Senate Bill 1070, Arizona's notorious anti-immigrant law, is set to go into effect on July 29. With days left to go, Organizers are in a race against the clock to minimize the bill's impact on immigrant communities. Meanwhile, legal experts are examining the strategy behind a federal Department of Justice suit recently lobbed against the Arizona law, and other immigrant rights supporters continue to pressure the state via boycott. All of these acts are contributing to a tumultuous fight that's escalating by the day.
Earlier this week, we highlighted Nicholas Kristof's OP-ED in the New York Times about Gabon, a country in West-Central Africa where the rights of farmers are frequently in conflict with wildlife conservation efforts. One young village chief and farmer, Evelyn Kinga explained that she doesn't like elephants because they eat her cassava plants-a crop her livelihood depends on-because she doesn't benefit from rich foreigners who come to Gabon for eco-tourism.
But it doesn't have to be this way, says Raol du Toit, Director of the Rhino Conservation Trust in Zimbabwe. His organization works closely with farmers on the ground to help communities realize that protecting wildlife can be in their own best interest.
du Toit promotes "landscape-level planning" that takes into account the needs of wildlife, the environment, and farming communities. Rather than relying on development agencies and governments to decide where cattle fences should go or where farmers should plant their crops, local communities and stakeholders need to be part of the process. Development aid, says du Toit, should follow what local stakeholders need and perceive, not the other way around. Additionally, the Rhino Conservation Trust provides classroom materials for schools so that students may learn the connections between sustainable agriculture and wildlife conservation at an early age. (See also Helping Farmers Benefit Economically from Wildlife Conservation)
And du Toit is not alone in his effort to improve the lives of farmers, as well as protect wildlife.
In Tanzania, the Jane Goodall Instutite (JGI) started as a center to research and protect wild chimpanzee populations in what is now, thanks to their efforts, Gombe National Park. But by the early 1990's the organization realized that in order to be successful it would have to start addressing the needs of the communities surrounding the park. JGI was planting trees to rebuild the forest but members of the community were chopping them down-not because they wanted to damage the work but because they needed them for fuel and to make charcoal.
In response, JGI started working with communities to develop government- mandated land use plans, helping them develop soil erosion prevention practices, agroforestry, and production of value-added products, such as coffee and palm oil. "These are services," says Pancras Ngalason Executive Director of JGI Tanzania, "people require in order to appreciate the environment" and that will ultimately help not only protect the chimps and other wildlife, but also to build healthy and economically viable communities. (See also: Rebuilding Roots in Environmental Education)
In Botswana, the Mokolodi Wildlife Reserve is doing more than just teaching students and the community about conserving and protecting wildlife and the environment, they're also educating students about permaculture. By growing indigenous vegetables, recycling water for irrigation, and using organic fertilizers-including elephant dung-the Reserve's Education Center is demonstrating how to grow nutritious food with very little water or chemical inputs.
When school groups come to learn about the animals, the reserve also teaches them about sustainable agriculture. Using the garden as a classroom in which to teach students about composting, intercropping, water harvesting, and organic agriculture practices, the Wildlife Reserve helps draw the connection between the importance of environmentally sustainable agriculture practices and the conservation of elephants, giraffes, impala, and various other animals and birds living in the area.(See also: Cultivating an Interest in Agriculture Conservation)
Thank you for reading! If you enjoy our diary every day we invite you to get involved: 1. Comment on our daily posts-we check comments everyday and look forward to a regular ongoing discussion with you. 2. Receive weekly updates-Sign up for our "Nourishing the Planet" weekly newsletter at the blog by clicking here and receive regular blog and travel updates.
I was suppose to be in DC this week, helping to sell President Obama's new ambitious human space program. Yes, thats right, it is human, it is ambitious, and its very cool. Unfortunately, the weather didn't cooperate. That has me rather annoyed
In addition, I am getting rather sick and tired of the teabaggers (or the space equivalent to teabaggers) that have invaded some of the space blogs (and there are a ton). So, instead, I thought I'd tell you why I support the new NASA plan (although I will admit it is a work in progress).
In case you haven't seen it, there is a report over at the Wall Street Journal. The title of the article is White House Decides to Outsource NASA Work. However, I feel the article probably should've been White House Decides to Privatize NASA work. Or a better title would've been White House Decides to use NASA to Launch a New Industry
Afghanistan is currently the largest opium producer in the world. It is the only significant source of wealth in the country aside from US and other foreign aid. All of this opium is going to organized crime to be sold illegally, primarily as heroin.
Meanwhile, the market is legal prescription opiates is many billions of dollars a year. Such drugs include morphine, codeine, Vicodin, and Oxycotin. These drugs are made from opium produced by licensed growers, largely in India and Turkey. There is also a large shortage of prescription opiates in the developing world, primarily among the population too poor to buy them at market rates.
Without an economic basis, there is no way for Afghanistan to stabilize, develop, and escape from poverty. And if Afghanistan does not do these things, its people will continue in lives of grinding poverty and danger, the place will continue to be ruled by warlords or religious fanatics, and the prospect of renewal as an export station for terror returns. Our military objectives in Afghanistan are beyond military powers. An army cannot provide a basis for a functioning modern society; it's nation building or bust. And the only productive economic activity within reach is the one already being engaged in.
I am starting a short mini-series of blog entries, talking about the White House's Review of Human Space Flight Plans Committee. The point of this mini-series is to advocate action for a specific plan going forward, for NASA and US human spaceflight policy. The main issues I plan to address in this series of diaries is
1. We, (Democrats/liberals/progressives) should embrace human space development.
2. We should embrace space commercialization, particularly as it relates to all earth to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) transportation.
3. We should reject any and all plans that continue to utilize the Space Shuttle, its assets, its workforce, or any derivatives there of.
At the end of this, I hope to have you convinced to pursue action, in multiple forms.
But before I get into the details to convince you, I need to give you the background, so you know what President Obama is considering.
Last month, Senators John D. Rockefeller and Frank Lautenberg introduced a bill that would establish performance-based goals for our surface transportation system. The bill would, according to Senator Lautenberg, "establish a national policy that improves safety, reduces congestion, creates jobs, and protects our environment."
Among these goals is to reduce the amount Americans drive, or more specifically, to "reduce national per capita motor vehicle miles traveled on an annual basis." Basically, Americans should be driving less-fewer trips over shorter distances. This has as much to do with the way we use our land as it does with transportation policy. Where we choose to live and work and get the groceries largely determines how much we drive. We are driving longer distances to work and to complete all the other little errands that populate our days.
However, Gabriel Roth argues in a Wall Street Journalop-ed that reducing the amount we drive should not be a policy goal of the federal government.
Reducing the total miles traveled-whether the length or number of trips-means people would have to reduce the activities they want and need to do. People would be "coerced," in effect, to live in less desirable places or work in less desirable jobs; shop in fewer and closer stores; see their doctor less frequently; visit fewer family members and friends.
Roth's claim of coercion is absurd. Americans have already chosen to drive less. VMT per person leveled off some time around 2001 and began dropping around 2005. At the same time, public transit ridership has increased dramatically as cities build or expand rail systems and build higher-density, mixed-use developments.
Other claims, such as the assertion that reducing VMT will drive down economic growth, are equally absurd. Just look at driving trends. The reduction in VMT per capita began when the country was experiencing quite rapid economic growth.
On the other hand, there are many good reasons why we should, as a nation, be driving fewer trips over shorter distances.
A massacre of indigenous protesters in Peru last weekend has resulted in the temporary roll-back of development laws that were passed without proper consultation under international law. They were part of a package of laws issued to comply with a free trade agreement with the US. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the overseas impacts of free trade laws that we routinely hear nothing about.
Peaceful protesters were attacked by police, who killed at least 22 of them, according to their latest count--police claimed just nine. Twenty-three police were killed in return. Democracy Now!reported on the massacre on Tuesday (excerpts on the flip), and Al Jazeera filed this report:
More about the massacre itself, and the legislative response on the flip.
There has been extensive speculation about the direction that President Obama will take space policy. A lot of it has been centered around who he might appoint as NASA administrator.
But there might be another hint coming, and from another direction - FAA administrator. Particularly if he appoints Robert (Bob) Herbert as head of the FAA.
The Case for Becoming a Spacefaring Society:
Proposals for an Integrated US Space Policy by Jonathan Goff and Ferris Valyn
Throughout history, mankind has learned to master the environments around itself-developing new technologies to harness the elements to better our lives, improve our health and wellbeing, protect ourselves from others, and learn more about our position in the universe. In the past, mastering new environments, such as the developing of seafaring or aeronautics, has lead directly to substantial benefits for those nations which have chosen to take the lead.
While we have started to explore the next great environment-outer space and the planetary bodies of our solar system-such exploration by itself will not lead to a spacefaring society. The development of a truly spacefaring society-one that can master and tame this new environment, and harness its resources-is a more compelling vision than exploration alone, one that holds the potential for far greater benefits to our nation.
We strongly urge the new administration to make the development of a spacefaring society the focus of our nation's space policy.
Yesterday, Dr. Peter Diamandis, the man behind the X Prize, posted an essay over at huffingtonpost, entitled Re-establishing NASA's Leadership. In it, he offers a list of 7 ways to help reform NASA, so that it can better lead in the pursuit of space development.
Here is the list
1. Engage the Private Community
2. Use Risk as a Tool
3. Attract and Retain the Best Workers
4. Help America Benefit from the Global Space Community
5. Take the Lead Where Only NASA Can
6. Leverage Incentive Prizes
7. Inspire the Nation, and the World
Join me over the fold, to read my thoughts on his comments.
Space policy made a pretty decent splash at Netroots Nation. We had an excellent panel on space policy, and an excellent platform meeting. For those of you who don't remember, we had Andrew Hoppin moderating, and Chris Bowers, Lori Garver, Patricia Grace Smith, and George Whitesides all speaking. You can about the panelists here.
I figured now would be a good time to remind everyone (again) about some upcoming space events, that would be worth going to. We have a couple of major events this week, as well as future events upcoming. I promise reports to any and all I attend, and I suggest that you attend as well
However, today I want to talk about something that, Senator Obama can do, which doesn't require massive new spending, but would show an openness to the idea of manned spaceflight, and would fit well within his comments and concerns about having a coherent space policy. Senator Obama, please bring back the National Space Council.
To raise some issues seen by space activists, I have decided to open up my diary to fellow space enthusiasts who do not have a dailykos account. This is the first, in what will hopefully be a series of diaries, from various people.
Phil Smith is a member of the Space Policy Advisory Group. Right now, he is working with NASA to develop a Space Futures Working Group whose immediate function will be to present space policy papers to the presidential transition team from November to January (which hopefully will be Senator Obama).
He originally posted this over at his my.barackobama.com blog. These are his views, not mine, although there are a number of points I do agree with. It has been re-posted with his express permission. So join me over the fold to read his excellent piece.
STATE BLOGS
Earlier this week, we