Article 1 - The right to equality

I've wanted to write about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for a while now. I have a calendar from Amnesty International on my wall that has an article from the declaration on each month and I've found it quite inspiring. I'm finally writing about it because today is Human Rights Day and the 60-year anniversary of the Declaration being adopted by the UN General Assembly. If you've never read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights before, I strongly recommend it. It's incredible to consider the rights that 48 nations agreed every human deserves to have. It's certainly far from perfect but is part of a vital conversation that has existed for thousands of years.

There's a lot of activity on this day this year. For one thing, Amnesty International and the ACLU are relentlessly reminding Obama that he promised to shut down Guantánamo. They want him to do it on his first day. For another, gay rights supporters have named this day Day Without a Gay and have pledged to call in "gay" to work and instead spend the day volunteering for a good cause. I'm not doing it because a) I don't have a job and b) I already spend every day volunteering, but I wholly support the idea. I think it's fantastic.

For millions of people on this planet, these rights are merely an idea, nothing that they have ever actually enjoyed. It's the reason that I believe the election of Obama caused such a worldwide phenomenon. In the days after the election, I read stories and heard first or second hand from black Americans who either voted for the first time or voted for the first time believing our political process can work. People whose children, as young as five, watched the election results with gleeful anticipation as if expecting to see a miracle happen right before their eyes. Indeed, to many in this country and abroad, what happened on election night was a miracle.

We elected a man who inspired us, made us hopeful about our country and made us feel powerful in our own ability to affect change. To much of the world, that has viewed the United States as the expression of these universal rights, that we overcame our history of black slavery and struggle for civil rights to elect an African-American as president is proof that these things are not merely ideas. They are ideas that we put into action every day. I don't think we can underestimate the profound impact that an event like this will have on the world, especially on the younger generations. To people all over the world it signaled hope that they too could make a difference and that their own struggle for human rights is not in vain.

While I admired McCain for his elegant concession speech, speaking of Obama with respect that he rarely afforded him throughout the election, there was something about the way he mentioned the "special significance" his election held for African-Americans that made me flinch. Looking at the nearly all white audience, some with anger on their faces and some shouting and booing, it seemed to me that they might hear, "If you're pissed off, you can blame the blacks." It seemed to me that his election signaled a similar but opposite thought in some; that the dominance of whites is over, not just in the U.S. but all over the world.

There was much talk after the election about the Republican base is now limited to the south. Half of Republicans now in office are from the south and the highest increases in voter turnout were in the south. It was speculated that it was due to blacks who had never voted before, thanks in part to the huge effort by the Obama campaign to help people get to the polls. But in fact, there is reason to believe that the record numbers were also due to whites voting to keep a black man from becoming president. There has always been an enormous fear by those of the dominant group(s) about what happens when those that are not, get more rights. In the same way that it took women 80 years to get the vote and how hard women had to fight to gain the right to a college education, gays are now fighting the same fear over what happens if they should be allowed to marry.

I really like this music video that Amnesty International sent me about the Universal Declaration and have decided that I will spend today editing the video that I promised to make for Amnesty International. I encourage you to spend the day thinking about how you can promote human rights. Write a letter. Volunteer. Voice your opinion. Get involved.

A more humane president

I wish I could think of something else besides the election and the economy but I can't. Arriving at the Farmer's Market on Saturday, I noticed that the Republicans have now joined the Democrats in handing out buttons and flyers. The Democrat Club has had a presence the last few weeks, several white-haired ladies sitting behind a table of Obama-Biden buttons, but on Saturday there was a horde of young men, in suits, handing out Republican literature. They looked like stock brokers. I immediately had this feeling that I needed to be declaring my affiliation, something I normally keep somewhat private with people I don't know. I went over to the women and bought a button, affixing it to my bag. One lady handed me a flyer to vote YES on Prop 2. I already know all about it, I said, and added that the Humane Society has just endorsed Obama. They have never before endorsed a presidential candidate and posted a detail analysis of his voting record and support for animals:
"The board of directors—which is comprised of both Democrats and Republicans—has voted unanimously to endorse Barack Obama for President. The Obama-Biden ticket is the better choice on animal protection, and we urge all voters who care about the humane treatment of animals, no matter what their party affiliation, to vote for them."

It may not mean much to some people but I say that you can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat animals (and the earth). And so does Obama. He said "I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other, and it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." Humane Society and Amnesty International are my two charities, the ones I give the most money to and am the most active for. I realized this weekend that they essentially do the same thing, except one for animals and one for people. They fight to end suffering. What I like about both organizations is that they have excellent communications, informative websites and easily understood missions. They are surprisingly unsentimental, given the subject matter, and never condemn. Instead, they rely on the facts to speak for themselves. They understand that if suffering doesn't bother you, no amount of sensationalism is going to change that. If suffering does bother you, only the facts and an easy call-to-action are necessary. Amnesty International "neither supports nor opposes any political party or any candidate for public office and Amnesty does not seek to influence elections" but instead seeks to inform the public about their core issues and encourage them to influence policy. I have to say that the focus by these organizations on the welfare of people and animals is such a welcome respite from the hatred that infuses politics.

The recent behavior of Americans on the McCain-Palin campaign trail has really sickened me. I continue to find it sadly ironic that while we fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, people in this country are constantly trying to reverse our own progress and take us back into the dark ages as well. Had we not "waved the white flag of surrender" in Vietnam all those years ago, McCain might have died in a prison cell instead of coming back a war hero. Had radical women like Hillary Clinton not won out all those years ago, Palin would not be qualified to be a VP candidate because she would be denied the right to vote. Let's not forget how highly volatile these issues were when they were happening! So how is it possible that the people who support these two think they can deny gays the right to marriage, women the ability to terminate their own pregnancy and Obama the respect of a man running for The President of the United States? I refuse to believe that this country contains more hate and anger than it does hope and pride. The country I live in was founded on and has lead the world in many ways to becoming a more humane place and will continue to do so.

An unreasonable man

Well folks, it looks like we've got ourselves a Democratic candidate. While I still support Obama, and will follow through with my promise (to myself) to volunteer for his campaign now that he has the nomination, I have to say a word about Ralph Nader. I just watched the documentary, An Unreasonable Man, about Nader's work and his bid for the 2000 presidency and I have to say, the guy has a point. If you haven't seen the film, I recommend it.

Dissent is an extremely critical part of our political process, it is the basis of free speech. The right to criticize our government doesn't apply just to the people already in power and the policies they enact, it also applies to those who want to represent us, the policies they promise to enact and the process by which those people and policies are elected. If we can't question those things, if we can't shine a light in the crevices of our candidates' contributions and connections and voting and personal histories, then we don't really have free speech or a democracy. Nader says he ran in 2000 because in a two-party system where both parties are heavily subsidized by corporate contributions, there really isn't that much difference between them. He was demonized for that sentiment and subsequently blamed for the Democrat's loss in 2000.

I do not believe he cost the Democrats the election. I do believe that he activated a group of people previously too disillusioned to vote, who largely in the end voted for Gore. Mostly though, I believe in what he's fighting for, real representation of the people. No, I don't think the two parties are indistinguishable, and we've seen that difference in this presidency more than any, but as the father of consumer rights he's right that they owe more to their corporate contributors than they do to us.

The Economist, in their World 2008 special, published their forecast of how much money will be spent in this years election compared to previous years. We started, in 1976 with $25 million spent by all candidates. It increased each election to $38m in 1980, $53m in 1984, $59m in 1988, $70m in 1992, $83m in 1996 and then jumped to $140m in 2000. Strangely, spending almost quadrupled in 2004 to $494m! What in the world is going on? How is that possible? The Economist predicts this year will shoot up $1 billion spent on the 2008 elections but then counters that figure with a quote from the columnist George Will who says that is only half as much as Americans spend every year on Easter candy. Oddly terrifying.

The point is that we need to consider this trend. How comfortable are we with this kind of money being spent on campaigns? Are we willing to examine where this money is coming from? And how, ultimately, does this affect how these people govern our country? They are voted into office by us, they are supposed to be representing us but if their financial backers feel they are representing their interests, we have a serious problem. This is the problem that Ralph Nader was the first person to address back in the seventies. He was the first person to claim rights on the behalf of the consumer. He said it's not acceptable for corporations to bypass those rights in the name of profits. Without Nader, we would not have seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes and a host of other features in our cars that keep our families from dying when the car loses control. It took a while for corporations to mobilize efforts against Nader and consumers but they have finally figured out the best way is through our elected officials.

In developing countries, people just starting to fight against corporate corruption, pollution and neglect, base their struggle on Nader's. They see him as an American hero. Here, Democrats have the gall to blame him for the atrocities committed by Bush in office. This is my request. Support your candidate but listen to what Nader has to say because he, as always, is the only one saying it. This issue on his platform, Corporate Personhood, illustrates how our rights are not being respected by our government or our candidates. He says:

In 1886 the Supreme Court, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, was interpreted to have ruled that corporations were “persons”—before women were considered persons under the 19th amendment to have the right to vote.

But corporations are not humans. They don’t vote. They don’t have children. They don’t die in Iraq.

We cannot have equal justice under law between real people and corporations like Exxon Mobil. There is no way even an individual billionaire can approximate the raw power of these large corporations with their privileged immunities, and their control over technology, capital and labor.

The constitution reads, “we the people”, not we the corporations.

We put these people into office, they need to be beholden to what we want and it's up to us to make that happen. Think about it.

All eyes on China

I got a request to blog more frequently. It very sweet and it made me smile but in order to do it, I’ll have to post more of my silly thoughts while I chew on those that surround my days and weeks and sometimes months, like what I’m thinking right now about China.

This month’s issue of National Geographic is all about China, every page. It's excellent. I love the timing of this magazine and I think they’re right on; in the very near future, the whole world is going to be looking at China. Not just the Chinese government that suppresses rights and imprisons those that speak out against it and not just the China that’s buying the world’s debt, investing in resources in Africa and South America and not just the China that’s hosting the Olympics.

I have yet to find someone who agrees with me but I’ll even go one further. Not only will the world be all about China and the Chinese people, soon, it will no longer be all about the United States. It’s already happening in conversations with friends, relatives and my parents. I can’t get into any conversation without someone bringing up what China is doing. All of a sudden, they’re in everyone’s country and everyone’s business.

There's a great article on WorldChanging about a collaboration between photographer Paolo Woods and journalist Serge Michel at FotoGrafia, the 7th edition of international festival of photography which runs until May 25th in Rome. Their presentation follows China's industrial neo-colonialism in Africa. The photos of Chinese running factories and building local economies and Chinese being taught by Africans in their classrooms are amazing. You can see all the photos from China's Wild West under stories, on Paolo Wood's website:


China is home to one of the oldest continuous civilizations on earth. They are by far the most populous country, making up 20% of the world’s population. There are more people on the Internet in China than in any other country, including the U.S. They are expected to overtake us as the world’s largest economy in less than 10 years. Over 30% of the population call themselves religious and that number is growing. 45% of women say they don't want to give up their careers to have children.

They are the world leaders in manufacturing, and in a few short decades, they have grown a rich class and an enormous middle class with healthy appetites for domestic and foreign goods and resources. They have quickly embraced the West’s competition for success and all the stress and malaise that goes with it. They still cannot freely surf the Internet or speak their mind but those days are numbered. As they continue to embrace technology, art and imported culture, they’ll find themselves in a much more visible role in the world struggle for human rights.

Most Chinese in school are now studying English and their English speakers outnumber those in the United States. There’s a mass migration going on of people from the country to the city and with increased wealth and population density comes a frenzy of information sharing and a demand for more freedom. I predict that in the next few years China will have a cultural explosion, exporting and importing people and culture with the same voracity that they have adopted everything else.

China is dealing with the issues we’re all dealing with, except in all cases their situation is already more dire. They need to provide healthcare for the biggest baby boomer population in the world, a generation that has less children to provide for them due to the one-child policy. They have the highest statistic for air pollution related deaths, have built more mega dams than anywhere in the world, and have deforested and leveled mountains to the point of serious environmental erosion. They’re only now beginning to embrace archeological digs and animal conservation. They’re dealing with a rapidly growing disparity between rich and poor, massive urbanization, and a serious shortage of natural resources.

Natural disasters are a constant but this time the Chinese are starting to ask questions like why so many schools collapsed in the recent earthquake. We’re already seeing a comparison between how China handled their rescue efforts compared to the disasters in the rest of the world. The incredible level of humanitarian aid offered by regular citizens has put the government in an uncomfortable position. No longer a closed society, there are at least three Flickr groups with photos from the earthquake: china 512 earthquake, Sichuan Earthquake 2008 and Just The News (were you there? - if not, don't add!)

They’ve turned the spotlight on themselves by bidding to host the Olympics and I’m afraid it isn’t going off for a while. I predict that the era of all eyes on America is coming to an end. The question is, will American eyes remain closed to the outside world or will we begin to learn by observing others?