He felt it was necessary in order to assure that traditional 18th Century constitutional civil liberties would remain protected against modern technological threats.

On March 26, 1991, Professor Tribe (now a Obama administration advisor), in his keynote address at the First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy (Burlingame, California), proposed the following to be the 27th Amendment:

“This Constitution’s protections for the freedoms of speech, press, petition, and assembly, and its protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and the deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law shall be construed as fully applicable without regard to the technological method or medium through which information content is generated, stored, altered, transmitted or controlled.”

He proposal and its rationale was later published in The Humanist, Sep/Oct 1991, pp.15-20,39

I just submitted a proposal urging that this finally be implemented – at least by statute and regulation if not by Constitutional Amendment – via the Obama administration’s http://change.gov/page/s/techagenda .

If enough people advocate the same and pass the word to all their friends, perhaps someone in the new administration might actually give it serious consideration.

–jim; Jim Warren; jwarren@well.com
founder & Chair, First Conference on Computers, Freedom & Privacy
Hansville WA ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Warren

During this past week, disturbing news about where Pakistan is currently headed have surfaced. The magnitude of mis-governance indulged in by Musharraf and the situation which has brought Zardari into the forefront of power in the “establishment” in the country is now squarely in focus of national and international media. On September 11, after there had been four incursions into the Pakistani territory in five days by US forces from across the borders of Afghanistan into the FATA areas, the COAS announced rather tersely that it was the duty of the armed forces to defend the country and would take appropriate defensive action if such incursions continued. This warning had little effect as on the very next day, the US fired missiles on a private dwelling in Miran Shah killing 12 civilians and demolishing the house. However, on the13th when US drones were again seen coming towards the Pakistani territory, the armed forces sent PAF jets in the air causing a retreat by the US drones.

The question that needs to be answered by the government in Islamabad is: did the Americans act unilaterally or was this a part of the agreed upon rules of engagement? The New York Times reported on September 11 that in July this was ordered by President Bush allowing US Special Forces “to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government.” In other words, without any prior information being given to Islamabad the US Commanders in Afghanistan could act without notifying the Pakistani government.

The innuendo in this report is quite alarming that “the Pakistani government had privately assented to the general concept of limited ground assaults by Special Operations forces against significant militant targets, but that it did not approve each mission.” According to the Times, “the Pakistani government is quietly winking at the idea of such attacks.” If one believes the Times report then there are startling reality to be faced!

There could hardly be a worse strategy. It risks inflaming the Pakistani public opinion against the US and boost the religious parties. It clearly makes the new Pakistani government look like puppets in the hands of the US, which hardly makes them popular among Pakistanis. It is equally certain that such ad hoc actions by Washington won’t be successful in eliminating Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Historians of the Vietnam War might compare the strategy to President Nixon’s ill-fated decision to expand the war across the border into Cambodia in search of alleged Viet Cong “sanctuaries.” That policy badly failed and didn’t work out well. Could it be believed that perhaps some Pakistani officials, under intense US pressure, did “wink” at this idea? From public statements, at least, it appears that Islamabad isn’t happy. The larger question if Musharraf had already winked earlier when he had the chance to do so therefore requires an answer?

Support for such a treacherous perfidy vis-à-vis nationalistic feelings in Pakistan are certainly visible. Lt Gen (retd) Shahid Aziz, who served as the chief of general staff (CGS) from Oct 2001 to Dec 2003, reveals in a startling manner that the army as an institution was in complete dark about what was going on between Washington and Islamabad on the War On Terror and the GHQ and top army commanders had strongly opposed the handing over of Pakistanis to the US, but Musharraf did so on his own. General Shahid Aziz confirmed that though the office of the CGS in the GHQ was considered to be the nerve centre in the army, the GHQ did not know most of the controversial things Musharraf did, including the handing over of Pakistani nationals to the Americans.

The whole post is here.

The “Stroke of Insight” video is deeply informative with respect to the limits we have placed upon ourselves: We are generally only using half our collective brain power: the left lobe, which is the sequential processing lobe. For the most part we have deeply impoverished our world views by largely ignoring the parallel processing lobe, the right lobe.

“Stroke of Insight” strongly suggests to me a deep flaw in those political and economic world views that only recognize the Me/I driving the far too narrow notion that humanity is singularly selfish. See, for example, Game Theory, The Chicago School of Economics, unregulated free market capitalism, et al, the bed rock of the Reagan Era cold war world view, as explicated by Adam Curtis’ in his BCC series “The Trap”.

Truly, a Peer-to-Peer future will have to start with treating both sides of our brian as co-equal peers. What will we call a world view that emerges from our fully integrated brains?

Very interesting indeed.

Democrats should welcome and not shy away from debate over Iraq. It provides them with an opportunity to make the election a referendum on leadership and political judgment in matters of war and peace. The Republicans are understandably trying to use the recent small signs of progress in Iraq to whitewash their irresponsible decision to go to war in Iraq, and their mismanagement of the war. This offers the Democratic Party an opportunity to use the debate over Iraq as a “teach in”, to help American voters understand how America was stampeded into war, and what the consequences have been for the national security interests of the country. If the voting public, regardless of political persuasion, understands what happened, and the price that America has had to pay for an unjustified “war of choice,” it will have a chance at the ballot box to repudiate the Administration and policies that led us to this debacle. The hope is that future Presidents will learn from this rebuff that the American people expect in its Presidents better judgment, vision and understanding of the national interest when asking the nation to support a “war of choice.”

THE MOVING FORCES BEHIND THE WAR.

Lobbies are an essential feature of the American democratic process. It is vital, therefore, that whoever is President is able to distinguish the national interests of the United States from those of the many vocal self-interested parties. In the case of Iraq, the Administration gave undue weight to the views of an odd alliance of interest groups who saw war with Iraq as promoting their own separate agendas.

* There were exile politicians like Chelabi, who saw in the destruction of Saddam Hussein the means for their return to power in Iraq.

* Some of Israel’s friends argued that the destruction of both Iraq and Iran would be in the U.S. national interest. It is understandable why they might see advantage in a policy that destroyed Israel’s most serious regional rivals, and in the process further alienated the U.S. in the Muslim world, increasing its dependence on Israel as its “only real friend in the region”. But what is good for Israel is not necessarily in the U.S. national interest.

* An energy lobby led by Vice President Cheney had shown an interest in the untapped oil reserves of Iraq before 9/11. The longer the American military presence in Iraq, the greater the opportunities for the energy giants to cut themselves profitable deals. The establishment of four large U.S. military bases in Iraq and McCain’s talk of America being there indefinitely,, on the Korean model, would be consistent with a long range oil strategy.

* There were the Evangelical Christians who linked the destruction of Israel’s enemies to the final Armageddon battle between Good and Evil.

* Many of those hoping to benefit from the destruction of Saddam Hussein shared a Neo-Conservative belief that American power could and should be used to resolve American problems in the Middle East by imposing democracy on the region, starting with Iraq. This same hubris underlay the Neo-Conservative disdain for International treaties or views of the international community that might limit U.S. freedom of action.

THE NEED FOR OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS.

A President who seeks objective judgment in filtering out these many competing voices must be prepared to listen to conflicting views. This is particularly so when a President knows that he has strong personal feelings on the subject, as President Bush had against the man who had tried to kill his father. But the Administration failed apparently to give adequate weight to the loud voices ol opposition to a war of choice against Iraq. Among the dissenters were:

* Senior statesmen associated with the President’s father, who shared the view that Bush Senior had expressed after the Desert war that we must have an exit strategy if we were to press on to Baghdad, occupying this volatile region of historic religious conflict.

* Middle Eastern experts who shook their heads in disbelief at the Don Quixote idea that democracy could be imposed by American bayonets on a complex, profoundly different culture, where change must come about primarily through evolution within the society.

* Reservations were also raised in the Congress by both parties, and within the Administration, including reportedly by the Secretary of State.

The only credible justification for an attack on a sovereign state was that it represented a clear and present danger to its neighbors. But there was no “slam dunk” evidence that Iraq had acquired a nuclear weapon.. Indeed State intelligence and U.N. inspectors questioned the evidence.. And logic should have told us that Saddam Hussein was too calculating a despot, concerned for his self-preservation, to consider inviting the devastation of Iraq by using a nuclear weapon against America’s ally, Israel. If he was tempted to use a nuclear weapon, it would have been against Iraq’s hereditary and vulnerable enemy, Iran. Under the circumstances, the logical policy would have been one of continued containment, pressing Iraq for inspection, with an attack on any known nuclear site as a fall back position. But containment did not satisfy the ambition of those who sought the occupation of Iraq

STEAMROLLING THE OPPOSITION

It was essential for the “war party” to discredit and isolate all those voices of opposition who might otherwise arouse the public to the dangers of the enterprise. To this end, the Administration:

* Used Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s Pentagon to emasculate the State Department, setting up a rival intelligence unit to counter “defeatist” reports from CIA and State, preventing the Pentagon from using in its planning either the information or the personnel involved in the production of a 13 volume study on Iraq prepared by State and CIA intelligence.

* Discounted the views of American Middle Eastern experts on the grounds that they were pro-Arab and Anti-Semite, a common Israeli complaint.

* Lent credence to a fabricated report that Saddam Hussein and al-Quada, who were bitter secular enemies, had been in secret negotiation.

* Dramatized all the human rights violations of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime that we had chosen to ignore when we were aiding Iraq in its war with Iran.

For America to make a war of choice, it was essential to prove to a sceptical world that Iraq was a threat to peace in the Middle East. The main argument used by the Administration was the scare-mongering charge that madman, Saddam Hussein, was producing Weapons of Mass Destruction. There were certainly grounds for suspicion given Hussein’s past record but the lack of conclusive evidence and the logic of the situation, discussed above, all argued for caution.. But persuading Secretary of State Colin Powell to “document” the case for war proved persuasive.

MISMANAGEMENT OF THE WAR

To run its war, the Administration wanted only loyal warriors not sceptics in its ranks. Hence it selected as American pro-Consul in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, a Kissinger acolyte who had some German but no Middle Eastern experience. It was under his leadership that some of the most grievous mistakes were made, trying to apply to Iraq the policies of De-Nazification and Demilitarization that had worked in the totally different situation and culture of Germany.

If the Pentagon had listened to the advice of its own military, and the Middle Eastern experts who wrote the 13 volume report on Iraq, many of the most costly initial mistakes mighty have been avoided. At least we could have gone in with a sufficiently large force to establish law and order and intimidate any opposition. The Pentagon’s hubris cost unnecessary lives and blackened respect for the occupying power on the part of the Iraqis.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS “WAR OF CHOICE.”

* The invasion of Afghanistan was also a “war of choice” with the enormous difference that we were supported by our allies and the United Nations. By diverting our war effort from Afghanistan to Iraq, we have allowed Bin Laden and the Taliban to begin working their way back into regional power, and it has become necessary to bring American forces back to Afghanistan, where they should have remained in the first place. In the light of Iraq, NATO governments have become reluctant to commit combat troops to Afghanistan.

* After 9/11, sympathy for America and our prestige were at their peak . This global political asset was squandered by our unprovoked attack on a sovereign state, that no one considered a “just war” by international standards. American prestige and credibility hit a new low, from which we have still to recover.

* We transformed Iraq from a brutal but stable secular state abhorrent to al-Quada into the most effective recruiting and training ground for insurgency that Bin Laden could ever have wished for.

* By the same token, we played into Bin Laden’s stated strategy of weakening the U.S. by drawing us deeper into the Middle East quagmire.

* We also played into Teheran’s hands, by destroying its historic enemy, Iraq, offering Teheran the chance to strengthen its ties to the Shiite majority in Iraq, and to exploit America’s weakened position in the Muslim world. Our efforts to develop a united front against potential Iranian efforts to go nuclear, were also weakened.

* And America itself has been weakened: our military have been stretched almost to the breaking point, and is in no shape to meet a serious threat elsewhere; and we have added enormously to the national debt at a time of potential recession and need for serious reconstruction at home.

* There is no way, of course, to measure the cost in human lives, American and Iraqi. But at a time when the scars of Vietnam were beginning to heal, we have opened another potential sore of disillusionment among the soldiers and their families, who thought that they were sacrificing for a noble cause.

* Finally, like poor chess players, we have become so fixated on defending one pawn, that we have lost strategic sight of the global chessboard. Russia’s President Putin has been quick to try and take advantage of the global resentment of American hubris. He has tried to dramatize the differences between a proclaimed Russian policy of multilateral cooperation and support for the United Nations with the “unilateralism” of the Bush Administration, and to strengthen Russia’s relations with our European allies. Russia and China both contrast their booming economies with an America weakened by war

CURRENT ADMINISTRATION STRATEGY

America will, of course, recover but at a price it should not have been asked to pay. Belated efforts by the Administration to return to traditional policies of international cooperation, and to the Clinton policy of trying to play the honest broker in the Arab-Israeli conflict, are all to be welcomed but lack credibility. This is particularly so in the light of the apparent Administration determination to maintain a military presence in Iraq, until we can claim victory and go home. But realistically, we are tying American policy in the Middle East, and American budgetary outlays for the indefinite future to the internal developments in Iraq, where “victory” will continue to recede as the inherent sectarian conflicts in Iraq take their toll. Whatever the arrangements we may make with the Iraqis, a continued American military presence in Iraq, particularly if accompanied by efforts to corner the Iraq oil market, will be resented throughout the Muslim world and undercut any serious American efforts to promote regional stabilization in the Middle East. To replace the bogeyman of al-Quada with Iran, as an excuse for staying in Iraq, and organizing a Suni alliance against Iran, insults the intelligence of sophisticated Middle Eastern leaders.

THE VOTER’S CHOICE

The vital question for the American voter, regardless of political affiliation, is what price we are prepared to pay for a policy that would have us bogged down in the Middle East indefinitely, with little hope for a victorious outcome. A policy that presently is costing over $12 million a week at a time of mounting problems at home. And the larger question is how do we make sure that another administration does not stampede us into a “war of choice” where our vital interests are not involved. The answer to both questions lies in the ballot box.

* The voters should make clear that we are not prepared to stay any longer than necessary to withdraw our troops safely from Iraq, stationing any residual intervention forces elsewhere.

* And by administering a crushing defeat to officials associated with the Iraq fiasco, make any future American President hesitant to lead America into a war of choice where the threat to American security is not self-evident.

Certainly by Republican standards of impeachment in the case of President Clinton, impeachment of the President and Vice President over their war in Iraq, would be fully justified. But it would be extremely unwise. The emphasis of the next President should be on overcoming the crippling partisanship of recent years instead of further dividing the nation.

In practical terms, the electorate is faced with a sharp choice between the past and the future.

* Senator McCain is a man of great integrity and courage but he remains traumatized by defeat in Vietnam;

* He failed to learn from Vietnam that, for there to be public support in any prolonged conflict, the threat to American interests must be fully credible.

* He should also have learned from Vietnam about the power of nationalism in opposing occupation by a foreign power, whatever the good intentions of that foreign power.

* Finally he should have learned, that our retreat from Vietnam did not have the predicted “domino effect” of toppling our allies in South Asia . Similarly there is a lack of reality in McCain’s scare talk about what might happen if we were to leave Iraq. The states of the Middle East will work out their complex relations in a way that protects their national sovereignty without the clumsy intervention of Nanny Auntie Sam.

* There is reason to be concerned that, as a military man, McCain may be inclined to see military solutions to problems that are essentially political.

* But, as a military man, he should understand that withdrawal from Iraq is the equivalent of tactical withdrawal from an ultimately indefensible outpost to strengthen the nation’s central front.

* The Administration’s shrinking definition of victory in Iraq as essentially “stability” promises a prolonged American involvement in the domestic affairs of Iraq. To label those who question the wisdom of such a policy as ”defeatists” serves only to deepen the polarization of America at a time when the nation needs to unite behind a policy that is more credible and sustainable.

Either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would be a welcome change from the Republican Administration. But Senator Obama offers the more appealing and credible alternative.

* While a number of Americans, including Senator Clinton were genuinely persuaded that the Iraq war was necessary to protect America, Senator Obama opposed the war from the outset.

* Unlike those who would demonize states, with whom we are in conflict, like Iran and North Korea, he would be prepared to discuss our differences without making surrender by them a preliminary condition of negotiation. In other words, he is a negotiator.

* He has a different approach to the threat of global terrorism. By declaring an unqualified “global war on terrorism”, the Administration encouraged every despotic state to label as “terrorists” dissident movements whom we should welcome. Obama would replace the military emphasis of the war on terror with an emphasis on precision intelligence, police and special forces work, identifying the terrorist cells and neutralizing them with a minimum of anxiety-creating publicity, on the European model.

* Our goal should be to increase the sense of isolation and
vulnerability on the part of the small, radical Muslim cells that metastasize like cancer around the world. Trumpeting that these cells are part of a global Islamo-Fascist movement undercuts this strategy by reassuring the militants that they are not alone but part of a global movement that obviously frightens the “imperialists.” It also strengthens the belief among Muslims generally that the West is indeed their enemy. To build up fear in the American public of this new bogey, Islamo=Fascism, may serve the interests of the Republican Party, but it does not serve the interests of the nation. It is time to “cool it” and focus on the many more serious threats to the country, both at home and abroad.

* In dealing with contentious issues, international or domestic, Obama’s first instinct is to reach out to the other side to see whether we cannot find some common ground without in any way compromising American interests, or his own progressive principles. He is a unifier not a divider.

* It follows that, in dealing with the outside world, Obama believes that, respect for international treaties and cooperation with other states is a more effective way to strengthen America than unilateral diktat.

* In that same spirit, he would seek to strengthen the authority and institutions of the United Nations, and of regional organizations so that they may reduce the need for America to intervene politically, or even militarily in conflicts that have been allowed to fester.

In short, Senator Obama has a mindset for the 21st century, prepared to rethink America’s problems outside of their old paradigms. To offer America a change from the failed policies of the recent past.

For every unit of energy I put into making grass biofuel pellets, I get 14 out = 14:1 net energy.

With corn ethanol the net energy is just 1.67:1

14/1.67 = 8.383 better return on the investment made in grass pellets.

Now consider how the two fuels will be used.

Pellets will be burned at 80% efficiency. Lets say 70%.

Ethanol will be burned in an internal combustion engine at just 30% efficiency.

.7/.3 = 2.333

So the systems advantage of grass pelllets over ethanol is: 8.383 X 2.333 = 19.56X

Solid biofuel in the form of grass pellets, gives us 19X more return on our investments, 19X more energy independence. And 19X more national security than corn ethanol.

So why is it that all of the subsidies etc go the the biofuel with 1/19 the benefit?

Isn’t it amazing, the out right stupidity of corn ethanol? It is just a mechanism to transfer and redistribute wealth to ADM and Cargill. It just another example of corporate looting of the public treasury. It also depends utterly on fertilizers made from fossil fuels. Not to mention the virgin water degraded by the corn ethanol process: gallons of water degraded for each gallon of corn ethanol made.

Can we say that there is a pathological condition in this market and its supporting politics?

Your thoughts?

The recent news about the criminal activities of an agent of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) about planting a bomb next to the residential compound of the Chief Minister of the Frontier Province sends ominous signals to the country and indeed the world about the mindset and scope of operations of such super-national level spy agencies that work with the tax payers money in Pakistan under the directions of the Federal government.

According to the latest press reports the said would-be saboteur has been “eventually” handed over to the local police. This occurrence came about after the alleged culprit had been forcibly whisked away by his own superiors from the grasp of the local police after he had been apprehended on the spot in broad daylight. It does not need much emphasis that police comes under the constitutional domain of the provincial government where as the Intelligence Bureau is a Central department under the scheme contained in the 1973 Constitution.

So the ultimate legal question is that does this act, if true, constitute treason? Treason means to undertake any act to undermine the state apparatus, in this by violence, and thereby, to “subvert” the Constitution of the country. The relevant proviso of which says:

Article 6: (1) Any person who abrogates or attempts to conspire to abrogate, subverts or attempts to subvert the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason.

Read the whole essay here.

Here is a scenario that spells disaster. It is also a bit too possible for any comfort.

2006-11-01 Iran Lures US Into Invading Iraq and Attacking Iran “Pre-Emptively”–Nuclear Riposte Anticipated

It is our best judgement, drawing exclusively on open sources of information, an understanding of history, an understanding of the intent of the Bush-Cheney Administration, and an understanding of the reluctance of the US military flag officers to “stand down” and refuse to obey illegal and stupid orders, that the U.S. is about to launch a “pre-emptive” strike into Iran, and that this will result in a Sunburn missile with a Pakistani nuclear warhead taking out whatever is in the Red Sea (six times Hiroshima), or the nearest carrier battle group, whichever is closer.

Read the full post and supporting material on the source site.

In reading Dr. Farooq Hassan’s Presidential Address on “Islam: Environmental Protection,” I am inspired to suggest an ambitious project to change the course of human history toward environmental sustainability.  We have before us a unique opportunity to embrace our larger humanity and its movement toward a more sustainable future.  It is very encouraging to have such an eminent scholar discussing the truths of the Qur’an as they apply to humanity living in harmony with our environment. 

Within the traditions of Islam, Aikido, and the way of the western pilgrim are the seeds for developing a common understanding of a positive, peaceful, and sustainable future.  Aikido teaches that maintaining one’s own balance in the world, whether in self-defense or in life, is the key to harmony. Western philosophy, going back to ancient Greece, teaches that balance and moderation are key to living in harmony with the world. Although oft honored in the breech, biblical teachings in both Judaism and Christianity speak of living in harmony with nature, and of humankind’s responsibilities as steward of the environment.

Aikido teaches that in order to maintain balance, one must first have a strong base by finding one’s own sustainable center before addressing threats and the complexities of the world at large. In Judaism, the Kabbalah teaches that one must have a solid foundation before venturing into the unknown. Similar concepts in Sufism, Christianity, shamanism, and other religious and cultural traditions prepare the individual to live in balance with nature.

After-all, not living in accord with nature before the industrial age, usually had fairly short-term dire consequences. This was especially true for the 5.5 million years of human evolution prior to the agricultural age, which didn’t build strong roots until only 10,000 years ago. There is no question that humans can live sustainably within their ecosystems. We would have already gone the way of the dinosaurs if this were not the case. The question of our time is, “Can 6 billion to 8 billion humans live on the planet sustainably, in an post-fossil fuel dominated global economy?

The integrity of our environment is the foundation upon which all of us depend. We also now know that our current hydrocarbon economy is creating devastating consequences for our global ecosystems. When we address our environment with insensitivity and imbalance, we do ourselves and others damage. In contrast, when we collectively live in balance with the world we inhabit, it provides for us. The problem is, of course, not just oil, its effects on climate change, and the avaricious regimes it inspires. The problem is how humans behave when we are encouraged to think that the consequences of our actions on the environment, other cultures, and each other are irrelevant. In short, a major problem is that we are exhorted to exploit the easy energy in sequestered carbon, without regard to consequences of over stressing the carrying capacities of our ecosystem.

Today, and in future generations, our ecosystem is ultimately the source of our daily bread, our health, happiness, and source of life. There is no question that Americans have been living far beyond our ecological footprint. However, we now have a unique opportunity as we stand at a fateful tipping point. If we can learn to move thoughtfully and expeditiously in balance with our own humanity, our global ecological footprint, and the sustainable needs of our most immediate environment, we can forge a common ground. From this common ground diverse cultures can reach across the chasms of distrust and self interest to collaborate with one another to protect our global, regional, and local environments. As we de-escalate our relatively unintelligent and abusive exploitation of sequestered carbon, we have to keep in mind that we can maintain and improve health and human prosperity under such conditions by increasing social capital and knowledge sharing exponentially.

Many have not yet recognized that our global economy is currently moving from a low knowledge sharing, highly concentrated, nonrenewable energy dominated economy to a more intelligent, high knowledge sharing, less concentrated, more equitable, renewable energy economy. These forces are easily visible in the massive, rapid, global expansion of the World Wide Web. However, the transition will not be immediate, and will not necessarily unfold without very painful discontinuities. Time, energy, and significant capital will be essential for conversion, if a smooth landing is desired.

Given population trends, coupled with peak oil issues, increasing rates of extinctions, climate change, and other forms of environmental degradation, we are rapidly running out of time. How rapidly can we reverse our current destructive disintegrative patterns? The good news is that within a greater democracy we can collectively choose paths starting from our origins within our own traditions and engage in movements toward a common, sustainable, stewardship of the environment by participating in collaborative action to secure resilient, sustainable communities. Resilience starts with community dialogue metaphorically similar to the way the Amish raise barns for members of their community.

It is now time for us all to embrace the challenge of our current transition. We must work to understand how to build the social capital we need to become a part of a sustainable community living within its ecological footprint. Whether we are Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Taoist, Animist, Hindu, scientist, or a follower of some other religious or secular tradition, it is in our power to collectively seize this unique moment in history to change the disintegrative course we are on toward a more sustainable future. Dr. Hassan speaks about a future compatible with Islamic laws. The good news is that his vision and the ecological principles he espouses are not only compatible with Islam but with the sustainable traditions in the West, the Far East, and other diverse cultures from all corners of the earth. 

We no longer have the luxury of non-renewable resources to waste on an unsustainable path perpetuated by ignorance, fear, self interest, and avarice.  A sustainable future is ours to forge together.  Please take this time to actively share your own steps toward shaping a sustainable future of collective humanity in balance with our environment. Even if your words feel too humble or experimental in your own eyes, they may be the steps someone else behind you can grasp as a handhold or foothold to move forward in a world craving for sustainable alternatives. If you find no sustainable solutions today, articulate the problems you see, the need that you perceive, and present a question about how your knowledge of the problems and needs might be translated into a solution.

Millions are now engaging in evermore sustainable solutions. Many of your questions may be able to be answered through better knowledge sharing of existing solutions in other communities. In other cases, new solutions to still unsolved dilemmas can be expedited through the act of articulating the problem and need more effectively, so new collaborations can be more clearly focused on resolving mission critical gaps.

Our history demonstrates that a greater democracy rooted in sustainable and ecological principles is feasible. The security of our future requires that we engage more with others within our own communities and across cultures to protect our shared environment. This is our time to shape our markets, our political leadership, and our sustaining cultures based upon our values. It is now in our capacities to effectively develop and share our knowledge of sustainable solutions. It is time for us to start living the emerging solutions collaboratively.

Please add your words and actions to this endeavor.

Sincerely,

Mike
Michael D. McDonald, Dr.P.H.
President
Global Health Initiatives, Inc.

Coordinator
National Disaster Risk Communication Initiative

Principal Investigator
Disaster Knowledge Management System
Resilience Networks

See also:

1: Aikido and the War on Terrorism – by M. McDonald

2: The author’s comments on Farooq Hassan’s essay “Islam: Environmental Protection,”

In the upper right hand corner of the Google News screen you can click on the Personalize / Edit and create a custom section. Just enter the two words: global warming — in the search box. That’s how easy it is to do. I set mine to five stories. I may set up a whole page dedicated to global warming stories.

Sadly, Reality is badly under reported by the main stream media in the US. All of the key information, all of the emerging stories, on Global Warming have to be found in foreign sources.

Now here is the real challenge: How do we get the students in our trend setting universities and especially those universities in the early primary states, to light the fuse on this issue? It is the monster in the living room nobody is talking about.

The fact of the matter is that the baby boom generation has blown it Big Time. We had the Club of Rome “Limits to Growth” book back in 1972. And an update. We ignored them both, or attacked them, as we did not want to believe their message. Shame on us. Our children have every right to be mad as hell at us for our willful blindness to this issue.

This is a perfect issue for women, who are much more likely to take a long term view of things — especially the well being of their children. Given that we have perhaps only ten years to get this under control, even some men might get passionate about their futures, not just the next bit of sex, or drugs or gambling.

Time to get mad as hell.

Harvard University

International events of a momentous nature in the past few years have proved that military solutions do not auger well for its users in this millennium. Since 9/11, despite overwhelming superiority of technology and armaments, it is beyond question that military over-kills have achieved little except physical demolition of structures, landscapes and of thousands of civilians. Indeed, there is incontrovertible evidence that it has generated a wave of nationalism seldom seen on the international scene since the beginning of the last century.

Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and now in Lebanon have effectively demolished the notion of invincibility of supposedly super trained armies against rag tag militias who are determined to undertake “liberation” of their locales – at least as they see it in non conventional warfare. History seems forgotten by those who are supposed to know it. Those wishing to learn may read the accounts of the British Afghan Wars of 1842 and 1843 to comprehend that the greatest Empire of that time at Westminster was ruthlessness brushed aside by a handful of Pathans.

Hezbollah is riding a wave of popularity on the Arab street. Not since it played a role in forcing Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon in 2000 has it enjoyed such adulation. Its leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, is enjoying something akin to a personality cult. At a time when Arab governments are seen as largely powerless to influence events, Hezbollah is seen as taking on the Israelis – and behind the Israelis, the American superpower. This has put Arab governments – in particular those allied to the United States – and other Muslim leaders, such as Musharraf and Mubarak, in a difficult quandary.

When this crisis began three weeks ago, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan did not hide their view that Hezbollah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers was “reckless adventurism”. This was unusual enough, but they also openly directed their displeasure at the group’s backers, Syria and Iran. Such publicly voiced stance manifestly pleased the Bush administration as such critiques, for what they are worth, were frequently quoted by the US leadership and by and by dozens of “experts” in the media. It is equally clear that it was routinely ignored [in the West] that such Muslim countries’ governments were roundly criticized at home. The Saudi media made much of the fact that the king and the crown prince made handsome personal donations. In addition, the Saudi state has given $1.5 billion (£800 million) to support the Lebanese pound and help rebuild the shattered country. It is not that these countries have changed their minds. They are only. as a part of the realpolitik of the situation, correctly evaluating the growing influence of Iran and Hezbollah. They believe the regional balance of power is shifting in Iran’s favor.

Washington’s Arab friends are pressing urgently for an immediate ceasefire. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has warned darkly of the danger of a wider regional war. Saudi television this past week organized a day long appeal – or “telethon” as the British called it – which raised some $29 million (£15.55 million) for Lebanon. It is not that these rulers have changed their minds. They can clearly perceive the growing influence of Iran and Hezbollah and, indeed, of impoverished Syria as well.

Indeed, if a not so subtle endorsement of this phenomenon was needed, it came through the Iraqi and Lebanese Prime Ministers who went out of their way to be critical of Israeli action and impliedly of the US. The comments of the Iraqi leadership were particularly poignant for US policy makers. They were issued in the US and, considering the billions spent by Washington to install the maker of these views as that nation’s Premier, it must make such policymakers ponder of how wrong they may have been!

As such, howsoever they may be negatively viewed by Washington and London, the predominant view in the Middle East, and the wider Muslim world, is overwhelmingly supportive of Hezbollah. The hope of some Western analysts to see the sudden eruption of the Shia and Sunni divide is, in this case, utterly ill founded – as results have shown thus far. For most people, the Palestinian cause transcends sectarian differences. Even al-Qaeda, no friend of the Shia, has felt obliged to speak out. The group’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has issued a video saying no Muslim can stay silent in the face of events in Lebanon.

Israel’s Lebanon adventures have coalesced the fundamental antagonists in a manner that famous Muslim thinkers like Iqbal & Rumi could not accomplish. Al-Qaeda’s declaration is thus, doctrinally, nothing short of, historically speaking in strategic terms, a startling phenomenon.

The U.S. evidently miscalculated the [cost of the] delay in supporting a ceasefire: A delay that resulted in the tragedy at Qana. It only underscores the awareness that there has occurred, as a result of such overall thinking in Washington, a manifest unintended shift in the balance of power in this region.