Hillary's Laments

A bit more politics. First, above, today's much talked about clip featuring Hillary's "tears" at a campaign event, which, if I read the blogs right, has brought all the sharks out. Oh, get over it. In fact, I thought Hillary responded very honestly and eloquently to the question posed, showed some emotion, and let's move on, people. The amount of dumb, fuck-up things candidates say on the road, as a result of campaign wear or sheer stupidity, Hillary should be allowed a moment of exhaustion and emotion.

Second, the clip below, in which Hillary vents a bit of frustration at being painted as the establishment candidate, versus the candidate(s) of change. One, I have to empathize with Clinton -- she's worked long and hard in her political career caring about the right issues, and working for positive change, and up against hard odds all the while, and in the narrow-vision game of politics, it must be just a nightmare to have worked the right side of the line, and one day wake up to find that your on the wrong side, through little fault of your own. Two, the one valid criticism of Obama that I think can continue to play out in the primaries is his actual inexperience in governance. It would be easier to palate, of course, if Hillary or Edwards had more than a couple of years experience on Obama, as executives or Senators, which they don't. But it is one of the very few lines of attack that would concern me about, say, a McCain-Obama match-up (and what a strange article about that very real possibility over at Slate.com!)



My favorite part of that clip? Bill Richardson running for the Vice President nod by amicably swiveling around in his chair like a ten-year old with ADD. But, Hillary, "false hopes!" Ooh, that'll get you in trouble sooner or later.

2007 in Photos

A small but heartening token that the world we live in is cooler and more beautiful today than it was a yesterday: the ability to go to Flickr and do a search for any topic, and pull back a multitude of wonderful photos taken by people all over the world, seemingly as many annotated in Spanish or Mandarin or Russian as in English. A marvel of technology, globalization, freedom of expression, and artistic inclination, and good, also, to know that there are so many people documenting so many moments, good and bad, extraordinary and mundane. A selection of photos from a Flickr search tagged, simply, "2007."

And, finally, a good 2007 photo retrospective, from the NYT.

Proposed Antilia Building: More Green? Still Ostentatious

I recently learned about the Antilia building, which is under construction in Mumbai, by Perkins + Will, for Indian tycoon Mukesh Ambani. A couple of descriptive paragraphs:

Construction is underway, albeit with some delays, on one of India’s highest profile and most opulent projects—the Antilia, a 490-foot-tall corporate meeting facility and private residence in Mumbai. Chicago-based Perkins + Will designed the 24-story tower for business tycoon Mukesh Ambani, whose family will occupy roughly 35,000 square feet in its top floors.

Among its interesting elements, Antilia will feature a band of vertical and horizontal gardens that demarcates the tower’s different program elements. A garden level will separate the ground-floor parking and conference center from residential space above, for instance, and the outer walls on certain levels will be sheltered by trellises supporting panels that contain hydroponically grown plants.

In addition to signaling different space uses and providing privacy, these “vertical gardens” will help shade the building and reduce the urban heat island effect. “You can use the whole wall almost like a tree and increase the green area of the site by five or 10 times over what it would be if you just did a green roof,” Johnson observers. “It’s a prototype for buildings of the future.”

Oh, wow. What a crazy building, and while some of the architectural and green design aspects are interesting, it is difficult to see how this building either fits in with the development needs of Mumbai, in general, or a commitment to green design. I guess the rich get what they want, although if this building is a prototype for the future, it seems we're moving ever-closer to a Blader Runner-like dystopia, where the rich live comfortable lives in high-rises towering above the city floor, while discharging a disproportionate amount of waste to and depleting resources from those stuck on the ground, in the shadows below.

The Slate.com article which brought this building to my attention is interesting, as well, in dissecting how efforts to create standards for certifying green building design (specifically, the LEED certification standards) can be counter-productive for really achieving green design objectives. The main criticisms seem to be that LEED's check-list based system for evaluating building design give similar weight to disproportionate investments in green design, creating mis-aligned incentives, that the checklist oversimplifies many of the design objectives and fails to create baseline standards, and that the premium is placed on achieving efficiency and not on controlling scale.

I haven't really paid attention to the evolution of LEED in ten years, but the criticisms seem like pretty standard fare for most initiatives trying to bring standards for sustainability into commercially-driven enterprises. I don't disagree with any of Daniel Brook's analysis of LEED (to the extent that I am familiar with the standards and qualified to agree or disagree), but also it bears mention how difficult it is to create initiatives that both achieve sustainable objectives and will gain buy-in from the companies that need to be properly incentivized and to implement designs and programs according to those standards. Not an excuse, just highlighting the ongoing design challenge that people serious about sustainability will continue to face.

Democratic Stars

Last political post of the night, I guess I'm just starting to get caught up in the season. The issues that I care about and foresee challenging us in the next forty years (of which, changing our approach in the next eight years is crucial) include:

Global Issues:
Iraq
Economic development in Middle East, Africa, South East Asia, and Latin America
Climate Change
Energy policy (and global resource use, broadly)
Political and military engagement in asymmetrical conflicts (terrorist organizations and failed states)
Humanitarian intervention (genocide, famine, disease, natural disaster)
Basic health and sanitation services for the poorest 1 billion

Domestic Issues:
Education (primary and secondary)
Health Care
Sustained Economic Growth
Competitiveness in scientific and technological innovation
Managing national debt and trade balances
Increased energy efficiency and independence on foreign oil
Creating capabilities and opportunities for the poorest quarter of American society
Creating open political dialogues on race and class in America

In emailing with CC about the results of the Iowa caucus, I was impressed about how wide a range of political talent a Democratic President will have at his/her disposal to tackle these issues. From potential Vice Presidential candidates, to cabinet members, to high-profile statesmen who can be called upon to fulfill ambassadorships or special missions, the list is impressive, in political talent, in the problems that the individuals have chosen to focus on and care about, the approaches that they take to those problems, and the political standing they have both in the U.S., and globally. Consider a hypothetical Obama administration:

VP Candidates include Edwards (focus and credibility on domestic policy, including poverty issues and health care), Richardson (experience with Energy policy, engage Hispanic demographic, credibility on international issues, particularly N. Korea), and Biden (foreign policy, deep legislative experience).

As statesmen, you'd have Bill Clinton (imagine having him lead task-forces on global economic development, AIDS and other epidemics, and forging partnerships with China and India), Al Gore (climate change and energy policy), Edwards (poverty and health care), Wes Clark and Joe Biden on Iraq and global political crises, including terrorism and humanitarian crises.

Add to that the ability to select advisers from a whole cadre of smart, respected ex-active politicians with national profiles who you could potentially make use of (Gephardt, Bob Kerrey, Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, Bob Graham), smart, senior Senators from "safe" states like Biden, Dodd, Jack Reed (RI), Boxer/Feinstein, Feingold, Durbin, Kerry, Schumer, Pat Leahy and Hillary to deploy as needed, a ton of smart, young politicians and policy wonks whom I've never heard of, and the ability to reach across the aisle, where appropriate, to the Olympia Snowe's and Chuck Hagel's and Mike Bloomberg's and Bill Cohen's of the world.

The potential for a Democratic president to really re-assert America's perceived and actual leadership well into the 21st century is massive. I can't see a Republican president doing anything but continuing the harm that his administration has done. And in terms of political talent available, there is nothing even close to comparable on the Republican side of the aisle (and there hasn't been in at least twenty years).

Biden Out

Definitely sad to see Joe Biden bow out of the Democratic primaries, as he provides an intelligent perspective on most of our major national issues, and presents real solutions, beyond purely rhetorical, in terms that people can understand. The increased passion he showed in this season's debates, particularly when discussing American responsibility in confronting the crises in Iraq and Darfur, was very compelling. It is good to have an advocate in national debates that is willing to talk about America's role as a moral leader, and who can do so with authenticity, clarity, and impact, and also with an understanding of what the costs are of exercising that leadership in a complex world.

CC sent this brief post from the NYT's political blog, which praises Biden, and damns some part of our political process, although not quite clear which part (the media, for being too narrowly-focused and a hype machine? us, the electorate, for including the nebulous concept of 'electability' in our political calculus?, us, the electorate, for being so shallow? the system, for enabling all of the above and worse?). Given that I think Biden actually did an effective job adjusting his public persona for the national stage, and did a good job using new media (Interent, e-mail, YouTube) to convey his messages, it is interesting how these issues will continue to make Presidential politics a young, beautiful person's game. May be a good thing, may not.

And while I'm eulogizing Biden's candidacy, may as well do the same for Christopher Dodd, who, along with Biden, is a great example of the qualities I wish all of our political leaders had: intelligent, informed, compassionate, moral, serious, principled, and committed to the big ideas that define our national interest.

Why We Fight

I recently watched Eugene Jarecki's feature Why We Fight on DVD (trailer here), a documentary that attempts to trace the reasons for America's engagement in armed conflict, and the associated rise of the military industrial complex (a term popularized by no less than President Eisenhower). The basic premise of the film is that there are a lot of personal reasons for supporting or engaging in war, ranging from noble goals like "spreading freedom," to vengeance, to providing life with purpose, that there are a lot of national reasons that a country might go to war, including those above, as well as political interest. The film also asserts that there is a set of commercial and political interests (again, call it the military-industrial complex) that will drive a nation to war, by focusing the personal and national mood of the country into compliance with, if not active support of, a war agenda.

While Why We Fight traces American militarism in the last sixty years, the film's focus and the deepest resonance lies in our current war in Iraq. While I don't know that the film successfully answers the question "Why We Fight?" (the three common answers seem to be "I'm Not Really Sure" from individuals, political bromides like "For Freedom" from politicians and individuals, and "because the political and commercial interests which require war for their own self-preservation seized an opportunity for war and manipulated political and public opinion to allow for that war to be made" representing the film-maker's opinion), the three questions continually surrounding (and never discussed in simple terms) the Iraq war are raised in the film. How did we get in to this war in the first place? Why are we fighting the war? How do we know when we've won the war? (i.e., How do we know when we've accomplished what we expect to accomplish in this war?)

While the film doesn't lay these questions to rest (and I hope that the details surrounding the first question are re-examined with the election of a Democratic president, and the second and third firmly resolved by the actions of the new administration), it does a good job of surfacing them, and providing some historical context. In fact, the revelation of the entire documentary may be President Eisenhower's farewell address, which I had not previously read and will excerpt in parts:

Eisenhower addresses how to promote and maintain American ideals in an increasingly militarized and turbulent world. The rhetoric from fifty years ago sounds not so far removed from today (when we hear it coming from the more articulate and less jingoistic of our politicians:)

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But Eisenhower proceeds to warn against, in surprisingly explicit terms, the influence of the military industrial complex. It's amazing how, from Washington to Teddy Roosevelt, to Eisenhower, there are a legacy of prescient speeches reflecting on American power, and how fundamentally our current leadership and their intellectual influencers, have chosen to ignore:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

The entire address can be found here. I would also highly recommend reading Christopher Hedges' War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning for anyone interested in this topic, particularly in trying to understand our impetus to war, in general (i.e., not as closely focused on the current mess we've made in Iraq).

First Step

Welcome news to start 2008 -- Obama wins Iowa. As I've discussed, I think all three of the leading candidates on the Democratic side of the fence will make an excellent President and will pursue strong policy and lead the country in the right direction. But on the merits of his intellect, his policy positions, his policy team, his youth, vigor, and general with-it-ness, and, yes, by the symbolic act of electing a black man who embodies an immigrant experience, I think electing a President Barack Obama would demonstrate America's willingness to continue to be a leader in the world in the 21st century in a way that a President Edwards or a President Clinton simply would not.