscious idealists of this country. He appeals to those who worry about our global image; to those who worry that because they make less than "$5 million a year," "more of the same" will not provide economic security. He appeals to the less-hawkish constituencies, to those who do not see engaging in diplomacy with President Ahmadinejad as a moral abomination. But most of all, his appeal seems to be in his promises of "change."
Well, I'm skeptical. Call me a cynic, call me disillusioned, call me whatever you would like, but I don't see Obama really reducing our environmental problems, let alone saving the environment—whatever that means. (I also don't think John McCain would do much good either.) Are more nuclear power plants the type of change we really want? Are solar panels and hydroelectric dams going to prevent environmental damage? Will Obama find a way to suddenly make coal clean? For me, the answer is rather obvious: no.
We currently know of no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste, nor do we currently have the technical know-how to prevent the escape of radioactive material into the water supplies and bodies of those living near nuclear power plants. Mining and enriching uranium and plutonium are highly dangerous and costly processes, though the Federal Government already heavily subsidizes them. The cancer caused by radioactive isotopes can take years to materialize, nor can it be traced; we have probably only seen the beginning of the long-term effects of disasters like Chernobyl. But the candidates want to build more nuclear power plants. Why?
Hydroelectric dams may not produce nuclear waste or greenhouse gases, but they prevent salmon from spawning, substantially alter the landscape, contribute to erosion, and sometimes fail and cause major catastrophes—just to name a few side effects.
Clean coal is an oxymoron, and mountain top removal is an egregious practice. Mining coal is a dangerous, unhealthy job, not to mention that it takes a lot of energy to transport coal around the country.
Solar panel construction requires the use of toxic chemicals and natural resources, and these resources must come from somewhere. Solar power may not emit pollution the same way as oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear energy do, but what happens when it’s time to dispose of a panel? Where do all of those chemicals go? Perhaps to electronic junkyards—excuse me, recycling centers in China. I am not saying solar panels are not worth investing in, so please do not misunderstand me. But I do find it important to highlight that this alternative technology, like the other choices, is not really all that laudable in the long run.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day telling me to vote for the environment. This confused me; who are they suggesting I vote for? Certainly not Obama or McCain. Both the Democratic and the Republican parties have adopted the slogan "change," but if I am voting for the environment, or at least as an environmentally conscious global citizen, then I am left without a candidate. Where is the candidate I want? Where is the candidate who will say that the change we need is bigger than issues about where we get our energy; the change we need is a lifestyle change. We need to change how we view progress and development; we most certainly need to change how we think of our role on this earth. We can build all the green buildings and hybrid cars we want, but it is not going to change the fact that a global economy reliant on nonrenewables cannot, by definition, be sustainable. Materials, whether they are petroleum-based, highly radioactive, or inert as certain ores are not in endless supply, and so far, unable to be recycled to regain their initial capacity. Maybe we need to change our conception about global development; is it really such a good thing that more and more people on the earth drive cars, work in fancy buildings, find more ways to sell and buy useless junk? The only thing we are really developing is the fastest route to destruction.
I suppose I can find some comfort in the fact that long after we have destroyed the atmosphere and melted the polar ice caps, and long after we have caused the extinction of ourselves and of most other organisms, the earth will live on—the world, after all, was once a highly radioactive and seemingly inhospitable environment, yet life grew. But this does little to inform my choice in candidates, and is not really the “change” I am looking for from a new administration.
Though campaigns tend to be full of rhetoric, and less focused on specific policy proposals, energy policy has been one of the few issues actually discussed on the campaign trail. Both candidates agree that America has an energy crisis, and that our reliance on foreign oil makes us less energy secure. (For the record, we get most of our imported oil and natural gas from Canada, not the Middle East.) And both candidates talk of petroleum alternatives. "Ah, yes," many Americans say to themselves, "oil does seem to be running in short supply, and I suppose we can't ‘drill, baby, drill’ forever, so hooray for petroleum alternatives!"
"Alternative energy," does have a nice ring to it, doesn't it? It conjures images of happy polar bears lounging on Arctic ice, of industrial smoke stacks being dismantled, and of smog-free skies. But does it make you think of enormous, indisposable piles of nuclear waste? Does it make you think of cancer epidemics, poisoned water supplies, and irreparable damage? Does it make you think of dammed rivers without salmon, of millions of acres of corn where tall grass prairies used to stand? Does it make you think of unprotected, poorly paid workers mining toxic chemicals? If it doesn’t, it should.
I don't think I would be surprising anyone by saying most students at Connecticut College support Barack Obama, at least as the lesser of two evils. Obama has created a wildly successful campaign, and has appealed to the youth vote much more effectively than John McCain, or other past presidential nominees. He appeals to the more socially conscious idealists of this country. He appeals to those who worry about our global image; to those who worry that because they make less than "$5 million a year," "more of the same" will not provide economic security. He appeals to the less-hawkish constituencies, to those who do not see engaging in diplomacy with President Ahmadinejad as a moral abomination. But most of all, his appeal seems to be in his promises of "change."
Well, I'm skeptical. Call me a cynic, call me disillusioned, call me whatever you would like, but I don't see Obama really reducing our environmental problems, let alone saving the environment—whatever that means. (I also don't think John McCain would do much good either.) Are more nuclear power plants the type of change we really want? Are solar panels and hydroelectric dams going to prevent environmental damage? Will Obama find a way to suddenly make coal clean? For me, the answer is rather obvious: no.
We currently know of no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste, nor do we currently have the technical know-how to prevent the escape of radioactive material into the water supplies and bodies of those living near nuclear power plants. Mining and enriching uranium and plutonium are highly dangerous and costly processes, though the Federal Government already heavily subsidizes them. The cancer caused by radioactive isotopes can take years to materialize, nor can it be traced; we have probably only seen the beginning of the long-term effects of disasters like Chernobyl. But the candidates want to build more nuclear power plants. Why?
Hydroelectric dams may not produce nuclear waste or greenhouse gases, but they prevent salmon from spawning, substantially alter the landscape, contribute to erosion, and sometimes fail and cause major catastrophes—just to name a few side effects.
Clean coal is an oxymoron, and mountain top removal is an egregious practice. Mining coal is a dangerous, unhealthy job, not to mention that it takes a lot of energy to transport coal around the country.
Solar panel construction requires the use of toxic chemicals and natural resources, and these resources must come from somewhere. Solar power may not emit pollution the same way as oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear energy do, but what happens when it’s time to dispose of a panel? Where do all of those chemicals go? Perhaps to electronic junkyards—excuse me, recycling centers in China. I am not saying solar panels are not worth investing in, so please do not misunderstand me. But I do find it important to highlight that this alternative technology, like the other choices, is not really all that laudable in the long run.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day telling me to vote for the environment. This confused me; who are they suggesting I vote for? Certainly not Obama or McCain. Both the Democratic and the Republican parties have adopted the slogan "change," but if I am voting for the environment, or at least as an environmentally conscious global citizen, then I am left without a candidate. Where is the candidate I want? Where is the candidate who will say that the change we need is bigger than issues about where we get our energy; the change we need is a lifestyle change. We need to change how we view progress and development; we most certainly need to change how we think of our role on this earth. We can build all the green buildings and hybrid cars we want, but it is not going to change the fact that a global economy reliant on nonrenewables cannot, by definition, be sustainable. Materials, whether they are petroleum-based, highly radioactive, or inert as certain ores are not in endless supply, and so far, unable to be recycled to regain their initial capacity. Maybe we need to change our conception about global development; is it really such a good thing that more and more people on the earth drive cars, work in fancy buildings, find more ways to sell and buy useless junk? The only thing we are really developing is the fastest route to destruction.
I suppose I can find some comfort in the fact that long after we have destroyed the atmosphere and melted the polar ice caps, and long after we have caused the extinction of ourselves and of most other organisms, the earth will live on—the world, after all, was once a highly radioactive and seemingly inhospitable environment, yet life grew. But this does little to inform my choice in candidates, and is not really the “change” I am looking for from a new administration.
Yes, Sarah Palin Can Field Dress A Moose
(Published in the Connecticut College Voice September 12, 2008)
Much of the liberal mainstream news media have recently devoted quite a bit of time to the fact that Sarah Palin hunts, or more specifically, that she knows how to field dress a moose. Not only is this entirely irrelevant to her potential leadership qualities as Vice President, but these remarks exemplify a lot of what I perceive to be misguided thoughts about hunting. Many of us at Connecticut College are from parts of the country where hunting is not a reality of our lives, making it easy to stigmatize the killing of wild animals without giving it any further thought. (After all, many of us were part of the Bambi generation) With the popularity of vegetarianism and veganism—and I’m making no judgment on the laudability of these causes—it becomes easy to view meat consumption as just that, meat consumption. But the decision to eat meat is much more complex; hunted venison is not the same thing as store-bought or restaurant-served beef that was produced on a massive scale.
I know many are aware of the appalling realities of factory farms, from their conditions and pollution to the lower quality meat they produce. The illumination of these facts in recent years has fomented a new wave of animal-loving vegans, which I think is great. Though I am in no position to judge anyone’s food decisions, I strongly support skipping out on factory-farm products. But for those who choose to eat meat, I do want to re-examine common notions about hunting, and talk about hunting as a great way to obtain food.
First of all, humans are carnivorous animals, and historically there is nothing immoral or unnatural about eating other animals. That being said, a good hunter can kill an animal quickly and painlessly, especially when compared to the months a factory-farm animal spends immobile, frustrated, and pumped full of antibiotics and hormones. Also, for everyone who embraces the concept of “sustainability,” hunting is a far more sustainable way to procure meat than buying it from the supermarket. States issue a certain number of hunting tags every season, which helps to keep population sizes in check. Sustainable, by definition, means the ability for something to keep going, and humans have hunted animals for a very long time. With the proper attitudes and regulations, hunting has much less risk to an ecosystem than factory farms.
As a society, we have become so disconnected from where our food originates, particularly when the meat we eat is processed to the point of no longer resembling an animal. If you are going to eat an animal, something in your relationship to it and the earth is lost when you get a boneless, skinless chicken breast. But hunting can foster these largely lost and deeply important relationships. When you become responsible for the killing and processing of an animal, there can be a sense of interconnectedness, and a realization of the earth’s complex fragility.
Hunting is also an economical way to feed a family, though, granted, not everyone lives in a state where hunting tags are essentially unlimited. With the price of a gun as a fixed cost, a person in Montana can buy a deer tag and an elk tag for $26. That $26 can yield more meat than many families could eat in a year, not to mention healthy, naturally grass-fed, antibiotic-free meat. For many people in the world, hunting plays an essential role in their protein and iron consumption.
OK, so I’m not necessarily suggesting that you go buy yourself a rifle and move to Montana, and I’m not suggesting that you quit being a vegan or stop supporting small-scale farm meat operations (a good way to obtain meat for people who have no access to hunting or who cannot stomach it). However, I am hoping that if you harbor prejudices about hunting, that you question and rethink those assumptions; maybe you can begin to see hunting as a more sustainable, less cruel way to provide food for a family, and to create an important relationship with the outside world.
If Sarah Palin can field dress a moose, all the power to her, but let’s keep in mind that her skills in the field have nothing to do with her foreign policy ideas or ability to be Vice President (unless, of course, global warming causes some mass migration of large game animals to Pennsylvania Avenue…)
Much of the liberal mainstream news media have recently devoted quite a bit of time to the fact that Sarah Palin hunts, or more specifically, that she knows how to field dress a moose. Not only is this entirely irrelevant to her potential leadership qualities as Vice President, but these remarks exemplify a lot of what I perceive to be misguided thoughts about hunting. Many of us at Connecticut College are from parts of the country where hunting is not a reality of our lives, making it easy to stigmatize the killing of wild animals without giving it any further thought. (After all, many of us were part of the Bambi generation) With the popularity of vegetarianism and veganism—and I’m making no judgment on the laudability of these causes—it becomes easy to view meat consumption as just that, meat consumption. But the decision to eat meat is much more complex; hunted venison is not the same thing as store-bought or restaurant-served beef that was produced on a massive scale.
I know many are aware of the appalling realities of factory farms, from their conditions and pollution to the lower quality meat they produce. The illumination of these facts in recent years has fomented a new wave of animal-loving vegans, which I think is great. Though I am in no position to judge anyone’s food decisions, I strongly support skipping out on factory-farm products. But for those who choose to eat meat, I do want to re-examine common notions about hunting, and talk about hunting as a great way to obtain food.
First of all, humans are carnivorous animals, and historically there is nothing immoral or unnatural about eating other animals. That being said, a good hunter can kill an animal quickly and painlessly, especially when compared to the months a factory-farm animal spends immobile, frustrated, and pumped full of antibiotics and hormones. Also, for everyone who embraces the concept of “sustainability,” hunting is a far more sustainable way to procure meat than buying it from the supermarket. States issue a certain number of hunting tags every season, which helps to keep population sizes in check. Sustainable, by definition, means the ability for something to keep going, and humans have hunted animals for a very long time. With the proper attitudes and regulations, hunting has much less risk to an ecosystem than factory farms.
As a society, we have become so disconnected from where our food originates, particularly when the meat we eat is processed to the point of no longer resembling an animal. If you are going to eat an animal, something in your relationship to it and the earth is lost when you get a boneless, skinless chicken breast. But hunting can foster these largely lost and deeply important relationships. When you become responsible for the killing and processing of an animal, there can be a sense of interconnectedness, and a realization of the earth’s complex fragility.
Hunting is also an economical way to feed a family, though, granted, not everyone lives in a state where hunting tags are essentially unlimited. With the price of a gun as a fixed cost, a person in Montana can buy a deer tag and an elk tag for $26. That $26 can yield more meat than many families could eat in a year, not to mention healthy, naturally grass-fed, antibiotic-free meat. For many people in the world, hunting plays an essential role in their protein and iron consumption.
OK, so I’m not necessarily suggesting that you go buy yourself a rifle and move to Montana, and I’m not suggesting that you quit being a vegan or stop supporting small-scale farm meat operations (a good way to obtain meat for people who have no access to hunting or who cannot stomach it). However, I am hoping that if you harbor prejudices about hunting, that you question and rethink those assumptions; maybe you can begin to see hunting as a more sustainable, less cruel way to provide food for a family, and to create an important relationship with the outside world.
If Sarah Palin can field dress a moose, all the power to her, but let’s keep in mind that her skills in the field have nothing to do with her foreign policy ideas or ability to be Vice President (unless, of course, global warming causes some mass migration of large game animals to Pennsylvania Avenue…)
Introduction
Hello friends!
I decided to start a blog as a way to keep track of the various articles I write, kind of my unofficial portfolio. Anyway, enjoy....
I decided to start a blog as a way to keep track of the various articles I write, kind of my unofficial portfolio. Anyway, enjoy....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
