Mike was usually the first one packed.   At first glance you might think he had lost something in the weeds, but he was actually going over the entire campsite like a detective looking for evidence.  Evidence of humans.   And every bit of evidence was picked up and put in a garbage bag.   He and I would go along on Scout camping trips with Joshua, his son Bryant and the rest of the local troop.    Even though this troop could destroy the peace and tranquility of the wilderness, everything that they packed in was packed out and we usually packed out more than we brought in.    It has been ingrained into my mind for decades that you don’t litter.   You don’t throw wrappers out the window and you don’t leave piles of garbage behind when you visit a place.     I know in the back of my mind that any garbage I pack home will be burned or recycled.  We made it clear during our first week in the house that it was completely unacceptable for the staff to carry our garbage down the lane and throw it in the weeds.    Now our garbage is either recycled or burned.   I  do have some guilt about the air pollution, but I know no other alternative.

 

A fellow traveler once called India “the world’s largest garbage dump” and while I know some may take offense at such a description I give back only my offense at the many people who:

• Throw wrappers out the window of a train
• Leave piles of garbage on the beach after a visit
• Throw their garbage on the side of the street, or in front of their neighbors house.
• Have no apparent care that every public place in India is strewn with garbage.

 

My only explanation is a lack of regard for the “commons”.  I will use the following definitions for “commons”:

 

                a place, real or virtual, that is not privately owned. Natural commons include the oceans and the atmosphere.

                                                http://www.gfem.org/mediapolicy/html/MediaPolicyGlossary04.html 

 

The concept of the Commons comes from English Common Law, which India inherited  during the time of British rule.   The basic right granted was the right to graze livestock on lands defined as common.   The concept included additional rights to fish, take sod and  soil and to gather wood.   All these actions are typical across India, including the widely held notion by foreigners that cows roam the streets without control.   However, by only enforcing the “takings” side of this right, the value, usefulness and appearance of the commons has deteriorated to a derelict state.     What is the fix for this?   Danielle contributed an obvious answer to yesterday's post on sanitation that I had not considered: “Hope”.  Hope that a increasing rise of an affluent will allow provide people the time to care and make a difference.   This time to care can be as simple as deciding not to litter to organizing “Adopt-A-Street” campaigns to a “Buy Green” mentality to an active campaign to petition government intervention.    Am I saying this as a visitor here from a perfect place?  No, America has its share of trash and litter, but not nearly as bad as India.   More important is the concept that a belief in the protection of the commons has much more important ramifications than clean streets.    What India and the U.S. share is a much more dangerous “Tragedy of the Commons”.    In the U.S. this is evidenced in tragedies such as the depletion of wetlands, overfishing of the Columbia, air pollution problems at the Grand Canyon, and urban sprawl.   In the U.S. there is a motivated base of people working on solutions to these problems by applying pressure to government and industry.   I am sure that the same issues face India, but I do not see the same level of opposition and scrutiny.

 

Do I hope that India becomes the land of environmental activists?  Sure, why not?    India became rightly incensed decades ago after the Bhopal Disaster.   A similar, but less visible tragedy is happening across this great country in the form of decreased efficiency and health standards.   If we take the position that lower standards of sanitation and environmental quality equate to a one year decrease in life expectancy then that adds up to 1 billion years of potential lost to this generation.

 

The hope that I have is that this generation realizes that the freedom of the commons not only permits the free use of these commons, but requires though and action to protect the commons.    

In the fall of 1988 I was a senior in high school and captain of the debate team.   My chosen form of debate was "Model Congress".   Each participant would write a bill or resolution and present it to the group.  Success depended on your ability to argue for or against these resolutions.    With 20+ participants in a 4 hour session, competition was intense.    We faced the same high schools in a series of debate meets from November to March.   On the first of these a debater named Chris Anderson from another school introduced a resolution condemning the transfer of 12 Huey helicopters from the US Army to Pakistan.   It was a clever resolution because it was hard to form a convincing counter-argument because he never explained why the US government sent the helicopters to Pakistan in the first place.  

Anderson went for it again in the second meet and I rose to speak against his resolution.  My argument was simple.  The United States should trust Benazir Bhutto and support her in any way possible.   At that time I didn't really know anything about Bhutto except what I had read in Newsweek.  Chris and I were able to monopolize the debate because we were the only ones who were prepared to speak on the subject.   That meet I took the first place prize and Chris the second place prize.   After the meet we agreed to do additional research and continue our debate in future competitions.   I spent hours reading everything I could about Bhutto, Zia al-Huq, and the history of Pakistan.  We successfully debated the merits of the US-Pakistan relationship all the way to the state championship, which Chris won and I took second place.

The lasting result of that season is a deep admiration for Benazir Bhutto and a strong interest in Pakistani politics.   Yesterdays' assassination of Bhutto is a tragedy for Pakistan, a country that cannot afford any more instability.  Now that I call south Asia home, the stability of the region is an important concern.    From all appearances it is going to be a long winter in Pakistan before peace and stability return.

Since it is September 11, I thought I would pass on a couple of links I have found very informative over the past couple of months.

Michael Yon: Online Magazine

The Fourth Rail

The Belmont Club

For exactly the past 4 years I have had a habit of checking CNN.com with a habitual regularity.  It all started 4 years ago this morning when I wondered what was behind the enigmatic email I received from work:  "Due to obvious circumstances the Stock Market and our Trading department are closed until further notice."

CNN.com could barely load, and they had reverted back to their circa 1998 lightweight HTML design.  Since then the habit of regular checking has persisted.   A few months ago I was reading an article that made it seem as if the US military was simply driving around Iraq waiting for bombs to go off.   I decided to dig deeper and see if I could get firsthand accounts of what was going on.  The first of the links above is just that.  A writer embedded with a combat unit in Mosul.  The other two are in-depth analysis of the situation.  

A much different picture than the main-stream media (cnn.com and others) are providing.

 

 

I have been thinking more about my comments below regarding Terri Schiavo.   Her parents appealed her case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United Status (SCOTUS).   I had been of the opinion that the SCOTUS should have issued a ruling.   The only change in my opinion is that the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue.  By declining to take up the case they have said in effect that "Mr. and Mrs. Schindler, you do not have standing or merit for us to hear this case."   What more do they need to say.

I came to this opinion after my post on Bob Reselman's Coding Slave blog.

I caught a couple of minutes of CNN, they were running a retrospective of Terri Schiavo’s life.   The narrative was warm and compassionate about her life prior to her lapse into a coma.  That bulimia as a likely cause of the potassium imbalance that caused the coma was quickly covered, without judgment.   The bit seemed more in place on Fox, but Fox vs CNN, liberal vs. conservative will be saved for a future post.

 

The Schiavo case has grabbed headlines because it is such an emotionally appealing issue.  A woman is lying in a bed and slowly dying.  She is in a coma and mostly non-responsive.   That her husband is the one who pushed for the feeding tubes to be removed seems, at first glance, to be the cold calculated moves of a man wanting to be done with caring for his crippled wife after 15 years of being in a coma.  It is easy to see the case in this emotion charged light.

 

I look at it as a test of the legal concept of the rights of a guardian.  Children, the elderly and those unable to make choices for themselves have or are appointed guardians.   In cases such as the Terri Schiavo case, the guardian is her husband.  His role is to make choices that she has previously directed, or are determined to be consistent with her wishes or at least in her best interest.  

 

If Terri Schiavo’s parents were successful in overruling the determination of her guardian then that would open up a huge on notable legal precedent that the will of the public can remove a guardian from his/her responsibilities.

 

Imagine the following:

•  A mother is caught on a security camera physically disciplining her child.   An outraged public demands that her child be removed from her guardianship. 
  
• An Amish family refuses medical treatment for a sick child.   Activists liken the decision to murder and have the child removed from the family for medical treatment.
  
• A mother takes her son from Cuba to the US, but is killed trying to reach Florida.  Anti-Castro activists and distant relatives succeed in preventing the return of the child to his father in Cuba.

 

These cases are not far-fetched, and they share, in my untrained legal mind, a strong similarity to the Schiavo case.   Her husband is her guardian, and the courts have repeatedly upheld his judgment of what actions she would prefer to be taken in this situation.   It is hard to look at the anguish of her parents, who disagree, but this is a significant issue that needs to be looked at not in light of the plight of one woman, but in the light of the impact a precedent would have on our society.

 

I think it appropriate that so many courts have weighed in on this matter.  I wish the Supreme Court had been willing to take this matter up.  While not a matter of strict constitutional interpretation, the SCOTUS should have spent the time to offer what jurisprudential wisdom they could spare.