Hi Tony,

Can I call you Tony? I feel like we have gotten so close lately. I just wanted to drop you a note to congratulate you on your yacht doing so well in the J.P. Morgan Asset Management Round the Island Race. As a former sailor and a former asset owner, I know how exciting it can be.

I am sorry for not writing sooner. I know there is no excuse and I feel silly trying, but since the fishing industry over here on the Gulf has taken a turn for the worse, I cannot afford Internet at home. And with the gas prices the way they are I needed to consolidate my errands. While I can’t really go inside Starbucks for WiFi because it’s for paying customers only, standing close to the window like this seems to get an ok signal.

It is great to see you getting your life back. I’m getting into some new hobbies myself. I am finding that Bird Washing is a fun and educational pastime. Long walks on the beach are nice. And since we have to wear gloves and boots there is less chance of sunburn.

I have to apologize for all the crap you have been getting from my fellow countrymen lately. Like you said, “The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean. The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume.” And compared to the amount water the fish actually need…. I have a fish tank at home and they don’t really need that much.

I know it must be boring looking at pictures about the “you know what”, but I thought it might be fun to see what the oil boo boo looked like if it happened by the big race your boat is in:

Image by Mike Collins

Well, I just wanted to touch base and wish you well. We are all praying for you to get your life back.

Sincerely,
Your Biggest Fan

[Editor's Note: This was originally published on Mike Collins' blog, Exotic Visitors. It has been reprinted here with Mike's permission.]

Where’s my ice cream sandwich?

VisualEconomics.com published a cool infographic about all the things that BP could have spent $100,000,000,000 on instead of having it float around in the Gulf. That figure doesn’t even include the $3.5+ billion spent in clean up efforts so far.

So what is just part of the fantasy list of what $100 billion dollars could buy?

1) $8.84 billion worth of clean water. That’s 10 years of clean water for the 884 million people around the world without access to it.

2) A new home for the Hurricane Katrina victims who lost their homes. That amounts to 275,000 houses at a market rate of $175,000 per house.

3) Ice cream sandwiches for everyone! Your mother, their mother, and everyone else in the Northern, Southern, Western and Eastern hemispheres.

4) Twitter (Price: $1 billion)

5) Yahoo, Inc. (Price: $20.069 billion).

6) My personal favorite: A Wolf Moon t-shirt for every person in America. That’s classy.

The list goes on to include cars, an island, books, condoms –even trips to outer space.

It makes me wonder why BP didn’t protect their assets a little more carefully.

COMMUNITY CONNECTION:

While we’re dreaming, what would you have bought with $100 billion?

Want to visualize the oil disaster in your hometown? Check out this website featured by Abbie Mood. Or read Julie Schwiertert’s thoughts on BP’s Propaganda Machine.

Photo: Julian Love

As the Mental Floss blog explained:

“Dutch artists Jeroen Koolhaas and Dre Urhahn are bringing vibrant art to unexpected places with their Favela Painting [P]roject. About one-third of Rio de Janeiro’s population lives in favelas, urban slums overrun with gangs and drugs. To prevent kids from getting caught up in the drug trade, the Favela Painting project pays Brazil’s youth to create murals for their communities. As a result, armies of teenage artists are giving their neighborhoods new faces—ones covered in bright, cheerful colors. The hope is that within the next few years, the entire landscape of favelas will become a massive work of art, drawing attention to the needs of the poor and filling the community with pride.”

Koolhaas and Urhahn recruited locals in Rio’s Santa Marta favela to spend a month learning painting techniques and transforming the gray-scale favelas into a vivid complex that looks as if someone took a prism and shattered it, scattering light across the whole favela.

The result–if you like color–is impressive; you can see before and after shots here.

The project is similar to a larger, worldwide initiative called Let’s Colour, which intends to “transform grey spaces with vibrant colour.”

On the one hand, these types of projects are appealing. They leave foreigners who come into “downtrodden” spaces feeling good about themselves and their work, good about what they can “give” or “share” with other people, and good about the connections they make with people who live in “grey spaces.”

On the other hand, I can’t help but wonder what happens when the artists go home and the colors fade. These types of projects are exciting and even temporarily transformative, perhaps, but they don’t lead to real social change. They don’t solve–or even really address–the kinds of problems that crowd people into tiny, grey concrete homes with little or no services. And even when these projects pay the painters, as Favela Painting does, one has to consider whether these projects are anything more than the do-gooder’s equivalent of crack: a quick hit of a feel-good sensation that eventually wears off.

What do you think? I’d love to hear your opinions in the comments.

Community Connection:

Want to learn more about Brazil? Visit our Brazil Focus Page, where you can find trip tips, drink recipes, language resources, and much more!

Photo: The US Army

Gold. Cobalt. Copper. Iron. Lithium.

The “bleak Ghazni Province seems to offer little,” noted the caption on the header photo leading into the article in Sunday’s New York Times, and the photo itself seemed to confirm the observation, a spectrum of grays and browns on a flat, rock-pocked landscape.

But beneath it all, apparently, are rich veins of the world’s most precious minerals that “are so big and include so many minerals… that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world….,” said Times journalist James Risen.

Even General Petraeus was awestruck by the discovery and its “stunning potential.”

For whom, though, remains to be seen.

Risen speculates that the discovery of minerals could incite the Taliban to redouble its efforts to stake territorial claims. He mentions “resource-hungry” China’s potential interests in the region. He fails to mention–at least not overtly, anyway–potential American interests, simply noting that

A “Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall….”

The discovery of the minerals could certainly represent a significant turning point for Afghanistan, which is currently ranked 181 (out of 182) on the United Nations’ Human Development Index, which examines lifespan, education, and overall quality of life to determine a country’s position relative to other nations.

At what cost might this discovery come with respect to the country’s current political situation, though? Not to mention environmental issues.

What do you think about this news? And how should Afghanistan act to protect its own interests? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Community Connection:

Afghanistan isn’t the only country with rich mineral deposits that is struggling to retain control of its own resources. Read “Bolivia to Become World Battery Capital?” to learn more about this phenomenon.

Photo by author

It’s just too damn easy and it’s not particularly productive.

Besides, plenty of other writers have been busy doing exactly that– it’s not hard to find material; even The New York Times had a front-page story about BP’s CEO, who has had to apologize to families of the 11 workers killed on the oil rig for his thoughtless statement, “There’s no one who wants this over more than I do. You know, I’d like my life back.”

But when I opened Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal to find a full page ad featuring Darryl Willis, the BP employee responsible for overseeing claims related to the oil spill, I was completely flabbergasted.

The BP spin machine–which has attempted to soothe us into a mental coma with the simplistic (but seemingly empty) refrain “We will get this done. We will make this right,”–really worked a good one with Willis.

In the ad, Willis explains that he was “born and raised in Louisiana” and that he “volunteered for this assignment because this [the Gulf Coast] is my home.”

I don’t doubt Willis’ good intentions–when a disaster strikes, especially in one’s hometown, most sentient, sensible, and sensitive people want to do something to help.

What I have a problem with is BP’s exploitation of Willis’ story to strike a particular chord in readers. “At age 70,” Willis says in the first paragraph of the five paragraph advertisement, “my mother lost her home to Hurricane Katrina. Afterwards, she experienced enormous frustration. So I know first hand that when tragedy strikes on a scale like this, people need help without a lot of hassles.”

Here’s the issue: Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster. One whose effects were most certainly exacerbated by human negligence, but a natural disaster nonetheless. The BP oil spill was not a natural disaster. It was a disaster caused by the deliberate decisions of a company’s executives to ignore warning signs, to fail to correct safety breaches, and to continue chasing profit as long as possible.

Willis may well make the connection between Katrina and the BP oil spill, but BP has no right to do so.

Community Connection:

Read How to Evaluate Claims about Big Oil to learn how you can assess oil companies’ messages more effectively.

Photo: ydhsu

The common attribute of the people we studied–including Jane Addams and Sara A. Collins Fernandis –was that they all saw a social problem, wanted to fix it, and got off their ass, brought people together, and did something about it.

The not-so-subtle message for students in the social work program was that we were expected to pick up the banner of social change and run with it. What I’m saying is that until recently, my model of activism has very much been rooted in, well, activity.

But after reading a recent article in Fast Company magazine about “slacktivism,” I’m beginning to think that passive forms of activism might not be as contradictory as they seem at first glance.

“Slacktivism” is the term that has been coined to describe quick actions, like texting to make a donation or “signing” an online petition. One of the entries in Urban Dictionary conveys obvious disdain for slacktivism, defining the word as “[t]he act of participating in obviously pointless activities as an expedient alternative to actually expending effort to fix a problem.”

I don’t know about “obviously pointless.”

Photo: Lisa Brewster

If you take a look at how much money was raised for Haiti via text messages (more than $16 million by Wyclef Jean’s Yele Haiti as of May 11, for instance), you’ll be inclined to at least think twice about “slacktivists.” And though you can find plenty of naysayers about the futility of online petitions, organizations like Change.org and MoveOn rely on them to demonstrate support and pressure the government and other interest groups to take action on issues as diverse as gay rights and the oil spill.

Slacktivism does have limitations; the collection of money and signatures is only useful, for example, if they’re directed to legitimate causes and are managed/implemented properly. And critics complain that “slacktivists” never have to get their hands dirty… just check out this group… on Facebook no less (Hey! Click to join our group “Slacktivism is an OUTRAGE!”).

But I think slacktivism is a valid form of activism. At the very least, it gets people interested in an issue that they might not have been aware of before… even if they don’t roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty.

Photo: dcJohn

For others, it’s the temptation to buy contraband–and the promise of a high resale value–that draws them to forbidden objects.

The US Fish & Wildlife Service hopes both types of people will help fatten its bank account.

Every year, the US Fish & Wildlife Service seizes thousands of objects made of animal parts: ostrich skin boots, lizard trimmed watches and wallets, and weasel fur coats, to name just a few.

The number of seized items has become overwhelming; however, and with 1.5 million items in storage, the FWS is trying to clean house, selling 300,000 items online through Lone Star Auctions.

Though the agency would prefer not to have to make money by selling the very items it forbids others to traffic, FWS officials say there’s no better way to dispose of these objects. The last auction, held in 1999, netted the agency $500,000 in profits, all of which were directed toward wildlife conservation.

Some activists, though, are outraged by what they view as hypocrisy on the part of the FWS. One senior member of PETA had the following to say about the auction, as reported by The Wall Street Journal:

Ashley Byrne, a senior campaigner with the animal-rights group PETA… argues that the sale just stimulates demand for weasel coats and python-trimmed figurines. Instead, she says, the agency should donate the merchandise to PETA. She has laid in quite a store of fake blood to splash on the shiny green snakeskin shoes and the weathered leather jackets trimmed with fox fur. She would like to put the bloodied goods on display anywhere she can, next to video monitors rolling footage of “animals being skinned alive or bludgeoned to death.” The juxtaposition will make would-be shoppers queasy, Ms. Byrne promises. “As opposed,” she says, “to perpetuating the idea that it’s OK to turn an animal into a keychain.”

What do you think? Should the FWS sell these goods or dispose of them without making money? Share your thoughts in the comments!

But I never considered three of those passengers would be snarling pomeranians.

I heard them before I saw them. Their high-pitched yelps ricocheted across the San Francisco International Airport’s departure concourse. Everyone in the check-in line turned to see where the commotion was.

“I’m checking in for the red-eye to New York,” the dogs’ owner said briskly. She placed her luggage on the scale and one of the pomeranians leapt onto the top of it, growling protectively and baring his teeth.

“Romeo!” The woman scolded, pulling at his leash. “Sorry, they’re not normally like this,” she said with an embarrassed smile.

“They?” I questioned, peering over the counter top. “How many dogs do you have with you?”

“Three,” she answered, curtly. And before I could inform her about the airline’s ‘one-pet-per-passenger’ policy, she hastily added, “They’re my emotional support animals.”

Emotional support animals, as the US Department of Transportation defines them, are “animals that assist persons with disabilities by providing emotional support.”

As I looked from the three barking, hysterical dogs to the middle-aged woman standing before me, I wondered what sort of emotional support they could possibly lend someone. They looked more frightened about their impending flight than she did.

But of course, I couldn’t ask her, because that would have meant violating a 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act that states airlines cannot inquire as to why a person requires a service animal.

Photo: pizzodisevio

The law was enacted to protect the privacy of the truly disabled, but it’s also created a loophole for those without a disability wishing to cheat the system and avoid the $100 fee that airlines levy on people traveling with a pet. Basically, anyone can pass their pooch off as an emotional support animal by purchasing a $10 “Service Animal” vest off the Internet (no documentation is required).

Although the traveler could be asked to produce a letter from a mental health professional, airlines are so afraid of getting slapped with a discrimination lawsuit that they rarely ask to see one. In fact, the Department of Transportation goes as far as to urge “carriers not to require documentation.”

Service animals (such as those that assist the blind or deaf) aren’t new to air travel. Service animals have been assisting the physically disabled since the 1920’s and are trained in a wide-variety of tasks, from fetching medication to detecting seizures or pulling wheelchairs.

But emotional support animals are not service animals.

They don’t assist with a physical disability but rather, an emotional one (such as agoraphobia) and aren’t required to undergo any training whatsoever. Unlike therapy dogs, who work in hospitals and rehab centers, are certified and bred for their gentle, calm demeanor, emotional support animals aren’t even required to be house-broken.

They’re pets.

Pets with a fancy title maybe, but pets nonetheless.

And while under normal circumstances, a pet would have to ride in a carrier under the seat or in the cargo hold, thanks to a 2003 guideline set forth by the D.O.T, emotional support animals can now sit on the floor or on their owner’s lap, free of charge.

Just like service animals.

This isn’t to say that emotional support animals don’t provide a valuable service for those who truly depend on them. Anyone who has experienced the unconditional love of a dog couldn’t dispute the fact that they and other pets provide love and comfort… especially to those suffering from anxiety or depression.

But is that enough to allow them an all-access pass on aircraft? And where do we draw the line? If an untrained Pumba the Warthog can fly for free because he provides emotional support, then why not an uncertified house plant? My bonsai tree offers me comfort, shouldn’t I be allowed to bring him on board, free of charge, as well?

Because as it is, what qualifies as an emotional support animal is only limited to the imaginations of the owners of the pets and the doctors who “prescribe” them. As long as the animal doesn’t pose a threat to the safety of the other passengers on board, any animal (with the exception of snakes, rats, or spiders) can be considered fit for the job.

And that includes ducks, monkeys and even pigs. In the last six months, I’ve checked in three emotional support parakeets and several emotional support cats and I even know of an agent who once assigned a bulkhead seat to a miniature pony.

And what about the passengers who may not feel so happy about sharing their legroom with Mister Ed? Or what about those with pet allergies? While airlines may try their best to accommodate those allergic to pet dander (by moving them to the rear of the plane, for example), the D.O.T specifically states that the “inconvenience of other passengers is not sufficient grounds to deny a service animal carriage in the cabin.”

Once, while I was preparing to board a flight, a captain stormed off the plane and approached the gate podium. “Tell me,” he inquired in a low voice, “What the Hell is the deal with these emotional support animals?”

After I informed him of the regulations, he shook his head in disbelief. And then told me about how he’d spent part of his last flight chasing down an emotional support dog who’d escaped away from his owner’s grip and run amok under the seats, frightening the passengers.

The dog had eventually found a hiding spot near the aft lavatory, where he’d urinated on someone’s handbag.

“They’re turning our airline into a circus,” he fumed. And I had to agree.

What’s the solution?

Do we ban emotional support animals from air travel because of the actions of an untold number of dishonest people? Perhaps a simple solution would be to require that emotional support animals receive the same training that therapy animals or service animals receive. While that training can be expensive (up to $60,000 according to the New York Times), it would weed out the fakers from the legitimately disabled.

Or maybe the real problem lies with why people feel they have to rely on emotional support animals in the first place. Because if people are so afraid to fly that they need Old McDonald’s farm on-board with them, then perhaps what they need isn’t a more relaxed definition of the term “handicapped” but rather, a better therapist.

Habitat for Humanity volunteers. Photo: Natalie Maynor

Speaking badly of Habitat would not only be difficult and improper – it would represent something approaching depravity, wouldn’t it?

I’ve got a long summer break this year, so I decided I might join up with the organization’s Global Village program in Cambodia. A quick bit of online research led me to the names and contact details of the three projects taking place.

I followed up with the leader in Siem Reap. Hugh M., a semi-retired chemistry professor in Tacoma, Washington, would make the project his seventh build. He agreed to do a phone interview with me the same day I contacted him. He asked reasonable questions about my motives for doing the program and my personal history, how I’d feel living with other team members, and if I had any special dietary restrictions.

Photo: tukanuk

The literature he’d sent made the experience look exactly like the one I wanted to have, so I didn’t ask much, except to find out about our lodging (“It’s nicer than anything I’ve ever stayed in in America,” was his response) and how much prayer would be involved. “I don’t have a daily reflection, or do a reading,” he promised me. “Some people come for that, so I tell them right up front, that’s not the kind of groups I run.” This seemed to me to be the best of all possible answers.

One thing I was curious about, though, was the cost of the trip. The Cambodia builds, all two-week affairs, cost $1,750. I asked Hugh where this money went. “Well, $400 goes to the Habitat fund in the country; it’s a donation. And the rest covers hotels, and transportation, and food, insurance, and that sort of thing.”

So the build required in excess of $1,300 a head. In a country where the average per capita income is around $2,000, and a most people don’t earn a fraction of that, that’s a lot of cash. I said as much to him, politely, and he responded with a verbal head scratch. “You know, I have tried to ask them where this money goes, or to cut down on the fees a bit, but that’s just the way it is.” I left it at that, and we chatted on a while longer about the adventure ahead.

Before hanging up, he told me what I wanted to hear: “If you’re interested, you are welcome to be on my team.” Hired. I thanked him and told him I’d reach a final decision within a few days.

The unaccounted $1,300 still bothered me, though. As much as I wanted to do the project, the math just didn’t make sense.

Considering Cambodian prices, and being very generous, I broke it down as such (Habitat’s breakdown is here):

Donation to Cambodia HFH: $400 per person
Shared accomodation – $50 per room, per night – $25pp x 13 nights = $325 per person
Meals – breakfasts and lunches for 10 days, not counting weekends $8 x 10 work days = $80 per person
Health insurance – $100 per person
Transportation – a mini-van for 16 x 10 work days – $50 per day, $500/16 people = $35 per person, approximately

TOTAL: $940 per person

Photo: charleschan

Granted, these are just the ‘necessities’. There are other things covered by the fees, including participation in ‘local ceremonies and events’. But we are still short.

I placed a call to Habitat’s headquarters in Americus, Georgia to inquire further. The receptionist put me through to David, the worker in charge of SE Asia.

David spoke with a fairly pronounced Indian accent. He told me that, in fact, $500 of the money went to donations – $400 to the local branch, and $100 to the American office. Fair enough. “But what about the rest?” I asked. He then reiterated the exact information that the build website contained – in fact, it’s entirely possible he was reading from the site as he spoke to me.

“Yes, I saw all of that online,” I assured him, “But I’ve been to Cambodia before, and we’re still talking about $1,250 for two weeks.”

“Well, as I said, $500 is a donation,” he repeated, and at this point I noticed a slight change in the tone of his voice.

“I am very interested in the program,” I told him, “I’ve already interviewed with the Team Leader and he told me I was welcome to join. I just want to know, since this is an investment, where it’s going.”

He solicited Hugh’s name and the trip dates. I realized I was no longer an anonymous caller.

“So we share a double occupancy hotel room, correct?” I continued. “Even $50 a night would get you a great double room in Cambodia.”

“Yes, but when you are travelling in a group the expenses are higher,” he claimed, citing some little-known Inverse Law of Group Travelling Costs.

I didn’t press that issue. “And transport, in Cambodia, it’s very cheap – I mean, a bus for one day can’t be that expensive for a group.”

Silence.

“Yes, well, if you have any other questions about the program,” he said, “I’d be happy to answer them.” It was clear he had no desire to remain on the phone.

“But you haven’t answered the questions I’ve asked, so I’d really like to talk about them first.”

“Yes, well, I hope this has been helpful, and feel free to call us again.” He now appeared to be reading from a customer service script, choosing lines in no particular order.

“But why would I do that when you haven’t answered the questions I’m asking you?” I laughed.

“Yes, well, thank you, and have a nice day.” And with that, the phone call ended.

What the hell had just happened?

Now, the kicker. My phone call to Americus took place at 10:00 PM Seoul time, which would have been 9:00 AM there, and 6:00 AM in Tacoma. Scarcely 20 minutes after I got off the phone, I received the following message from Hugh:

From: Hugh M###### ########@comcast.net
to: Bryan Fox

Date: Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Subject: Re: Siem Reap Team

Bryan,

Thanks for the interview and your quick response to my emails.

After reviewing the list of applicants I think in all fairness that I should place you on the wait list for my team.

Hugh

Photo: Aresaurburn

So this is what Global Village project volunteers need to say – I am willing to take my vacation time and finance my own way to a foreign country. I am willing to pay for my own meals, lodging, health insurance, and transport to the work site. And I am willing to work, unpaid, for two weeks on a project. And I agree unquestioningly to let you charge unaccountable dollars for the privilege of doing so?

I took a look at HFHI’s 990 (a tax exempt organization’s IRS form) from 2009. The organization employs only 1,252 staff and in the previous tax year, it had almost $255 million in revenue, nearly 90% from contributions and grants. It declared slightly over $266 million in operating expenses, including $47 million in salaries and wages. So whatever it charges to its 750,000 volunteers, the organization is still running at a loss.

Transparency, anyone?

This article is not meant as an exposé of the ‘seedy underbelly’ of Habitat. But all Global Village projects charge at least $1,300 for 10-14 day stints in countries where that is a lot of money.

So isn’t it fair to ask: Where is the money from the Global Village program going?

I wrote Hugh a very cordial reply, saying I imagined they’d called him from the head office and told them to strike me from the records. I wished him a successful and enjoyable trip. I didn’t get a response.

So if anyone in Phnom Penh is reading this, and needs some help building a house in July, get in touch. I’m willing to work cheap – and by that I mean, if you charge me less than $800 a week, I’m in. I figure I’ll be coming out ahead.

Community Connection:

Habitat for Humanity isn’t the only organization that charges people money to volunteer. If you just don’t have the cash or are worried about organizations’ use of money, check out Matt Scott’s 10 Volunteer Opportunities for Free Travel.

Photo: Alaskan Dude

TV and digital media reporter Brian Stelter writes in today’s New York Times that the former Alaska governor has entered into an agreement with the cable channel TLC to film an eight-part documentary about Alaska.

Discovery’s Chief Operating Officer, Peter Liguori had the following to say in the company’s press release:

“Discovery Communications is so excited to help Sarah Palin tell the story of Alaska, and to have a great documentary filmmaker in Mark Burnett helping to reveal Alaska’s powerful beauty as it has never been filmed, and as told by one of the state’s proudest daughters,” said Peter Liguori, Chief Operating Officer, Discovery Communications.

Screenshot from TLC.

Note that just under the press release is a video clip of Palin sitting on a couch that appears to be topped by a bear rug– complete with bear head.

According to Stelter, Palin had been shopping her TV show pitch around Hollywood this month, with little initial success; all the broadcast networks turned down her proposal, presumably due to its nature-oriented theme. But TLC, under its parent company, Discovery, bought global rights to the show and is reportedly prepared to pay Palin more than $1 million per episode for her hosting skills.

There are at least a dozen jabs I could make about all this, but the real point I want to make is this: Is Sarah Palin really the best ambassador for wild Alaska?

This is the woman who has argued that climate change is not a real phenomenon, but a conspiracy theory promulgated by “so-called…experts” using “fraudulent scientific practices.” “[W]e can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes,” Palin asserted in an op-ed piece in The Juneau Empire and The Washington Post.

She’s also the woman who has been repeatedly cited by environmental advocacy groups as having an “abysmal” record when it comes to conservation and environmental protection policies and practices. Among the evidence they draw upon:

-As governor, Palin disputed the conclusions of research conducted by the federal National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the beluga whale population. The NMFS stated that the belugas are in critical danger; Palin argued that the population was actually rebounding.

-Palin resisted efforts of state legislators to protect streams where salmon spawn from mining effluence.

-Palin supported an initiative to shoot wolves from helicopters, as well as a policy of paying a $150 bounty–from state funds– to hunters who turned in “freshly killed” wolves.

-Palin supported drilling for oil in Alaska.

-She sued the Interior Department to contest its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species.

As she stepped onto the national stage, Palin often portrayed herself as a lifelong nature lover. Photos of Palin fishing, hunting, and riding an ATV were commonplace, and there’s nothing wrong with any of that (well, except maybe the ATV-riding).

But being a fisher and hunter does not an environmentalist make, and Palin’s hardly a champion of the natural world.

So why has TLC gone where the broadcast networks didn’t even want to tread? Is Sarah Palin really the best ambassador to show off Alaska’s wilderness?

Community Connection:

Matador’s CEO, Ross Borden, recently returned from a heli-skiing trip in Alaska. Check out “The Ruby Mountain Heli Experience” on MatadorTV.

Photo: MarinoCarlos

It was one of those awkward moments during this year’s Academy Awards.

When the Oscar for Best Documentary was awarded to “The Cove,” political activist Ric O’Barry (who starred in the film) held up a sign: ‘Text Dolphin to 44144.’ Suddenly, the orchestra started playing, and everyone was hustled off stage.

Did the Academy somehow miss the point of the winning movie it picked? “The Cove” is about guerrilla activism, specifically to prompt change in our thinking about marine mammals, both in captivity and the wild.

Cultural Traditions vs. A Lucrative Business

After training captured wild dolphins for the popular 1960s TV series Flipper, O’Barry later renounced keeping marine mammals such as dolphins and whales in captivity (read more about his process of disillusionment).

“The Cove” focuses on O’Barry’s efforts to turn the world’s attention to the fishing village of Taiji, Japan, where dolphins are rounded up for capture each year, then offered for sale to dolphin trainers or slaughtered for their meat.

In response to “The Cove’s” Oscar, the town of Taiji issued a statement: “It is important to respect and understand regional food cultures, which are based on traditions with long histories.”

Many travelers would agree with that attitude.

But what the town’s press release fails to mention is that dolphin meat in Japan is increasingly toxic and unsafe to eat, partly due to high levels of mercury. Also, Taiji is the last town in Japan to still engage in dolphin drives. That’s hardly surprising, as eating dolphin meat is uncommon in Japan, as the movie points out. I also found this to be true during my years spent living in Japan, traveling everywhere from Hokkaido to Okinawa.

All of this makes hunting dolphins in Japan a different proposition from, for example, subsistence whale hunting by Inuits. Taiji’s emphasis on cultural “traditions” obscures the town’s profit motive in selling the caught wild dolphins to dolphinariums not just in Japan, but to other countries around Asia and the world; a captured dolphin reportedly may sell for over US$150,000.

Connecting :”The Cove” and the SeaWorld Tragedy

However, I believe that O’Barry would agree with the town of Taiji on one point: catching wild marine mammals and putting them into captivity is a global business, not just a local one.

Before Hollywood gave the Best Documentary prize to “The Cove,” mainstream media coverage of the death of a trainer at Orlando’s SeaWorld told a whale of a different tale about U.S. public attitudes toward captive marine mammals.

A 12,000-pound orca (killer whale) named Tilikum fatally attacked trainer Dawn Brancheau during a SeaWorld show in February. This was the third human death that the orca has been linked over the last two decades. Animal welfare groups such as In Defense of Animals (IDA) have warned that keeping dolphins and orcas (killers whales) in captivity will inevitably lead to more tragedies.

There was public outcry in Florida, especially by conservative religious groups, to immediately euthanize Tilikum. Tilikum’s fate is still undecided, but apparently the show must go on. Only three days after Brancheau died, SeaWorld resumed its popular whale show, albeit this time with trainers exercising more caution (e.g, giving directions from afar, not swimming with the animals or performing stunts in the water).

Captive Marine Mammals: Weighing the Pros and Cons

What price are we willing to pay to keep intelligent marine mammals captive? Some would argue that visiting amusement parks like SeaWorld is educational. It’s also true that some marine theme parks contribute to endangered species conservation and research. For example, SeaWorld works to rescue and rehabilitate Florida’s endangered manatees before returning them to the wild.

But what public audiences see at SeaWorld shows – dolphins and whales jumping through hoops and performing tricks – is unnatural. Similarly, you won’t see captive marine mammals behaving naturally during popular (and extremely profitable) “dolphin encounters” and swim-with-a-dolphin programs at amusement parks around the world.

Of course, not everyone has that opportunity to see wildlife in the wild, so, is keeping marine mammals in captivity justified?

Some argue that animals born and raised in captivity are not harmed in the same way that those who have been captured from the wild are. But scientific research has shown that marine mammals kept in captivity tend to have shorter life spans than their wild counterparts.

They are also more likely to suffer injuries (e.g., a dorsal fin injured when performing tricks or giving rides to humans) and may become ill from exposure to human disease and bacteria. Positive reinforcement techniques are not always used at marine theme parks, where holding tanks can be shockingly small.

Taking the Next Step (or Not) with Wild Dolphin Swims

Even travelers who agree that dolphins and whales should not be kept in captivity or trained to perform tricks may still defend swimming with wild dolphins.

Photo: TheStoryLady

When I lived in Hawaii, many self-described animal lovers talked glowingly about guided boat tours that took them to swim with wild dolphins, describing it as a “spiritual” experience. Many of these travelers anthropomorphize the dolphins, claiming they looked “happy.” But in fact, the dolphins may have little or no choice about whether to remain in the area or to leave.

Scientific studies have shown that swimming with wild dolphins can be detrimental to their health. When dolphins come into the islands’ protected bays to rest, the presence of humans and motorized boats can be disruptive. Later, when the dolphins swim back out into the open ocean to feed, they may be less able to fend off predators due to exhaustion. Some dolphins may be permanently driven out of safe resting places due to ongoing human disturbance by tour boats.

Is the pleasure of swimming with wild dolphins more important than the harm it might later cause those marine mammals? Perhaps “The Cove” has even more to teach us about ourselves than about Taiji, Japan.

At home and on the road, how do you decide which zoos, aquariums, wildlife tours and other animal attractions to support? How do you make such decisions when you don’t speak or read the local language? Does knowing that a performing animal was born and raised in captivity instead of being taken from the wild make a difference to you? Share your thoughts below.

Community Connection:

Interested in animals? Read more articles from our archives:

Pit Bull Bigotry: Public Perception and Legislation

Wild Pouring Out: Western Oregon’s Wolf Sanctuaries

Photo Essay: The Booming Business of Wildlife Trafficking

Feature Photo: swanksalot

A show about people who make money by dumpster diving and fashioning trendy new products out of old ones.

Community Connection:

MatadorNights co-editor Kate Sedgwick was dumpster diving before it was cool. And she’s written a how-to guide all about it.

Photo: soaringbird

Fifteen of the prison’s 600 inmates competed for titles such as Miss Captive Beauty, Miss Photogenic, and Miss Elegance, sporting elegant donated dresses in competition for cash prizes. Cecilia Juarez, 22, imprisoned on charges of drug trafficking and awaiting sentencing, was crowned Miss Captive Beauty.

Organizers of the event touted it as a rehabilitative effort to raise the women’s self esteem, and contestants interviewed for Mexican television said it helped to break up the monotony of prison life and that they enjoyed dressing up and being outside.

It’s an interesting subversion of the traditional beauty pageant that demands a mirage of perfection in both traditional “beauty” and personal life, and often ends in tearful apologies when some aspect of the beauty queen’s life falls outside of that fairytale dimension.

And certainly if any society is seeking to have effective rehabilitative prisons that address the issues behind criminality rather than simply serving as revolving doors, creative programs can be a step in that direction.

But I can’t help but get a disturbed feeling from watching news reports that zoom in and out on women’s bodies. I’m having trouble making the connection between rewarding a select few prisoners based on their looks and celebrating womanhood. And mostly, I’m thinking of the rest of the women of Juarez, Mexico.

Since the early ‘90s, hundreds of women in this border town have been killed, raped, or “disappeared” and never been found. These women were poor, many of them on their way to work in the maquiladora (sweatshop) industry, and the police have been notoriously dismissive towards the pleas of family members to investigate the cases, with 177 state officials deemed negligent in their handling of the investigations.

Recent measures by the Mexican government indicate that they are hearing some of the outcry, but much remains to be done in the way of true justice and reform. This is compounded by the fact that Juarez is a border city that has been one of the biggest casualties of the drug war.

This is a place where women were often blamed for their own murders, their characters attacked, and their sexual habits questioned, and where flyers would go up with safety tips for women such as not wearing provocative clothes or skirts that are too short.

I wonder whether the well-meaning officials behind Miss Captive Beauty are playing into the same kinds of paradigms that have turned marginalized women into disposable objects, ones not even worthy of a murder investigation, or a look into the complex conditions that drive their involvement in drug trafficking.

I also wonder whether this is indicative of attitudes in Juarez or if it’s just simply that the problematic aspects of beauty pageantry are made more aware because it’s removed from its usual arena and placed in the context of prison. And I also wonder whether I even have a right to question something that seems, at least from media reports, to be happily welcomed by the women of the prison themselves.

What do you think? Is a beauty pageant at a prison in Juarez a move forward or backwards?

Community Connection:

For more on Mexico and border issues, please read our interview with author David Danilo: “Back in 1848?: A Closer Look at the US/Mexico Border.”

Egyptian blogger Mohammed Sharkawy, freed after his arrest and torture in 2006. Photo: James Buck

People who once struggled to get a chance to speak now have a voice. Or at least a platform from which they can shout.

But that doesn’t mean the authorities have to like it, and in countries where public protest is actively discouraged, so too is digital dissent.

Some, like North Korea, Kazakhstan, and Cuba, have suppressed bloggers by restricting access to the Internet. While that might make them the most difficult places to be a dissident blogger, it doesn’t necessarily make them the worst.

Here are five dangerous places to be a blogger.

CHINA

Hardly renowned as a vigorous defender of free speech, China has almost 300 million Internet users and has few qualms about prosecuting bloggers, usually on charges of ’subversion’. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported at least 24 bloggers were serving sentences in 2009 for putting online thoughts that didn’t align with those of the leaders of the People’s Republic.

Prison sentences in China are also generally much longer than elsewhere – averaging between three to ten years.
Meanwhile, the authorities monitor emails and block websites via the so-called Great Firewall of China, recognized as one of the most effective attempts at state control of the Internet.

If that wasn’t enough, last year China announced it would be requiring a program called Green Dam to be installed on computers, which would aid its Internet censorship efforts by blocking sites and collecting information on what users have been browsing. Security vulnerabilities appear to have so far delayed the roll out of this program.

IRAN

While not holding nearly as many bloggers in prison as China, the Islamic Republic has the dubious honor of being the first place where a blogger has died while in incarceration. Omidreza Mirsayafi died in March last year, apparently after being refused medical treatment. He was being held in Tehran’s Evin Prison, notorious in the wake of Iran’s recent political unrest for reports of regular beatings and rapes by prison guards.

However, the Iranian blogosphere as a whole is one of the most active, helped mainly by the large number of dissident Iranians living abroad. And with professional journalists coming under severe restrictions since Iran’s disputed June 2009 presidential election, opposition websites have ended up being the starting point for most foreign media coverage.

MYANMAR

Very few people in what was formerly known as Burma have access to the Internet so those who want it need to use cybercafes. This provides the authorities with a much more cost effective way to crack down on digital dissidents since the cafes are heavily regulated and their users can be easily monitored.

Myanmar also appears to have taken a leaf out of China’s book on disproportionate sentencing – blogger Maung Thura is currently serving a 45-year jail sentence for disseminating video of the aftermath of 2008 Cyclone Nargis.

Photo: Tim Yang.net

The government also appears to have no qualms about simply turning off the country’s Internet access when they really don’t want things getting out.

EGYPT

Among Middle Eastern nations, Egypt wins media freedom points for the fact it blocks very little online content. However, that is of little comfort to political bloggers who are regularly harassed by the authorities.

One, known online as Karim Amer, is currently serving a four year sentence for insulting the president, and many others are periodically rounded up and jailed. Several have been tortured while in prison.

Egypt’s bloggers have themselves documented the near endemic use of torture in jails by posting footage of it on the Internet. Two policemen were jailed in 2007 after bloggers posted mobile phone footage of them sodomizing Emad al-Kebir, a 22-year-old bus driver, with a stick.

SAUDI ARABIA

Religious authorities in Saudi Arabia have several times advocated punishments such as flogging and death for bloggers who have touched on Islam. They have yet to get their way, but the government has been willing to sling bloggers in jail without charge on several occasions.

Perhaps the real problem for dissident bloggers in Saudi Arabia, though, is not the punishment, but the fact there is just so much you can’t talk about. Hamoud Ben Saleh was arrested in January last year for writing online about his conversion to Christianity.

Besides religion and politics, authorities take a dim view of anything they consider vaguely ‘indecent’, a lose turn of phrase covering a multitude of sins. To compound the problem, since sites are blocked using key-word filters, that can include potentially beneficial content such as information on sexual health or breast cancer.

Despite the best efforts of their governments, though, blogging in countries that take a strong line on dissent has thrived and there are many projects designed to help keep it that way.

Media rights group Reporters Without Borders, which last year published a list of 11 countries it branded “Internet enemies,” offers a downloadable Handbook for Cyberdissidents, available from its website.

Community Connection:

Haven’t set up your own blog yet? Unsure about how to use digital and social media to promote the causes you care about? Be sure to visit Matador’s Social Media Focus Page for resources that will help you get started.

Via: Online Schools Feature photo: yeowatzup

What do you think about this infographic? Sound off in the comments.

Community Connection:

Want to learn about SOUTH Korea? Read South Korea Exploration: Roadtripping the Peninsula, Gonzo Traveler: Surviving the Beef Riots in South Korea, and How to be a Vegetarian in Korea.

Photo: takomabibelot

In case you missed it–which is entirely possible, given that mainstream media made a quick mention of it and moved on to the next big thing–the US Supreme Court handed down an alarming ruling in a critical case last week concerning the role of corporate America’s influence in American politics.

In brief, the justices ruled in a 5-4 decision that the US government can neither prohibit nor control corporations’ political spending in elections. In a rather astonishing leap of (il)logic, the majority decision stated that spending is a form of speech, and as such, spending can’t be controlled by the government because imposing controls would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Well, money does talk, but as Justice John Stephens expressed in his 90-page dissenting opinion, corporate speech (made possible by deep pockets) and the speech of individual Americans aren’t exactly equivalent.

With this in mind, we argue there are at least five reasons why last week’s Supreme Court decision means the end of democracy as we know it:

1. Because it’s an alarming precedent for illogical judicial analysis.

The judicial branch of federal government plays a crucial role in Americans’ lives.

It affects our education, our relationships, and our bodies.

It’s precisely because it’s so powerful that Americans depend upon its decisions to be rooted in the most thoughtful and careful analysis of the law possible.

And in this decision, such analysis was absent.

As MatadorTrips co-editor Hal Amen observed, “I don’t believe relaxing campaign spending restrictions has anything to do with free speech.”

The fact that the Court made a case otherwise sets an alarming precedent for this Court with respect to its ability to analyze legal matters logically.

2. Because it shows just how pervasive the corporatocracy is…

Corporate lobbyists already exert almost unimaginable influence over politics, law, and daily life in the United States.

Graphic: OpenSecrets

They determine everything from what kids eat for lunch in public school cafeterias to what warnings the EPA can compel manufacturers to attach to their products.

And corporate interests have long shaped our foreign policy, from Latin America to the Middle East.

Do we really need more of their meddling? Do they really need any more power?

3. and emboldens them even more.

If you thought the arrogance of corporate America had reached unsurpassable heights (see AIG and big banks’ bonus fiascos), then just wait. Corporate America just got a big blank check, signed by the Supreme Court.

4. Because it further exposes the hypocrisy of American “democracy” to the rest of the world.

As we continue our world tour for democracy, claiming that we’re going to liberate “oppressed” countries from their self-interested “dictators,” we might want to take a minute to reformulate our elevator speech, because the jig is up: the self-interested party is corporate America.

5. Because it means that the little guy just got even smaller.

It used to be that anyone who met the requirements of office could aspire to public service through politics. Exhibit A? Jimmy Carter.

This was a hallmark of American politics.

No longer.

Unless you’re a friend of big business, forget your political aspirations.

Community Connection:

What’s your opinion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Feature photo: hellodan; Photo above: sillygwailo

Public Debt

Public debt is probably the most noticeable of issues affecting Vancouver, but it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

When you take infrastructure and security costs into count, no modern Olympics has ever made back all of the money spent to put the Games on.

In fact, actual costs usually end up being exponentially higher than projected costs. The 2004 Games in Athens were projected to cost $1 billion but ended up costing a whopping $9 billion. Montreal held the games in 1976, but the city didn’t finish paying off its debt until 2002.

The Vancouver Olympics are projected to cost $2 billion.

In an effort to win the bid, the city was required to complete various infrastructure projects, including the Sea-to-Sky Highway, a new SkyTrain line, and a new convention center. This brings the cost of the Games to $6 billion. The security budget, originally estimated at $175 million, has grown to over $900 million due to fears of protests and riots, leading to my next point:

Vancouver 2010: Has the City Become a Police State?

To address security concerns in Vancouver, the federal government has enlisted the military to stand guard during the Games. The total number of security personnel is currently estimated at 12,500.

Photo: sashafatcat

As we speak, closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras are being placed throughout the city to monitor crowds, and locals fear that these cameras will be kept in place after the Games are over.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have gone so far as to establish an Integrated Security Unit, that in the past few months has spent its time penetrating anti-Olympic groups and paying visits to anyone who bad-mouths the Olympics, whether in public or on a personal blog.

In an attempt to counteract protests, the security budget has even been used to build “free speech zones….”

Charter of Rights Violations

…Wait a minute, I thought Canada WAS a free speech zone?!

You can be in favor of the Olympics anywhere you want, but if you want to be against them, you’d better get to a free speech zone. The city of Vancouver has passed numerous bylaws that essentially make it illegal to protest.

Freedom of the press is also at stake. Amy Goodman, author and host of Democracy Now, was recently detained at the border and eventually granted only 48 hours of entry after she was pulled over for being suspected of speaking out against the Olympics, even when she had no such intention to do so, nor was she even aware that there was a problem. She has since educated herself on the subject, so the Olympics have now gained a powerful enemy.

Another act passed just in time for the Olympics is the controversial Assistance to Shelter Act, which gives police the ability to forcefully remove homeless people from the streets and place them in shelters. Many homeless are known to prefer sleeping on the streets than in shelters for reasons ranging from abuse and robbery to the monitoring of their sleeping and eating habits in shelters.

There is speculation that this act was passed in time for the Olympics in an attempt to clean up the streets before the tourists arrive, due to Vancouver’s quickly growing number of homeless….

Homelessness and Poverty

Vancouver has the highest rate of homelessness in Canada, most visible in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES). Since winning its Olympic bid in 2002, Vancouver has been siphoning money out of crucial social programs to help fund the Games. This has led the closing of at least 850 units of supportive housing and homelessness has since doubled.

Photo: quinet

Rumors have circulated about unlawful evictions in the lead up to the Olympics as well, many cases of which are currently tied up in the courts.

Vancouver’s DTES is also a haven for drug dealers and sex-trade workers. With a rise in tourism also comes a rise in drug pushing and prostitution, which is going to make the streets of the DTES a very dangerous place during the Olympics, especially for those people who call the DTES home, like me.

Another controversial aspect of Vancouver’s DTES is Insite, North America’s first and only safe-injection site, where injection drugs can be used indoors with clean needles and water under nurses’ supervision. Although the project has proved positive in Vancouver and is supported by the city and the mayor, it is often criticized by Canada’s conservative federal government.

There are growing fears that this landmark program could be the next service on the chopping block of budget cuts. Insite is a critical program for treating addiction and preventing HIV and Hep C in a neighbourhood where IV drug use is rampant.

Finally…

The Olympics as Big Business

The Olympic Games have positive benefits, from promoting physical activity to inspiring patriotism and bringing people together, but perhaps it’s time to take a critical look at the Olympics as a corporation.

Human rights should not be sacrificed for any reason, especially for sports. The time to act is now, to work towards a more peaceful Olympics that benefits everyone and not just the businesses and sponsors involved.

For more information and to find out how you can get involved, check out:

The Olympic Resistance Network

No2010

The Anti-Poverty Committee

To take direct action, consider organizing a boycott against Vancouver 2010’s Corporate Sponsors.

Or why not express your feelings in an email or letter to:

The International Olympic Committee

Château de Vidy
Case postale 356
1001 Lausanne
Switzerland

pressoffice@olympic.org

and

The Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC)
#400-3585 Gravely St.,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
V5K 5J5

info@vancouver2010.com

Community Connection

The Beijing Olympics inspired even more public controversy. Read Why It’s Useless to Boycott the Beijing Olympics and How Love and Money Conquered Communism at the Beijing Olympics for a recap of those Games.

As if cued to add fuel to the environmental debate that erupted on Twitter recently, the new “world’s largest passenger vessel” docked at its home port in Florida for the first time just a few days after.

Royal Caribbean’s “Oasis of the Seas,” finished in October of this year, is 40% larger than its closest rival for size. With a passenger carrying capacity of 6,296 guests plus 2,165 crew members (for a grand total of 8,461), it could house 80% of the entire population of Sarah Palin’s hometown of Wasilla, Alaska.

If you asked me to do a word association with “cruise,” my immediate response would probably begin something like: waste, drunk, exploitation, gambling. Funny enough, the Royal Caribbean management at least partly agrees with me.

After all, “Oasis” practically brags about the amount of resources and commodities it consumes on a daily basis. Its fact sheet reads like a guide book to wastefulness. These are some of the so-called “Fun Facts” about the ship found on their website:

150 miles (241 km) of piping
3,300 miles (5310 km) of electrical cables
158,503 gallons (600,000 liters) of paint
4,700,000 lbs. (2,350 metric tons) of fresh water consumption per 24 hours

In addition to the vast quantities of non-renewable resources consumed to build the behemoths, cruise ships produce a lot of waste themselves. An environmental activist group called Oceana reports that the average cruise ship produces daily:

- 25,000 gallons of sewage from toilets
- 143,000 gallons of sewage from sinks, galleys, and showers
- seven tons of garbage and solid waste
- 15 gallons of toxic chemicals
- 7,000 gallons of oily bilge water

I’m not sure what oily bilge water is, but it can’t be good.

In some ways, the environmental damage possibly caused by cruising on the “Oasis” isn’t actually so drastic. When you consider the fact that, if they weren’t on a cruise, those 8,000 sailors would be consuming goods, services, and water elsewhere, the numbers don’t seem so dire. 4.7 million pounds of water works out to around 70 gallons per person – within the normal range of the average American’s daily home water consumption (not to say that isn’t still egregiously high).

At least a cruise ship has the opportunity for reducing consumption per capita through economies of scale. Some of that water used (though likely a tiny fraction) surely goes to water the ship’s 12,175 live plants. And in the last decade most cruise companies have made an effort to clean up their business. They have updated ships with advanced sewage treatment facilities, improved emissions systems, and have begun plugging into hydroelectric power sources while docked at port, rather than running their engines.

But cruise ships can be damaging in other ways.

For one, they can cheapen and degrade local cultures. Let’s be honest: cruise-goers on a 7-day cruise Caribbean cruise aren’t looking for a cultural immersion experience. “Oasis” stops in Jamaica, Haiti, and Cozumel, Mexico for 29 hours. Total. That’s 29 hours out of 168, or about 17%.

Photo: lepiaf.geo (better off slipping into blur)

Think of what happens when a boat carrying over 6,000 passengers pulls up to port after being at sea for two days straight. They all pour out onto the island to shop, eat, and drink their way through local towns.

Time for a little honesty again: thousands of cruise-boat tourists on shore for eight hours aren’t going to buy a hand-woven scarf or take the time to get to know the people they’re buying from. Chances are they’ll buy cheap trinkets that were more likely than not made in a factory in China and only resold locally.

What do you think will happen when that local scarf-weaver realizes that they can earn more money from selling cheap Chinese trinkets than making textiles?

Cruise ships, for better or worse, cater to the most attention-span-deprived among us. Cruises are often an all-inclusive package deal; your ticket pays for your room, your meals, all the endless entertainment your heart can take, and sometimes soft drinks and alcohol.

“Oasis” is no exception.

As the world’s largest passenger boat – almost five times larger than the Titanic – it is expected to have a commensurate level of attractions. It doesn’t disappoint. It has so many amenities, in fact, that USA Today’s “Cruise Log” even asked: “Is Oasis of the Seas too complicated for a first-time cruiser?”

But all of those diversions come at a cost. Tourists who are coddled and satisfied by cruise staff for several days straight, then suddenly released into the laid-back culture of a Caribbean island, are probably not going to be the most patient or understanding people in the world.

Surely all cruise-goers aren’t environmentally ignorant nor culturally unaware. People cruise to escape from the stress and pressure of the daily grind, and to have everything taken care of for them, which doesn’t make them greedy or insensitive.

But a cruise ship – especially one like “Oasis” that touts itself as a floating city, complete with seven different themed “neighborhoods” – doesn’t do much to encourage cultural awareness.

Cruise ships have a responsibility to the local communities where they dock – not just to the government officials whose permits they buy, or to the ports whose electricity they use. They have a responsibility to the culture as a whole.

The least they could provide their guests is a little cultural education to go along with their all-you-can-eat buffet.

Community Connection:

Did you miss the Twitter debate on cruising? Read Julie Schwietert’s article, Should Travel Writers Care About Their Environmental Impact?

Bhopal, Photo: openDemocracy

That’s the last line of the first paragraph of writer Suketu Mehta’s op-ed about the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal gas disaster, published in yesterday’s New York Times.

In that paragraph, Mehta’s describing the difference between his son’s kindergarten class in Mumbai–where servants cleaned up after the kids–to the same child’s first grade classroom in Brooklyn, “where the teachers made the children tidy up at the end of the day.”

In elementary school, at least, Americans get it right: We have to take responsibility for our actions. We have to clean up after ourselves.

But what happens, Mehta insinuates, between that fundamental lesson of childhood and our supposed maturity into adulthood?

The anecdote is a lead-in to Mehta’s meditation on the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal gas disaster. The short version of that story is this: the American chemical company, Union Carbide, had a pesticide plant in India that belched out a poisonous chemical cloud over Bhopal.

Four thousand people were killed instantly, and according to Mehta:

“An additional 15,000 people have since died from the aftereffects, and 10 to 30 people are said to die every month from exposure to the hundreds of tons of toxic waste left over in the former factory.”

That news would be devastating enough to any sentient being, but what Mehta goes on to note–and how it all ties in with his opening anecdote about the “wonderful American tradition”–is the real kicker: Union Carbide (subsequently bought by Dow) never cleaned up the contamination.

It’s disgusting, but hardly surprising and definitely not an anomaly. This year alone, we’ve written here on Change about a string of similar incidents, mostly perpetrated by big oil.

It’s easy to finger wag or wring one’s hands or bitch about mega-corporations’ greed and irresponsibility. But none of that does much–if any–good. And in some ways, we’re complicit with their actions.

“What’s missing in the whole sad story,” Mehta concludes, “is any sense of a human connection between the faceless people who run the corporation and the victims.”

He goes on to tell a story about a woman from Bhopal who wrote a letter to Union Carbide after losing her husband and her son to the company’s negligence:

“[P]ut your hand on your heart and think…if you are a human being, if this happened to you, how would your wife and children feel?”

Mehta says the woman never received a response. That’s not surprising either.

It’s tempting to read Mehta’s op-ed or other accounts of the Bhopal disaster, shake our heads, and move on. We always do… it’s our normal, default position, a self-protective action to keep us from totally breaking under the weight of the world’s problems.

But what if, instead, we decided not simply to move on? We can’t, perhaps, change the corporatocracy. But what we can do, every single day, is think about how our own personal choices and actions affect other people.

We can clean up after ourselves.

Community Connection:

Read about other corporations’ take the money and run actions around the world:

Chevron’s Greenwashing Ad Campaign

First Person Dispatch From the Chevron Protest

How much could one piece of paper cost? Feature photo: Foreign & Commonwealth Office; Photo: Bekathwia

A few years back, I took a tour of the United Nations.

I stopped by the information desk and noticed a stack of booklets, each stamped with the date. The UN publishes information about its proceedings and resolutions in a daily brief that rivals the page count of many towns’ newspapers. Produced in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish, any official UN document requires the work of many minds and hands.

It also requires a lot of money.

According to an article published in The New York Times a couple weeks ago, “it costs the United Nations an average of

$2,473 per page

to create every single document in its six official languages….”

Outside contractors could produce the same page for what seems like a bargain basement price in comparison: $450.

Obviously, the UN can’t keep its members in the dark about what’s going on with respect to decisions related to peace-keeping, aid, and development missions around the world. The cost of being uninformed is just too high.

But with a single UN committee producing more than 10,000 pages of documents a year, the organization is facing a few tough questions: What information is truly critical, how can it be presented in the most concise way possible, and who needs it?

Is there a solution to this costly form of communication? What are your thoughts about documents costing an eye-popping $2,473 per page? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Community Connection:

In addition to its peace-keeping, aid, and development operations, the UN performs vital functions like designating World Heritage sites, a status which confers protection on important historical sites around the world.

Read about 13 of Asia’s Most Spectacular World Heritage Sites or check out Hal Amen’s round up of Overlooked World Heritage Sites.

Would practicing poverty really help the world’s poor? Photo: Let Ideas Compete

Over on the Guardian’s environmental blog, a debate is raging.

On one side–and he’s pretty much a one-man team–is writer Tom Hodgkinson, who argues that “far more sensible than a ‘make poverty history’ campaign would be a ‘make wealth history’ campaign. “It is, after all,” he says, “the wealthy people who do all the damage.”

In his rather convoluted defense of this somewhat interesting, albeit totally unlikely to ever be realized idea, Hodgkinson grumbles that we’re all too divorced from the land, ourselves, and each other. We’re too tech dependent– “addicted” is the word he uses (though, curiously, he’s sharing his thoughts on a blog… I’ll leave you to ponder that one)– too consumerist.

We’re destroying the planet, he suggests, though we could save it, maybe, “[i]f we lived poor for just one day of the week….” In addition to “instantly reduc[ing] pollution by a seventh,” we–the world’s wealthy– “would rediscover the simple pleasures, such as cards, chess, backgammon, draughts, talking, dancing and playing music.”

I’m all for reducing consumption, unplugging more frequently, and spending quality time with the people I love. But I’m not sure I buy Hodgkinson’s argument that a “make wealth history” campaign would solve the world’s problems or make the world any more just for the poor, especially when he doesn’t really describe what such a campaign might entail besides harking back to the supposed “good ole’ days” before Blackberrys and iPhones.

I’m not the only one at odds with Hodgkinson–check out the comments section of his post.
What do YOU think? Share your thoughts in our comments section below.

Community Connection:

“Does traveling abroad = less conspicuous consumption at home?” asks Matador Abroad editor Sarah Menkedick.

Photo: Lisa Brewster

The latest twitstorm blew through the travel writing universe over the weekend, leaving the blogosphere breathless–but certainly not speechless–over the quantity and quality of mudslinging that can be done in 140 characters.

I daresay the majority of us following the #followmeatsea hashtag on Saturday and Sunday didn’t give a damn about the spa treatments, fruity drinks, or lavish meals that bloggers on the Princess Cruise Twitter press trip were enjoying and then thumb-diddling about online. I mean, really: who wants to hear about someone else’s free trip while they’re sitting at home up north, slogging away at work? I’m just saying.

As several of us following the twitstorm admitted, we couldn’t look away. Some colleagues even suggested we all go make some popcorn and pull up a virtual chair in this online theater.

The twitstorm was about this: A travel blogger following the hashtag from home raised the issue of the environmental impact of cruise ships. Unfortunately, her phrasing was charged with a certain holier-than-thou tone. What ensued was an hours-long joust of keyboards between said blogger and the bloggers on the cruise, tempered with an occasional observation from those of us on the sidelines.

Before long, the whole exchange–which could have been an excellent opportunity for thoughtful discussion–devolved into a mutually defensive and embarrassingly immature display in which each party clearly wanted to have the final say.

In the midst of the storm, a couple of bloggers on the trip declared they’d speak to cruise ship representatives in order to provide a definitive answer about the environmental impact of cruise liners. They tweeted about their 5.5 hour tour of the ship, remarked about the GPFs (gallons per flush) of cruise toilets (“better than home!”), and insisted that “NO SOLID WASTE [read: poop] goes off a cruise ship!” Princess even, reportedly, “turns its old cooking oil into biofuel.”

Some onlookers were content, saying they “can’t wait to hear the REAL enivronmental facts” from the bloggers who were determined to resolve the matter once and for all.

All of which is well and good, I guess, but the whole exchange leaves me with a few questions:

*Is a 5.5 hour tour of the cruise ship led by people who clearly have a stake in presenting the ship in the best light really going to produce compelling evidence about the “REAL environmental impact” of cruising?

*Were any of the bloggers on the trip concerned about the environmental impact of cruise liners before the issue was raised by someone who wasn’t on the trip?

*Should travel writers care, ultimately, about their own environmental impact?

*And if the answer to that question is yes, how do we figure out what our true environmental impact is?

As I’ve written elsewhere, I’m not opposed to press trips. I’m not envious of the bloggers on this trip–I’ve never been interested in going on a cruise. I wouldn’t have been the least bit interested in #followmeatsea if it hadn’t turned into a disturbing yet fascinating real-time case study about the intersection of comped travel, social media, and environmental issues. Were any of the bloggers on this trip concerned about the environmental footprint of the trip before they eagerly signed on to cruise around the Caribbean on Princess’ dime?

Should travel writers care about their environmental impact? Should travelers?

My own opinion is an unequivocal yes. What’s yours? I hope you’ll share it–politely, please–in the comments.

Community Connection:

Missed the other recent twitstorm about travel writing ethics? You can read all about it here.

Photo: annnna

I’ve only felt truly depressed a couple times in my life:

1. In the days following 9/11

and

2. The night of the 2004 presidential election, when it became clear that there was something seriously wrong with the American electoral system.

This second circumstance was a distant, fuzzy memory by this time last year. In the run up to the the most interesting American presidential election in decades, it seemed possible–finally–that the people could actually exercise their democratic rights and elect an interesting, intelligent candidate who wasn’t part of the good ole’ boy system and who hadn’t yet been corrupted by conventional politics, a candidate who’d run a smart campaign and invited the American people to get involved.

And the fact that we did–get involved AND elect that candidate–was powerful. Exciting. It’s not hyperbole or sentimentalism to say that it restored my faith in democracy and made me feel like one person really could make a difference.

So a year later, why am I so apathetic about getting out to vote?

*
Tomorrow is election day in New York City. Registered voters in the five boroughs–Manhattan, Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island–will be pulling the lever (because yes, we still have the old-school voting booth) to choose their candidates in the races for mayor, comptroller, public advocate, City Council, and borough presidents.

The most contested of these offices is that of mayor. The leading contenders are Democrat Bill Thompson and incumbent, Independent (and billionaire businessman) Mike Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s been mayor for the past two terms and, by all rights, shouldn’t be running in this election. That’s because the office had a limit of two terms… until he strong-armed the city into overturning the term limits law last year.

Now there are few people who would argue that Bloomberg hasn’t done some good things for the city (not the least of which is living in his own home, instead of the mayoral mansion, and refusing a salary, both of which save New Yorkers some money). But his public demeanor is often sarcastic, biting, and borderline rude. And what’s really irked voters–even the ones who like him and have voted for him in previous elections–is that in overturning the term limits without taking the issue to the voters in a referendum, Bloomberg’s really only interested in self-aggrandizement.

Thompson, for his part, isn’t particularly engaging. I’m not even sure what I could tell you about him, other than the fact that he’s currently the city comptroller.

Why one of the most dynamic cities on the planet doesn’t have a more dynamic roster of candidates for public office is puzzling. And it dampens my desire to vote.
*
This isn’t a contest that involves voting for the lesser of two evils. Bloomberg and Thompson both seem competent enough. But they also both seem bland. Uninspired. Lacking in the charisma and desire to really engage their constituents in the way that President Obama did during his campaign… all of which leaves me with minimal motivation to walk the 1/2 block to my polling place tomorrow to pull the lever for either of them.
*
What do you think? Should I get out and vote, even if I don’t feel an affinity for either candidate? Make your most convincing argument in the comments.

Community Connection:

Recapture the spirit of the 2008 US presidential election by reading blogs from Matador members around the world.

Photo: simminch

I had a particularly privileged friend during high school—let’s call him Joe. On Joe’s sixteenth birthday, his father bought him a brand new Audi, a truly sweet piece of machinery. After several months of joyrides and speeding tickets, the engine block locked up, and the Audi was finished. Joe had never changed (or even checked) the oil. His father was furious and refused to foot the steep bill of repair.

What did Joe do? He got motivated. He mowed lawns and cleaned gutters every weekend until he could afford a twelve-year-old jalopy. And he cared for that clunker with the proud dedication of a doting mechanic. Was Joe’s sudden maturity unusual, or was it a natural result of his newfound self-reliance?

The bigger questions for our purposes are:

1. Does the weight of liability change human behavior?

and

2. If so, how should this inform the first world’s approach to extreme poverty in the third world?

In the realm of sustainable development and foreign aid (that is, not emergency-relief aid), there are no easy answers. The ongoing debate comprises a plethora of polemics, but I discern three main viewpoints among them:

1. Big money, top-down “planners”

The proposition: Extreme poverty is a big, multi-level problem that requires big, multi-level solutions. We need large-scale plans—ambitious, multi-billion dollar initiatives by resource-rich outfits such as UNICEF and USAID.

Top-down planners advocate a comprehensive strategy due to the interdependency of factors inherent to poverty. That is, economic invulnerability depends on diversity of employment options, which depends on access to quality education, which depends on reliable infrastructure and students’ health, so we must build roads and hospitals and distribute mosquito nets. . . and on and on. Everything relies on everything else.

Photo: dlisbona

The opposition: Ineffective penetration, lack of accountability. Big aid money goes to governments rather than the people, as money gets siphoned off at all levels. This approach enables corruption and encourages irresponsible governance.

Grandiose schemes are poorly implemented due to insufficient understanding of ground conditions. In short, there is too much distance between planners and intended beneficiaries.

Also, such aid smacks of neo-colonialism. Gift money brands recipients as junior partners in the exchange, and thus paternalistically prohibits self-reliance by perpetuating need.

The tone here is negative: “We pity you, so here’s some help. But we won’t invest and trade with you on equal terms, because you’re beneath us.”

2. Small money, bottom-up “searchers”

The proposition: Lasting gains are intrinsically incremental. Establishing improvements that actually benefit the poor requires ground knowledge. Aid workers must go to the bottom rung, learn the environment, and search for ways to improve conditions within quantifiable parameters.

Unlike top-down aid, bottom-up aid focuses on building capacity within target communities to become active participants in the determination and execution of development projects. This approach aims to level the exchange, so beneficiaries are gradually empowered to take up their own cause. Weaning is essential, hence these NGOs have an exit strategy.

The opposition: The process is slow, but hunger and disease don’t wait. And as with top-down aid, the onus of responsibility is lifted from local government. Government officials can sequester resources while remaining nominally responsible for the progress made by NGOs within their jurisdictions.

Though subtler, bottom-up aid is still paternalistic. It feigns home-grown development, but foreign influence is undeniable, especially in cases where community “input” amounts to locals saying yes to whatever is proposed by those holding the checkbook.

3. The “bootstraps” faction

The proposition: Foreign development aid is a self-perpetuating, growing institution and has actually harmed the third world. Aid fosters dependency, encourages corruption, and in turn exacerbates poverty. Top-down aid fails to create jobs or other lasting improvements, and likewise most bottom-up aid functions on the condescending presumption that target communities cannot participate unassisted in the open market.

This position calls for a sea change in the mindset of aid recipients, who have been conditioned to believe that foreign aid is the solution to their plight. They have been systematically incentivized against their own initiative.

Big money, top-down aid is more culpable for increased disenfranchisement in the developing world than the bottom-up variety, because its magnitude of misguided funds has more solidly entrenched corrupt leaders.

Bottom-up aid in which “searchers” prepare locals for full participation in the free market is non-ideal, but not necessarily harmful. The answer lies in pro-market measures: microfinance, foreign direct investment, trade, floating bonds—systems that encourage innovation and foster self-reliance.

The opposition: There is no definitive, causal link between foreign aid and extant poverty. The two are correlated, but there are too many excluded variables—access to water and other resources, quality of soil, geopolitical history, and so forth—to place the blame squarely on aid. Removal (even a phase-out) of aid in highly dependent areas could be disastrous.

A largely libertarian approach may have worked for North America and western Europe, but these same countries arguably caused many of the developing world’s problems through imperialism. And owing to this differing root of poverty, it may be beyond the capacity of today’s third world to elevate itself out of the poverty trap.

So, what’s the solution?

I don’t know. Like most development workers, I am ambivalent about what exactly the developed world should be doing. My views both align with and diverge from certain arguments proffered by each stance. Every approach seems to have some merit, yet they contradict one another.

My intent is to raise the right questions, not offer answers. That’s where you come in. Share your opinions and experiences in the comments section!

Community Connection:

What about aid on a personal level? Check out 10 Ways You Can Help Street Children Without Giving Money.

Maybe these baboons have heard of A.A. Gill. Photo: Tambako the Jaguar

The latest Twit-storm kicked off in Britain today when high-profile restaurant and television critic A.A. Gill decided to devote half his Sunday Times column to his experience of shooting a baboon while on safari in Tanzania.

Why? “To get a sense of what it might be like to kill someone,” of course.

In the column, which ran on Sunday, October 25, Gill recounts in full, Technicolor detail how he shot the baboon from a mere 250 yards while hunting in “a truck full of guns and other blokes.” He explains how he felt the urge to be “a recreational primate killer” – then went ahead and shot the animal through the lung. “You see it in all those films,” he writes, “guns and bodies, barely a close-up of reflection or doubt. What does it really feel like to shoot someone, or someone’s close relative?”

Inevitably, the column prompted outrage from animal rights groups. Steve Taylor, of the League Against Cruel Sports, called the act “morally completely indefensible”; Claire Bass, who undoubtedly has the perfect surname for wildlife manager at the World Society for the Protection of Animals, said: “It’s hard to say what’s sadder – the unnecessary death of a healthy baboon or that [Gill] has so little regard for the life of another creature. The vast majority of visitors to the Serengeti have a fantastic time shooting with cameras, not guns. We condemn the killing and the crude portrayal of it as ‘entertainment’ in Gill’s column.”

The RSPCA also condemned Gill’s actions but allegedly could not act against him because the shooting took place beyond its UK jurisdiction. As Steve Taylor also commented in The Guardian, “If he wants to know what it’s like to shoot a human, he should take aim at his own leg.”

Strangely, Gill has found some support. Commentators have pointed out that the baboons are classed as vermin by some in Tanzania. Oh. Right. So perhaps Gill was merely doing the locals a favour and saving their crops? What a benevolent soul – maybe we should be thanking him. But wait. Safari parks are not farmsteads and the closest Gill has ever gotten to vermin control is keeping himself in check – which he doesn’t tend to do very often as we’ll see.

Others have said only non-vegetarians should be permitted to express outrage. Well, I’m no vegetarian but I don’t go around performing drive-bys on cow sheds or kicking my way through chicken farms with scythes strapped to my ankles. You don’t have to be a bio-ethicist to know that there’s a difference between killing for food and killing for fun.

No.

Gill is right up there with those other contemptible imbeciles, fox-hunters. In fact he admitted as much in his article: “baboon isn’t good to eat, unless you’re a leopard. The feeble argument of culling and control is much the same as for foxes: a veil for naughty fun.”

“Naughty fun.” I thought taking your partner to a sex show or raiding your parents’ drinks cabinet when you were 13 was “naughty fun,” not riding around in a truck wasting defenseless wildlife with big guns. If that’s naughty fun, what’s insensate and needless animal slaughter?

Restaurant critic/baboon killer, A.A. Gill.

There’s that and then there’s the smugness.

Gill knows full well he’s done something obnoxious – “it can’t be mitigated”- and with his savvy understanding of the media knows it’s going to get him talked about. Sentences like “I took him just below the armpit. He slumped and slid sideways,” or “They die hard, baboons. But not this one. A soft-nosed .357 blew his lungs out,” are built to provoke, and sure enough he’s found himself a ‘trending topic’ on Twitter and the subject of a slew of outraged articles like this one.

No surprise then that Gill is no stranger to controversy.

Dressing up an ugly superiority complex as caustic humour he has described chef Gordon Ramsay as “a wonderful chef, just a really second-rate human being”; the Welsh as “loquacious dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls.” And Albanians, to Gill, are “short and ferret-faced, with the unisex stumpy, slightly bowed legs of Shetland ponies.”

All of which could be quite witty if it didn’t come from a man with a heart dark enough to want to know “what it might be like to kill someone.” What next? Sex with a praying mantis so he can “get a sense of what it might be like to procreate with someone”? One can only hope.

Community Connection:

Are your travels contributing to animal cruelty? Read From Elephant Tourism to ELephant Voluntourism, one of the many articles about animals in our archives.

Photo: rockinfree

Is being “PC” passe?

Here’s what the Brazilian author and author of the popular self-help book The Alchemist had to say about political correctness on Twitter (yes, Paulo Coelho’s on Twitter: he’s @paulocoelho):

“Political correctness doesn’t make us more respectful; instead, it makes us feel ‘good’ but it also widens the gap.”

Do you agree with Coelho? Why or why not?
Bonus points if you can comment in 140 characters or fewer.

Community Connection:

Paulo Coelho’s bestseller The Alchemist made Matador’s list of the 10 Most Influential Spiritual Books of the Past 50 Years. To find out why–and to see the other 9 books on the list–click here.

Photo: wili hybrid

If you scrolled through the gmail chats between senior editor David Miller and myself over the past year or so, you’d find at least half a dozen references to campfires.

It’s funny: he’s currently biding time with his wife and daughter at his parents’ gated community in Florida before heading down to El Bolson in Patagonia to set up a home. Me? I’m in New York City.

Neither place is conducive to building a campfire, and maybe that’s why the image is so present in our conversation. We’ve both spent lots of time around campfires and though we both make our living online, our favorite places are offline–way offline–sitting around a fire with people we love, having conversations that matter.

The Matador editors and interns–the Matador tribe, as we refer to ourselves–are spread across the globe. Tim Patterson’s in Luang Prabang. Kate Sedgwick, Hal Amen, and Adam Roy are all in Buenos Aires, soon to be joined by Tom Gates.

Sarah Menkedick’s in Oaxaca. Lola Akinmade, lately of Stockholm, is making her way to NYC for a visit. Ian MacKenzie’s in Vancouver. Twitter Ninja Andy Hayes is in Edinburgh. Intern Eileen Smith is in Santiago.

And that’s not even all of us.

Our campfire is virtual, and every day we invite you to come sit around it with us to talk about the places you’ve been, the people you’ve met, the experiences you’ve had, and the communities you’ve been a part of.

Then, we hope you’ll take what you’ve learned here and share it with others… preferably around a campfire.

Photo: stuartpilbrow

Daniel Suelo, 48, has been living without money or any barter system, and no food stamps or government help, for the past nine years. While in Ecuador on a Peace Corps mission, he witnessed a rural community acquire increased monetary wealth through farming and shift their traditional lifestyle towards a diet of unhealthy, processed food and a newfound addiction to television.

The experience led Suelo on a spiritual quest that realized itself in India, where he was particularly moved by the Sadhus, wandering monks who renounce all money and possessions. He made the conscious decision to return home, quit his job, and carve out a life without money.

As he put it, “I simply got tired of being unreal. Money is one of those intriguing things that seem real and functional because two or more people believe it is real and functional.”

Photo: platschi

Today, Suelo lives in a cave in Utah and gets around by hopping trains or hitchhiking. For food he relies on dumpster diving, foraging, fishing, and, occasionally, hunting. From the public library he authors a blog and a website where he discusses his everyday life and offers up deep philosophical musings on why a society based on the concept of money is harmful and contrary to our true nature.

He says he’s never been happier, living like “ants and deer and slugs and sparrows and bacteria and atoms and galaxies.”

Though Suelo’s story is a particularly riveting one, less radical communities of “freegans” are cropping up in places like San Francisco and New York. These groups have risen out of a desire to boycott what is seen as an unethical corporate system and to minimize the waste of resources. To varying degrees, freegans salvage edible food from dumpsters, squat in abandoned buildings, and encourage a reconsideration of the benefits of leisure and play as opposed to excessive work.

These movements have not flourished without criticism. Freegans are often dismissed as freeloaders. Others assess the lifestyle as a way to deal with extreme liberal guilt while still living within the confines of privilege and comfort. Daniel Suelo frequently receives hate mail expounding him to get a job and stop mooching off society.

It’s a valid discourse. It’s nearly impossible to be completely self sufficient. Suelo frequently relies on hitched rides, a library that’s supported by taxes, and the various cast off excesses of consumer society. He dismisses that this devalues his philosophy, asking “Are swallows nesting in house attics dependent upon money?”

He cites that goods flow from producers (laborers) to bankers, brokers, and landlords who produce nothing. He frequently touts his lifestyle as a return to a way of living more in line with the natural world, a way towards freedom from things that don’t exist towards one of generosity and truth.

However, it can be argued that a system of barter is indeed a part of our nature. Our nearest relatives, the chimpanzee, frequently barter food for grooming and sex. Even Neolithic cavemen bartered. A return to a world without money would be possible only if human beings, like bees and ants, decided to utilize our skills equally so that we may benefit from each other freely.

Photo: scriptingnews

Knowing the history of humanity, however, it doesn’t seem that we can adhere to such noble principles. Furthermore, even without money or a bartering system, human beings could still find ways to oppress each other.

It’s also important to note that Suelo’s lifestyle would not work if he lived in a less monetarily wealthy country. Many people live with virtually no money, and there are no overabundant dumpsters or gifts from generous neighbors to compensate for a lack of “monetary illusion.” In those places, not being a slave to a piece of paper also results in starvation and death.

Many travelers often walk a thin line between admiring a community and romanticizing poverty. It’s possible to question whether Suelo’s motives lie in some kind of imperialist nostalgia towards the communities he encountered on his travels.

However, philosophically speaking it is true that we tend to live in a real-life matrix. Our society as a whole is comprised of things that exist only in our collective consciousness rather than in reality.

Take for instance, the idea of borders. In the 19th century, Native Americans referred to the border between Canada and the United States as the “medicine line” because they were perplexed that the American troops would chase them through the land but suddenly stop when they crossed that invisible line. They thought it was magic; to the Native Americans, all of it was just land.

Just like borders, money is a concept that becomes real only because we believe in it collectively. As Suelo says, “If a dollar bill represented itself, it would no longer be money. It would simply be a piece of paper with pretty art on it.” The fact that people will kill each other and ruin the earth for an abstract concept seems almost ludicrous when analyzed from that angle. It’s downright maddening when multiple psychological studies confirm the old adage that money really does not buy happiness.

Who really understands our complex monetary system, other than the few who benefit tremendously from such knowledge? Henry Ford once said, “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” Rarely do we ever question our entire financial system until some kind of disaster, like the current economic recession, sparks the discussion.

Regardless of any stance, it is interesting to witness someone who disagrees with conventional society to such a degree that he opts out of it completely.

Do you find Daniel Suelo’s lifestyle commendable or outrageous? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Community Connection:

Want to try your hand at some freegan strategies? Check out Matador editor Kate Sedgwick’s Beginner’s Guide to Dumpster Diving and David DeFranza’s Beginner’s Guide to Foraging for Food.

Photo: aussiegall

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about Colin Beavan, a.k.a. “No Impact Man.” In case you missed it, here’s Beavan’s story: for one year, Beavan decided to go green… so green that he wouldn’t use public transportation. Or toilet paper. Or, at the most advanced stage of his experiment, electricity.

In my article, I wondered aloud whether Beavan was admirable or a bit off his rocker. Secretly, I thought he was a bit of both. He was clearly committed in a way that few of us are to really lessening his impact on the environment. But to drag his wife and daughter along for the ride–a bit unwillingly, it seemed– raised questions for me about how our personal commitment to various kinds of change impact the people we love if they’re unable or unwilling to make the same commitment.

Ultimately, Beavan’s wife came around, as she details in this article in Business Week.

But not everyone was convinced, and New Yorker environmental writer Elizabeth Kolbert lit into Beavan as a way to approach the question, “What’s wrong with eco-stunts?,” which was also the title of her article.

Kolbert’s article opens by giving readers the Beavan back-story. Beavan, she says, wasn’t much of an environmentalist. He didn’t know much about global warming. But as he was casting about for a book project, he seized upon the idea of the no impact experiment, which he presented to his agent “[o]ver lunch at a pricey midtown restaurant.” She goes on to describe Beavan’s year of lessening impact, in a tone that’s often snide, concluding–after ripping into Thoreau (yep, THAT Thoreau) and a string of other environmental “stunt” artists–that Beavan is a “tad disingenuous.”

To support the claim, she says:

“Beavan is, after all, a man whose environmental activism began over lunch with his agent…. [E]very day Beavan bikes to the Writers Room…and plugs in his laptop. Meanwhile, Michelle [his wife] scooters off to work at the offices of BusinessWeek, and Isabella [their daughter] spends the day at the (presumably electrified) apartment of a sitter…. He worries a great deal about the environmental consequences of Michelle’s tampon use and the shrink-wrap around a block of cheese. But when it comes to his building’s heating system, which is apparently so wasteful that people are opening windows in the middle of winter, he just throws up his hands.”

She concludes by noting that poor people around the world were generating far less impact than Beavan during this time, implying that his experiment was somehow meaningless by comparison.
*
My problem with Kolbert’s analysis is its holier-than-thou undertone. Who cares if Beavan’s year of no impact was a stunt? He surely decreased his carbon footprint far more than Kolbert (who,it should be noted, writes for a magazine supported by big oil advertising). He’s brought attention to issues of overconsumption and waste. Maybe he’s inspired other people to try their own no impact experiments or, at the very least, to scale back some of their excess.

Does Beavan have to live in slum-like poverty or forgo restaurant lunches with agents (which is, after all, where many meetings with agents take place) to be an environmentalist?

If we each took just one of the steps that Beavan took, we’d dramatically reduce our collective negative impact on our planet. But if we’d rather sit around and call scaling back a stunt, then we’re not likely to avert some serious problems that will affect us all.

Community Connection:

And on the theme of holier-than-thou’ism, check out contributing editor Christine Garvin’s article, “6 Ways to Not Be a Holier-Than-Thou Traveler.”

Photo: heathbrandon

Project Name:

The Pro Bono Jeweler

The Big Idea:

Jeweler Gabriel Craig takes his studio out to the streets, where he makes jewelery as performance art… and then gives the pieces away.

History:

Craig started a similar project, “The Collegiate Jeweler,” as a college student back in 2007. In an interview with American Craft Magazine, Craig explained the purpose and spirit of the project:

“My objective was simply to share handmade jewelry with those who may not ordinarily encounter it. I wanted the format of the performances to reflect my educational and altruistic goals and so I gave away silver rings that I made on the spot—over 30 in the first few weeks. By giving away jewelry I was able to focus on its cultural value rather than its commercial value. The criterion for receiving a ring was participation. Those who seemed interested got to take home some of the excitement…. In the studio I am just a jeweler, but on the street I am a magician.”

Craig continued by explaining how jewelry might just be a meaningful vehicle for communication and community building:

“Approaching jewelry as a theme, I found that the opportunity for communication and change grew exponentially. Despite how pervasive jewelry is in our culture, as a maker I spend a lot of time in the studio by myself, complacent in the isolation and insular world built around studio jewelry. With The Collegiate Jeweler performances, I had finally found a direct way to share what I do with people. That was how it started—wanting to share and be inclusive.”

Logistics:

What do you make that you could give away? Whether it’s a poem, a small ceramic pot, a photo, postcard, flower from your garden, or a homemade candle, you can adapt Gabriel Craig’s pro bono art project wherever you live. Remember: the key is not just to give something away, but to create a moment where you and your public can connect, even if for a few brief moments.

For More Information:

Visit Gabriel Craig’s website.

Photo: Zack Sheppard

Rio has slum tours. New York City has an “underbelly” tour .

So why shouldn’t Alberto, Mexico have an immigrant immersion tour?

For 100 pesos, tourists can join the Caminata Nocturna, or “La Caminata,” a four hour night hike led by guides intended to simulate the experience of migrating by foot from Mexico to the U.S. The tour involves trekking through dark, treacherous terrain, including dry, rocky hills spotted with cactus, and being regularly insulted by the guides, who act as smugglers.

The threat of immigration catching you is simulated, but the risks of injury and overexertion are real.

“La Caminata is an homage to migrants,” say the organizers, “and is intended to make us conscious about the risks people take to fulfill the ‘American Dream.’”

It has also helped turn the community away from the brink of disaster, according to a recently released documentary about La Caminata. Alberto, according to one of the tour organizers interviewed in the film, had lost the majority of its young and middle aged people to migration; the community had become a ghost town. Economically, Alberto was on the verge of collapse.

But then they came up with the idea of La Caminata.

Over the past five years, La Caminata has not only helped bring much needed income into the community, it’s also lured back some of its citizens who migrated for better work opportunities.

Participating tourists interviewed in the documentary admitted the trek was challenging and frightening, but agreed that they came away with a more profound respect for people who feel compelled to migrate, and a deeper understanding of the kinds of challenges they face.

You can watch the trailer here.

Community Connection:

What do you think of this type of tour? Would you sign up for La Caminata? Share your thoughts below.

Photo: bowena

Hari Kondabolu isn’t the only comedian who used the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States as a point of departure to create some powerful stand-up about race, ethnicity, identity, and human relationships.

But Hari, who holds a degree in comparative politics from Wesleyan University, is willing to go out on a limb in his routines by “speak[ing] truth to power with confrontational and personal material” rather than simply poking fun at others.

In this interview by Colors NW, Hari and fellow comedian Ahamefule Oluo talk about the ways comedy can be used as an effective way to raise social consciousness about profound human issues while having a good time:

Community Connection:

For a more philosophical take on how we can be more conscious, check out Matador editor Sarah Menkedick’s article “Travel Is For Idiotic Idealists: Three Americans Held in Iran.”

Photo: Phillie Casablanca

Throughout its history, South America has been the “X” on the map of the metal mining industry. Multi-national corporations have extracted copper in Chile, iron in Brazil, gold in Ecuador, and other precious metals across the continent, causing intense controversy about environmental and human impacts of the practice.

In recent years, though, mining has been nationalized by various Latin American countries whose political and business leaders recognize that the lucrative practice could help them achieve greater economic autonomy. Decisions to nationalize mining are hardly conflict-free, however. It’s as much the practice of mining as who’s doing it that has caused communities to mobilize in support of anti-mining initiatives, such as El Salvador’s recent nation-wide ban on gold mining.

According to this recent article from the Americas Society, Bolivia is the latest country to be confronting the conflict between the economic lure of and the potential political mire that mining represents. The Americas Society indicated that approximately 5.4 million tons of lithium are buried under Bolivia’s salt desert, representing almost half of the world’s entire lithium reserves.

Lithium is an important ingredient in batteries, and is considered a more attractive metal for battery manufacturing than zinc due to its higher voltage.

Bolivian president Evo Morales has been praised for warding off salivating foreign investors from mining his country’s lithium. He’s also been praised for his long-term plans for the lithium: turning the metal into a usable resource for electric car batteries.

But his plans to nationalize lithium extraction have failed to gain widespread support.

As this BBC report indicates, the salt desert is a pristine landscape; mining would likely have profoundly negative environmental effects on “one of the world’s most unspoiled” places. Lithium mining on the salt flats would also be likely to detract from tourism, a significant part of Bolivia’s economy.

So how does Bolivia negotiate two seemingly competing needs: the need to become economically autonomous, on the one hand, and the need to preserve a pristine place on the other? Share your ideas in the comments below.

Community Connection:

Matador Nights’ editor Tom Gates went to Chile to learn more about the mining industry there. Read about what he learned–and didn’t learn–in “The Battle for Pascua Lama.”

Bolivia’s salt flats topped our list of the world’s most alien landscapes. Check out the photo essay here.

What about fun for everyone? Photo: havenholidays

“A ‘Whites-Only’ Pool in 2009?” That was the subject line of an e-mail that landed in my inbox a few days ago.

According to this story from NBC’s Philadelphia affiliate, black kids from the Creative Steps Day Camp visited a private pool in Philadelphia (having paid over $1,900 for the “privilege”) and were asked by pool attendants to leave because “minorities [were not allowed] in the club.”

Guess the pool administrators forgot to ask the camp leaders the race of the would-be swimmers.

In a follow up story, Valley Swim Club President John Duesler didn’t mention the pool attendants’ remarks, saying only that a comment about the kids “changing the complexion” of the club was “a terrible choice of words” that was “blown out of proportion.”

He added that the real reason the kids were asked to leave was because there were concerns about safety and the total capacity of the pool, though why such problems weren’t anticipated before both parties signed on the dotted line remained unclear.

The club has since invited campers to return, but in the interim, at least one lawsuit was filed and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission opened an investigation, scheduling a visit to the club for the end of this month.

Community Connection:

What’s the most offensive form of discrimination you’ve experienced or witnessed at home or during your travels? What did you do about it? Share your experiences in the comments below.