Micropanacea

First impressions go a long way, and today I've not only heard of the country of Palau for the first time, I've become a big fan. A land of beautiful beaches, several name spellings and a very cool aerial view (according to my copious research), Palau (or Belau or Pelew) is making a name for itself as a peaceful haven for unwanted souls.

My first finding was that Burmese refugees, relentlessly persecuted in their own country and increasingly turned away from countries already struggling to support thousands of refugees, have been welcomed to Palau with open arms. The refugees told of feeling peace and freedom in Palau; how people had been warm and friendly; how one senator went so far as to allow the eleven refugees to stay on his farm after their funds ran out while they wait for word on their asylum applications. Certainly beats being shoved out to sea in a boat with no motor. Of course, eleven refugees are probably easier to house on a farm than tens of thousands, but one must at least be touched by the effort from a country with a population of 20,000.

I then read on to find that Palau has offered to take in some 13 Guantanamo detainees, all Uighurs from China. This will constitute the largest transfer of prisoners since President Obama first announced the closure of the prison. The U.S. is reluctant to send them back to China as the country considers them to be terrorists (despite the U.S. clearing them of enemy combatant status sometime after detaining them in Afghanistan and Pakistan) and will likely welcome them back with some harsh sentence. After some negotiation with the U.S., Palau agreed to take them in.

Although not everyone the country will be warmly welcoming their new neighbors, and in spite some suspicions that the move is based more on good money than on good will, the government of Palau is standing by its assertion that their decision was based on human rights more than any other factor. My hat goes off to Palau, even if the Uighurs decide they'd prefer not to resettle on the island paradise.

In consideration of this theme, I'd like to add my voice to those encouraging countries around the world -- most especially the United States -- to take on the challenge of housing the detainees from Guantanamo. Not surprisingly, the debate in this country seems to have almost instantaneously morphed from one centered on human rights and responsibility for the decisions and actions of our country to an opportunity for spinning and scaring and steering public opinion down well-worn partisan trails. I have no doubt that many throughout the country sincerely believe that these detainees will pose a grave threat if they are located in our country - even in our prisons. But in my opinion, it is far more dangerous to our public image, our self respect and our national soul to keep a place like Guantanamo open in its current form. Those prisoners pose no greater threat to us than we do to ourselves. Let them in.

Fortunately, some countries are beginning to do so already. In fact, the reality is that over 540 detainees have been transferred to over 30 countries in the last few years and many countries continue to step. Belgium, Britain, Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, Bermuda, Albania, Italy and even Venezuela (for what its worth) have all agreed to consider taking or have already taken prisoners for resettlement, usually in the face of protests and backlash from their citizens. But the need is still real and extensive, if concerning and expensive. I only hope the U.S. citizens will be willing to take a similar "risk" to defend the values this country was built on.

In the meantime, well done, Palau!

From here on my couch, the situation in Iran seems a bit discouraging. A lot of people seemed to have hoped for a different outcome to the elections in a lot of ways and many are still fighting to have their voices heard. I have no good solution to resolving the political and ethical mess that seems to abound at present, but I'd like to recommend this video as a pretty amazing demonstration of the kind of humanity that simply can't hurt. You'll have to watch it all the way though to understand what I mean.

I was going to call this post “Slinking to the High Road” to demonstrate how distraught I felt after being introduced to the concept that urban living might be pulling ahead in the planet-wide race to live green. When our friend brought this up the other day, it seemed rather counterintuitive – a land of sidewalks and cement and neon and fast skyscrapers is more environmentally friendly than, well, ANY alternative? The notion was in stark and disappointing contrast to the idealistic picture my husband and I had been painting for ourselves while reading Wendell Barry aloud on a recent road trip to our friend’s beautiful house in the New Hampshire woods. It was on this same trip that we got to tour her brother's new 15 acre farm and began making plans for our own [sizable] piece of [eventual] paradise.

And we plan to recycle! And compost! And conserve electricity! And water! And grow our own food and raise our own animals and do all sorts of deeply conscientious things. Then suddenly I’m faced the prospect that we might be doing more damage than good the further we stray from the city? Blasphemy!

We were able to take some solace from the fact that most of the evidence we’ve seen so far compares urban living with suburban living (which I have long since accepted as being unappealing at best and flat out mind numbingly evil at worst) rather than with rural living. Also, the studies seem to focus almost entirely on carbon emissions, neglecting discussion on other aspects of healthy and sustainable living, such as the impact on the poor land standing immediately underneath the city, the concentration of human waste and refuse, the effects of pollution on nearby rivers and lakes and sky, etc. These analyses also fall quite short of addressing the social problems created by urban dwelling brings, but since that is not the subject of this blog I’ll let it slide for now.

Still, for those of us interested in curbing our carbon, this info is an interesting look into our residences of choice. Check out Treehugger, Worldchanging, and greeninc for starters. Cities seem to score the most points by utilizing far less transportation energy and having lower heating and air conditioning costs. A recent Brookings study concluded that the average urban carbon footprint was 14 times less than that of a suburban dweller. Nothing to shake a stick at.

All that being said, I still have to believe that a responsible farmer is better than a responsible yuppie any day, so I’ll have to stubbornly stand by my rural aspirations for now, unless any of you can enlighten and persuade me otherwise.

So the Supreme Court recently declared that even if the the Federal Government signs off on your fancy new miracle pills, your customers can still sue you if your product accidentally takes their arm off. My first reaction to this has been pretty positive, though I'm not necessarily a very big fan of litigation. Do we go ahead and trust that the government regulation will protect us and spare the courts? Or retain our options? I mean, clearly the decisions been made, but I wouldn't mind some input on the potential outcome.

Your thoughts?

I was handed a thick tract the other day on my way to work. Wasn't the typical Falun Gong enlightenment I was used to receiving on the streets of New York. No, Boston's pamphleteers are apparently much more ambitious than that. This was more akin to a miniature magazine with the title:

"President Obama's Options: The Issue is Bankruptcy", Lyndon Larouche's January 16th & 22nd Webcasts.

For those of you who are hearing of Lyndon for the first time (meaning me, only, obviously), you can read the democratic version of him here. If you are not satisfied, you can try this or just Google him like I did.

The first webcast transcribed in the pamphlet lays out our options for survival during these dark economic times. What struck me most as I read through his words while on the elliptical machine at the gym was how many times he asked whether I Wanted to Survive. Whether I wished the United State to continue to survive. Whether I wished to save China from chaos and so forth. Gosh, I thought I did...

So in a nutshell, here is his answer to our salvation:

"We are going to have to wipe out most of the financial claims from the books! We are going to put the world, which we have to save -- a physical world -- we're going to put the world into protection. And we're going to put the world into protection, by eliminating the greatest part of the nominal financial claims, held by financial institutions of the world today."

"You can get out of this mess, very simply: Go back to our Constitution, and go back to the thinking of Franklin Roosevelt, as of 1944. We go to that kind of thinking, and put the world through bankruptcy reorganization, and change away from this monetary system we have, which you can not save!

"...Which means that some things that are essential will continue to be paid, or ordered. Our investment in these things will expand. Other things, which people have been using as substitutes for production, in this kind of crazy market, are going to be frozen, just as you do, in any attempt to salvage a business, which is financially bankrupt."

Not sure what to make of this, and there is lots more. Sounds extreme and improbable, but perhaps not much more than the thought of the government paying our mortgages.

Any thoughts?