Development(s)

To contact us Click HERE

Friends,I’ll take theliberty of kicking off the blog for this year’s trip, though at the rate thingsare going, I will be no more qualified to write about Uganda and Lingira thananyone else on the team when we next access internet. I could not be happier withhow energetic the group has been and how poised we are to eclipse the smallwork Sam, Karla, and I did last year. When that happens it will be acredit to this group and in no way a fault of our work last year.

Speaking ofthose projects— our attempt to seed the idea of a robust school garden byworking with the school and building a fence took hold. The whole ±1 acre areais tilled and planted. That was always our first ambition for the project,reflecting an attempt to make full use of the resource. However, a fear we heldwas that monoculture, which often makes economic sense or may best fillstomachs, would dominate the garden. To my great surprise, there was not onestalk of corn at the school. Under some direction from our great friend TwaliJulius (MS in Crop Sciences) the school has been growing diverse crops,including broccoli, which is a rarity in Uganda. He has helped to keep up ourvision for the garden by encouraging this and different farming techniques. Thesecond great success that we’ve seen is that the produce of the garden is beingconsumed by students, and regularly. The productivity has been high enough tosustain the school’s interest in producing its own food. Perhaps mostamazingly, they’ve begun to pursue growing things outside the bounds of thefence as a result of their success in the garden. Shortly before we arrived,they planted the first fruits in the garden. In a few months there ought to bepassion fruit growing along the fence. In the coming weeks, we look to installa hearty human-powered pump as insurance against the times when dry season andschool holidays overlap. Another goal is to approach the school and studentsabout forming a student farmers’ association as an outlet for their interestsand an opportunity for leadership experience.
Tomorrow willconclude our first days “in town”. I imagine that being in Jinja feels verylike when Laura Ingalls Wilder would, coming in from their frontier home forsupplies and a bit of candy from the general store. Still, we are anxious to getback to the island. The whole group seems very excited to get to work afterhaving been equipped some cultural understanding of the islands and Uganda atlarge. The very theoretical experience of our work in Madison has beentransformed into projects with very real direction and targets. We will returnto the island tomorrow with the ceramic elements of the kegs, as well as thecomponents to produce a first round of the filters. While some of us pursuebuilding those, others will be working with Local Chairmen and interviewingcommunity members about existing water habits so we can tailor our approach.
Many thanksfor reading. I can pass on hellos from everyone here and even from our Ugandanfriends. We couldn’t be doing better or more charged to do awesome stuff as thegroup explores this new culture. Pictures will follow!
Paul

For your information

To contact us Click HERE

We are beyondour first two weeks and staring down our last two. It’s been amazing howquickly energy and time seem to be whisked off with ever-present beads ofsweat. Our water filter project has been a vacuum for our attention anddeservedly so. Very early on, our environment here asked that we make ensureany filters distributed be tested against the especially turbid lake water,resemble something that could one day be economically viable with EDGE out ofthe picture. Much of our focus before coming was on how to make a workingfilter after getting here, as well as getting things, like the shipment ofceramic from Kenya, safely on the island. For example the container for thekegs has been a massive hang up. We require a relatively large container that alsoneeds to be around 15,000 UGS, or $6. We’ve come close and may have a suitablesolution, but it remains imperfect. We also were unable to do even presenceabsence tests for E. coli. until Joanna, a pioneer of the keg design broughther black light. Without this, we had no grounds to say that the filters wereeffective against the water pulled from the lake. Encouragingly, we found no E.coli. in samples taken from just using the ceramic element as it is designed.Come Tuesday, we will test a round of kegs, to test for and enumerate the E.coli. If all goes well, the kegs will be proven effective, though we still needto evaluate whether this design could stick long term in the islands. The worstcase scenario, worst, would be toabandon the keg design and use the ceramic filters as pots. This would behumbling, though would double the amount of filters we can get out there.
Our otherprojects have been pushing along. We are trying to foster to girls’ soccerteams. We installed a pedal powered pump in the school garden. We’re preparingan “urban gardening” workshop. We will be filling in a few gaps at the primaryschool where they recently lost three teachers. And MORE.
Last night wewere inspired to do a first-aid workshop at the secondary school throughterrible circumstances. During an intense football game, a student had his headknocked on another player and proceeded to lose consciousness. In the absenceof any nurses on the island, EDGE took control of the situation, as he remainedonly barely responsive for thirty minutes. In a show of our best teamwork yet,we dressed a head wound, monitored his vitals, checked for responsiveness, andultimately secured him to a board with full precautions as he was brought byboat to Jinja and driven to Kampala. The group was basically thefirst-responders for three-hours unconscious hours, then Kristin and Claudiawent on to channel their futures in medicine by helping all through the nightas he was moved to Kampala. Almost 24 hours after the incident, they havereturned. The student seems to have suffered a very, very severe concussion.Frustratingly, he remained unconscious for the over six hours it took to get him to a proper hospital. After theincident, we became aware of the astounding gap in medical knowledge between anAmerican high schooler and their Ugandan counter-part. In the coming weeks, wewill do a workshop to share those things like, apply pressure and elevate aftera cut, that seem common knowledge, but are unknown here.
I’ve beenpersonally awful at getting our blogmill up and running, though the volunteerqueue has been short. I hope we can ramp it up in our remaining time. Keepwriting to us!
Paulo

Eric's Poetic Probing

To contact us Click HERE


[Written May 29th]
Today began inbrilliant color as David, Dennis, and I woke up early to watch the sunriseagainst the background of Buvumu Islands. The three of us made the 25-minutehike along the shore of Lake Victoria, through the village of Katonga, and upthe rocky incline to the center of Lingira Island, this time unaccompanied byJack and Simba, our canine companions who almost always follow at our feet andstubbornly refuse to ever waiver their protection. The narrow alleyways betweenthe mud huts of Katonga were already bustling with people when we passedthrough.  Both mothers and childrenpaused their chores and watched curiously as we walked, but replied and smiledwarmly when we greeted them in Luganda. Following a few young boys herdinggoats along the path outside of the village, the three of us diverted and cutthrough the thick brush that halos the island’s raised center. Contrary to ourinitial thoughts, we made it to the top of the hill with time to spare. Davidand Dennis found comfortable seats on large rocks protruding from the ocean ofoluwanyi, the tall grass that covers the top of the island. I, on the otherhand, found a seat less comfortable on a forgiving termite mound, but luckilythe termites must not have minded. Soon the painted sky gave way to amagnificent Ugandan sun, which immediately saturated the landscape around us inlight. I have never seen clouds quite like these. We sat there in a silenceaccompanied only by the hum of a lake fly cloud some ten million strong, and feltthe waves of heat begin to bake the ground.
Today alsomarks the first of our work with the Water Kegs. The first couple kegs will beless assembly and more experiment as we work together to tweak and perfect thedesign to best fit the needs of the people. We plan to build 100 filters, buthave enough that we can experiment with different local materials andtechniques. In addition to the actual filter assembly, we are preparing to goout into the camps to survey the people’s habits and understanding of humanrights and water sanitation. The results will hopefully help to illuminate thespecific needs of the community in regards to our goals for the water filters.Titus, the chairman of Lingira Village, is very excited about the project—hisopinion is crucial for its success.
Everyonesends their hellos and well wishes. Jeebale.
Eric

Eric's Poetic Probing #2

To contact us Click HERE

Precedingthe numerous stories and perspectives we each intend to post in the comingweeks, I’ve taken the liberty to post one of the many poems I wrote while inUganda. Enjoy.
Eric

Untitled #1
Wood boats long line
the muddy shore,Each bow pointing regally
towards horizonless Lake Victoria.
Men called kinyamas for their strength,
in uniform blue,
carrying women and children
to and from each boat.
Even a suited businessman,
riding a kinyama’s shoulders, avoids walkingthrough the mud.But for a traveler like me,
who wouldn’t want a piece of Victoria
fastened to their feet?

Rashida Manjoo women's rights lecture

To contact us Click HERE

"After the Violence: The Dream ofAnother Reality"Thursday, September 20, 6:30 pmVandeBerg Auditorium, Pyle Center, 702Langdon St.Free and open to the public
"A native of South Africa, Manjoo is an internationallyrecognized lawyer, teacher, and advocate who has worked to advance women’srights and human rights around the world. She serves as an Advocate of the HighCourt of South Africa and associate professor in the University of Cape Town’sDepartment of Public Law."
More info here:http://international.wisc.edu/blog/index.php/2012/08/24/mildred-fish-harnack-lecture-to-feature-womens-advocate-rashida-manjoo/

The "Kill Chuck" cabal brings out the big guns to block Chuck Hagel's path to the Pentagon: Teh Gays! (And the top gun promptly goes MIA)

To contact us Click HERE
The Log Cabin Republicans want so badly for us to know how bad Chuck Hagel is that they took out this full-page ad in the NYT. Worth every penny, probably -- only whose pennies paid for it?

by Ken

It may not be a scientifically accurate way of choosing up sides, but sometimes one's estimation of a person is affected by the caliber of the enemies he racks up. And on that count, I have to say, I'm becoming a bigger and bigger fan of former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel -- as we're told, a leading candidate to replace Leon Pannetta as defense secretary (as if anyone could replace Leon Pannetta).

If you haven't yet read Howie's Monday post "AIPAC Agent Eliot Engel Goes After Obama Cabinet Pick As Being Too Anti-Israel," I encourage you to do so, to make the acquaintance of some of the prime movers in what we might call the "Kill Chuck" Cabal. There are, first, the minions of AIPAC, the cross-us-at-your-frigging-peril lobbying powerhouse of the American "Israel Can Do No Wrong" lobby, and then there's the conservative Republican establishment, and especially the neo-cons, who are still smarting from Chuck's uppitiness in his last years in the Senate, in particular his stark turnabout on the Iraq war, which he initially supported but came to see as a massive mistake.

This ground has now been covered well by The New Yorker's Connie Bruck, in the blogpost "Chuck Hagel and His Enemies."


THE TAKE-NO-PRISONERS ISRAEL PROPAGANDISTS

Then-Senators Hagel and Obama at the
Amman Citadel in Jordan in July 2008
"Hagel's most vocal critics," Bruck writes, "have been members of what can be called the Israel lobby."

Their enmity for Hagel goes back to his two terms in the Senate. A committed supporter of Israel and, also, of a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, Hagel did not make the obeisance to the lobby that the overwhelming majority of his Congressional colleagues do. And he further violated a taboo by talking about the lobby, and its power. In his 2008 book, "The Much Too Promised Land," Aaron Miller interviewed Hagel, whom he described as "a strong supporter of Israel and a believer in shared values." Miller also wrote, "Of all my conversations, the one with Hagel stands apart for its honesty and clarity." He quoted Hagel saying that Congress "is an institution that does not inherently bring out a great deal of courage." The American Israel Public Affairs Committee comes knocking with a pro-Israel letter, Hagel continued, and "then you'll get eighty or ninety senators on it. I don't think I've ever signed one of the letters" -- because, he added, they were "stupid." Hagel also said, "The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here," but "I'm a United States senator. I'm not an Israeli senator."

Unfortunately, at one point in his interview with Miller, Hagel made the crucial error of referring to the "Jewish lobby" instead of the "Israel lobby." Of course, to the people who pounced on that as proof of anti-Semitism, there is not supposed to be any difference. In their view, anyone who voices any word in any way critical of the government of Israel is by definition an anti-Semite.

Bruck goes on to call the roll of brain-dead Israel propagandists who have pounced: Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, who lies so persistently that one wonders if he would, if he could tell the truth if his life depended on it; right-wing Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, quoting Anti-Defamation League chief Abraham Foxman, a once-serious person whose brain has long since turned to toxic slime; the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens. She also quotes some Jewish voices of sanity, including "pro-Israel stalwart" NY Rep. Gary Ackerkman ("You know, not everybody who disagrees with Israel's policies is anti-Semitic, otherwise half the Jewish population of Israel would be anti-Semitic!") and Alon Pinkas, "a former Israeli consul general in New York and the chief of staff to Prime Minister Ehud Barak," who --

wrote in Al-Monitor recently that he got to know Hagel during Hagel's various meetings with Barak. "Barak was thoroughly impressed not only by Hagel's military background, but by his analysis, knowledge of the Middle East, and his understanding of Israel's security issues and predicaments," Pinkas wrote. Hagel "is not anti-Israeli and he is not an anti-Semite. In fact, if I were him, I would lodge a complaint with the Anti-Defamation League, asking their assistance and support for being unfairly called an anti-Semite."

BUT IT'S NOT JUST THE "ISRAEL LOBBY" ON THE ATTACK

"The Israel lobby led the charge against Hagel, but there is plenty of animus for him in the broader Republican party, too."

After first voting for the Iraq war, Hagel became one of its most vocal critics, working with Democrats to try to change the direction of the Bush Administration's policy. In 2007, he and his friend Joe Biden, then the Democratic senator who was chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sponsored a resolution opposing the "surge" and calling for a transition to a limited U.S. military mission in Iraq. The committee approved the resolution; Hagel was the only Republican to vote in favor. "I was called a 'traitor,' and I was called 'disgusting,' " Hagel told me when I wrote about him in 2008. " 'Shut your mouth, you're a Republican!' Which I always found astounding -- to equate war based on your politics, as a Democrat or a Republican."

NYRB's Washington observer, Elizabeth Drew, has also weighed in, in a blogpost called "The Preemptive War on Hagel," which begins:

Far more is at stake in Barack Obama's decision on whether to nominate Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense than whether Chuck Hagel is nominated. What the president decides will bear on: his effectiveness in his second term; any president's ability to form a government; whether an independent voice can be raised on a highly sensitive issue in opposition to the views of a powerful lobby and still be named to a significant government position; whether there is actually a proper nominating system; whether McCarthyite tactics can still be effective more than half a century after they were rejected by a fed-up nation. And, by the way, what will be the direction of American policy in the Middle East? In particular, how adventurous will we be toward Iran? Have we learned anything from the calamitous foreign policy blunders of the past decade? . . .

NOW IT APPEARS THAT THE "KILL CHUCK"-ERS
HAVE BROUGHT OUT THEIR REALLY BIG GUNS

Or maybe we should call them their "big tools": the Log Cabin Republicans.

In a December 20 report, BuzzFeed's Zeke Miller reported:

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel -- a finalist for the post of secretary of defense in Obama's second term -- once opposed a nominee to be U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg because he was "openly aggressively gay."
“Ambassadorial posts are sensitive," Hagel told to the Omaha World-Herald in 1998, opposing the nomination of philanthropist James Hormel. "They are representing America," he said. "They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay -- openly aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel -- to do an effective job."

Some LGBT rights groups are already criticizing the potential selection of Hagel to replace Leon Panetta.

Hagel was a longtime supporter of "don't ask, don't tell," which banned gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. In 1999, he told The New York Times, ''The U.S. armed forces aren't some social experiment.''

And between 2001 and 2006, Hagel received a score of zero from the Human Rights Council, with no votes on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a job discrimination bill, and the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which eventually was passed into law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act in 2009.

Hagel's record on LGBT issues did show some signs of change, as the country shifted dramatically on the subject. He voted in favor of a procedural vote on the 2004 constitutional amendment aimed at limiting marriage to one man and one woman, but opposed the marriage amendment in 2006.

UPDATE: Hagel didn't vote on the marriage amendment in 2004, though he voted in favor of a procedural motion to bring up the final vote.

Almost immediately Hagel issued an apology. BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner reports:

Hagel called the comments "insensitive" and said, "They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of 'open service' and committed to LGBT military families."

However, Chris reports that the Log Cabin Republicans ("a national group for LGBT Republicans" haven't accepted the apology. What's more, "The group bought an ad in The New York Times Thursday painting the potential Defense Secretary nominee as 'wrong' on 'gay rights,' Israel, and Iran." Chris reports further:

Log Cabin's leader, R. Clarke Cooper, acknowledged that the apology is not referenced in the ad and that "[l]awmakers can and do change position . . . for the better on the LGBT equality portfolio." He told BuzzFeed, however, that his group "question[s] the sincerity" of Hagel's apology.

All of which brought forth this response from a colleague, David Fiderer:

Since when has "sincerity" been a standard by which Log Cabin Republicans judged anyone in public office from their own party?

Did they question the sincerity of any politician who failed to oppose the GOP platform to make marriage equality unconstitutional?

Whenever anyone in politics judges someone else's "sincerity," he's probably insincere.

And David also raised the question of who paid for the ad. Did our Clarke just dip into LCR petty cash? NYT full-pagers don't come cheap. (More from David in a moment.)


OH, ONE MORE THING ABOUT CLARKE COOPER:
AS OF MONDAY, HE'S HISTORY WITH THE LCRs

Oops, Clarkie forgot to mention that he's, y'know, outtahere!
Are you ready for this? Here are the LCRs, locked in a fierce assault on a potential DoD nominee, to the extent of taking out a full-page ad in the NYT, which we all know doesn't come cheap, which again raises the question of who the heck paid for that ad? And now, mere seconds later, Mr. LCR is history, and he told everybody about it in October only nobody seems to have thought this development in any way relevant to . . . well, anything.

I don't know what the heck is going on. I just know that none of this makes a lot of sense to me. David Fiderer has done some speculating, observing, "He steps down just after he bought a full-page ad in the NY Times slamming Chuck Hagel? Surely the timing is a coincidence," then adding:

I think Cooper had a deal with a K Street lobbying firm, which arranged for the NYT ad to be placed. Do you really think that Log Cabin has the kind of money to drop for a full-page ad to go after a Republican who said something homophobic 14 years ago? That category includes just about every GOPer on Capitol Hill.

So Clarkie is LCR history, but as far as I can tell, the LCR fatwa against Chuck Hagel is still in effect, and LGBT people across the political spectrum are still expected to serve as the wedge that keeps the so-and-so from becoming secretary of defense. All right, man (and woman) the barricades, guys 'n' gals!
#

The Cliff Minuet Moves Towards Crescendo

To contact us Click HERE

A blame game for the GOP and another bungled opportunity for Obama, the Grand Bargain-- despite Boehner's inability to control his own caucus-- is heading into the melodramatic end-stage. People overseas take this far more seriously than Americans do and for media consumers abroad, it looks like we're actually approaching armageddon. Many low-info Americans actually do too, though others are already rolling their eyes and at all the obviously staged game-playing. I'm guessing there'll be some noisy stock market mini-crash if the whole thing doesn't get wrapped up by tomorrow morning.

But are Republicans willing to start facing reality? Maybe. Leaving a GOP conference meeting a few hours ago McCain told reporters that the Republicans are finally dropping chained CPI from their fiscal cliff proposal, ironically one of the worst reactionary anti-social ideas that they had already gotten Braveheart Barack Obama to accept. "CPI has to be off the table because it's not a winning argument to say benefits for seniors versus tax breaks for rich people," said McCain "We need to take CPI off the table-- that's not part of the negotiations-- because we can't win an argument that has Social Security for seniors versus taxes for the rich." I'm sure they'll come up with something just as bad to try but this is a step in the right direction-- and maybe McCain can even get his hissy/spitty little gay friend from South Carolina to act like an adult. Schumer told ABC-TV viewers this morning that he thinks the chances are better than even that the Senate will come up with a deal by tomorrow. And Republican lame duck obstructionist Jon Kyl said he doesn't disagree. Oh, the drama!

"I've been a legislator for 37 years, and I've watched how these things work. On these big, big agreements, they almost always happen at the last minute," Schumer said. "Neither side likes to give up its position. They eyeball each other until the very end. But then, each side, realizing that the alternative is worse, comes to an agreement. So while an agreement is hardly a certainty, I certainly wouldn't rule it out at this last minute.

Oh, and look what right-wing propaganda writer Byron York, who says he's hearing Senate Republicans are ready to give up obstructionism on the "Grand Bargain" by today or tomorrow. Poor thing seems despondent. Again, to Republicans , this is all a game about what they can deliver to their wealthy patrons... and to hell with working families.

Under the most likely scenario, Republicans will get nothing-- nothing-- in return for giving in on tax rates for the highest-income Americans.  No spending cuts, at least no serious spending cuts beyond what are already included in sequestration, would be part of the deal done on Sunday or Monday, if that is indeed what happens.

Instead, Republicans will tout their accomplishment in making nearly all of the Bush tax cuts permanent.  Those cuts were always temporary, first in a ten-year form that expired in 2011, and then with a two-year extension.  Now, in a fiscal cliff deal, they would be permanent for those who make less than $500,000 a year.  Or at least as permanent as any tax rate can be; rates can always be changed by Congress, at any time.

As for spending cuts, particularly in entitlements, some Senate Republicans say they will press for those in January or February, during the coming battle over raising the nation’s debt ceiling.  They believe that fight will give them leverage to extract real concessions from the White House and Democrats on spending.  It’s not entirely clear why they believe that so strongly; Republicans will certainly take a beating in the press if they appear ready to push the nation toward default to win unpopular cuts.  Nevertheless, some in the GOP are readying themselves for that fight.

As for the immediate fiscal cliff agreement, the wild card is what will happen in the House of Representatives.  Facing opposition from some conservative members, Speaker John Boehner has already had to back off pushing for a vote on a measure (“Plan B”) to extend current tax rates on all Americans who make less than $1 million.  Given that, how could he pass a bill that would do the same thing, only for those who make less than $500,000?

There are two things to remember. The first is that Boehner had a big majority of Republican support for Plan B.  An estimated 80 percent to 85 percent of the House GOP caucus was ready to vote for that bill.  The second thing is that a Senate deal, presumably blessed by the White House, would have the support of Democrats as well as a significant number of Republicans, meaning House Democrats would undoubtedly vote for it.  Put those Democrats together with even some of the Republicans who were prepared to vote for Plan B, and a bill would pass the House.

So a deal will most likely be done.  But the bottom line is that the fiscal cliff fight will not end happily for Republicans.  They will have given in on what was an article of faith-- that taxes should not be raised on anybody, poor or rich-- in return for essentially nothing.  All they will have is a plan to fight again, soon.

This debate should be about Democrats demanding a return to the Eisenhower era rates on plutocrats and Republicans pleasing for something in the 70% range. Democrats have to nominate a better president in the future. Elizabeth Warren would be awesome.