Bali Chai

“Chai” is the Hebrew word for “living,” and what word could be more fitting to describe this past weekend’s events in Bali, events that brought new life to the world-wide effort to reduce global warming.

It took two weeks of negotiations to produce an agreement — and if you think herding cats would be a challenge, consider trying to bring 187 nations to a consensus — but in the wee hours of our Saturday morning, a great miracle happened there.

Now we all know it has taken a good long while for President Bush to overcome his disdain for the idea that some kind of action might be warranted to curb our own contributions to climate change; only this year did the matter make it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the administration’s Environmental Protection Agency is required, believe it or not, to protect the environment.

In the meantime, there have been extraordinary efforts by some of the President’s close friends in Congress to derail any prospect of understanding, let along reducing, the threat, such as Joe Barton’s demand of the nation’s leading climate scientists, in 2005, that the Congressman be given all their documentation, to prove to him (an engineer, not a scientist), that their research was sound.

Not a shining day for Texas. As the New York Times wrote then, “It's going to be hard enough to find common political ground on global warming without the likes of Representative Joe Barton harassing reputable scientists who helped alert the world to the problem in the first place.”

But that was then and this is now. Last week, for example, during the Republican debate in Iowa, presidential candidate John McCain spoke the should-be-obvious truth as only McCain can do:

I think that climate change is real.... Put it to you this way: Suppose that climate change is not real and all we do is adopt green technologies, which our economy and our technology is perfectly capable of. Then all we've done is given our kids a cleaner world.

This month, even though the Bush administration declined several years ago to sign on to the Kyoto Treaty (the previous international effort to address global warming), it was now a new day, and hopes were high that America — by now the only non-signatory to the Kyoto Treaty —would finally come around.

So, over in Bali, which is more or less half a world and thirteen hours away — a country so small you have to wonder how they could even accommodate thousands of delegates from 187 countries — after two weeks of meetings and sometimes difficult negotiations, events suddenly began to unfold in dramatic fashion.

Just when things were about to wrap up near the end of the conference, India proposed an amendment that had to do with the role of developing countries in combating climate change (a role urged by the United States), concerning the matter of rich countries’ assistance to poor countries by providing the technological and financial assistance they would need to reduce greenhouse gases.

The United States delegation said the amendment’s wording was not acceptable. Loud booing and hissing ensued, and things got pretty heated. At one point a conference organizer abruptly left the podium in tears of fatigue and frustration; at another, European delegates threatened to boycott Bush-sponsored meetings down the road. The Harvard-educated delegate from Papua, New Guinea stood:

“We seek your leadership,” he said, addressing the United States. “But if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please, get out of the way.”

No American ally came to its defense and many spoke in favor of the amendment. America was reported to be completely isolated. It seemed to those of us hearing the news reports that all was lost.

Then, the United States relented:

“We came here to Bali because we want to go forward as part of a new framework, we believe we have a shared vision and we want to move that forward, we want a success here in Bali,” said Paula Dobriansky, speaking for the United States. “We will go forward and join consensus.”

There was applause and celebration as the delegates realized what had happened.

For us tree-hugging news junkies, this was akin to watching the home team make one of those 40-yard runs to the end zone and touchdown in the last 15 seconds of the game.

Pretty intense.

I Heart Huckabee?

Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas now running for the GOP presidential nomination, in some ways could be a man after my own heart, and not just because he plays a mean bass guitar in a rock ‘n roll band.

The other day, during a campaign stop in Iowa, he agreed with a questioner that America’s education system must be improved, and that more math and science majors are needed. But then he added that he thinks the arts are just as important.
Here’s what his web site says about that:

Music and the arts are not extraneous, extra-curricular, or expendable — I believe they are essential. I want to provide every child these "Weapons of Mass Instruction."

As a pretty close follower of the primary campaign I believe I’ve heard just about every candidate, in both parties, champion a need for more math and science graduates, but I do believe Governor Huckabee is the only one I’ve heard remark on the importance of the arts.

A cursory check of web sites for the front-running candidates finds that what we offer our children by way of education merits scarcely more than a mention by Clinton, Giuliani or McCain; Romney gives a slight nod to math and science; Edwards and Obama both offer a variety of good ideas, Edwards in the most detail. But so far only Huckabee has talked about the arts. He elaborated at a Republican debate, saying that (I paraphrase) if we don't educate the right AND left brain of a child, the result will be a person out of balance, a balance needed to be a good citizen.

Every child, from kindergarten on, should be instructed in the arts. From the primary grades, children should be taught the rudiments of the graphic arts, both appreciation and hands-on. Dance can be incorporated into physical education classes (which should be required through all twelve grades). Children who wish to learn to play an instrument should be given the opportunity; choral music should be taught right along with appreciation of the classics, and interested students encouraged to join a drama club, school chorale or musical production group.

Begun in school, a lifetime connection with the arts will be a comfort and a pleasure throughout life. So much of the world around us is better understood — and enjoyed — when we have a broad foundation in the arts from the early years. In fact, I dare to date the decline in our educational "product" from the decision, in the late 'fifties or early 'sixties (after Sputnik beat us into space), to focus our public education on science and math.

Of course, to provide quality public education in America we simply must increase what we are willing to pay for it. We all know that “you get what you pay for,” and that a society is better off when its population is truly well educated, yet for some reason this is a hard concept to sell.

Every child in America needs to know how to read, how to speak and write proper English, how our government works, and some rudimentary science, as well as how to perform calculations using at least basic arithmetic. Geography and history — state, national and world — should also be required, although the depth of study may vary with the student's goals in life. Now that we see how the international world of the 21st century is evolving, a case can be made for requiring computer skills and at least some foreign language. Right there you've got enough to fill most of a present school day, but we can do more.

English literature classes should teach the classics, including the great essayists and poets, and plays from Shakespeare to modern American classics. History classes should include biographies of ancient and contemporary notables.

Ranchers and policemen, doctors, lawyers and merchants, cooks and crossing guards and truck drivers all benefit from exposure to these arts. Steeped in the past and great works that were produced over the centuries, our children will develop a sense of our evolution and place in time; they will find models and inspiration and understanding of the present.

Foreign language should be taught as early as possible, preferably beginning in elementary school, and for at least two or three years at a stretch. Early study of another language leads to a better understanding of English, teaches the concept that there is a world beyond us, and builds the foundation for future proficiency in whatever language (including computer) the student may elect to study.

Every eighth-grader should understand our political system, be required to read the national and international news section of a major newspaper or news magazine at least weekly, and to participate in classroom evaluations of the election process at election time. Too many Americans base their opinions on hearsay, talk shows, trash writings, and TV sound bites; worse yet, they impart their misinformation to their children who, without a decent civics education, perpetuate the problem.

It may be argued that there just isn't time in the school day to teach all the new material there is, let alone art "extras," that there is no time or staff for extracurricular activities. And of course that we don't have the money . . .

I say we go for broke and spend like crazy to get the best education for our children, the future of our country: Longer school days, offering the fringe benefit of reducing the cost of child care for working parents, as well as reducing or eliminating the latchkey population and related opportunities for trouble; longer school years, which would also give teachers year-round employment. Let’s create an educational system that will attract the "best and brightest" teachers because they will be well paid and know they will be able to count on the respect and commitment of parents and students.

Then, regardless of the number of youngsters who go on to college or university, we will have produced a new generation of educated, informed, acculturated citizens who are qualified to take on the responsibility for America.

Every one of us has an interest in spending what it takes to achieve greatness.

Freedom From Misinformation

The proliferation of blogs — do-it-yourself “journalism” on the internet, by anyone with the wit to use a computer (and some with only that) — and the ability to generate a flood of emails at the drop of a “SEND” button have brought the art of whisper campaign to a new level. Everyone gets to play, but the game afoot is not fun or funny and can be devastating.

When John Kennedy ran for President in 1960 an anonymous telephone call was making the rounds: “Here’s to the three K’s — Kennedy, Catholicism and Communism!” Lovely KKK subtext, right? Or perhaps the caller’s spelling skills were to blame, but the message was clear.

In the early spring of 2000, John McCain, an altogether honorable person considered by some to be a hero, was doing very well in the Republican primaries. Most respectable journalists and political operatives agree that it was Karl Rove who arranged for a telephone campaign of gossip against McCain that most of said journalists and politically savvy folks blame for his loss to George Bush in South Carolina, an event that may well have affected the history of America.

Now it is much easier, takes very little time, and costs nothing to whisper dirt to prospective voters, and someone opposed to Barack Obama’s run for the presidency began a while back to do just that. It’s not clear which came first, the emails or the article in Insight Magazine, a Washington Times (think Reverend Moon) publication, but that’s all it took to permeate the internet and leap onto Fox News.

Last week, the Washington Post published a story about it all.

Now, even though the rumors the Post chose to publish may not have warranted publication as news, it can be argued that sometimes the truth isn’t as evident as we would like, and if a reporter feels obliged to dig deep into a rumor in search of truth he may well find something interesting. (On the other hand, if we examine our tap water with a microscope we might forswear the drink forever rather than ingest the wildlife therein.) In any case, the reporter must likewise feel obliged to use judgment, or at least some common sense, in deciding whether it has value.

Given the easy fact-checking available to just about anyone, especially a reporter for a major newspaper with access to Lexis-Nexis, it is hard to justify the perpetuation of any rumor. Heck, even snopes.com had the Obama lies nailed a year ago.

I won’t deny it might be newsworthy to say “there’s this falsehood being spread by so-and-so, and we have checked and determined its origin and the apparent reason behind it,” but the Washington Post made it a front-page story, spending some 1500 words to tell us it about a rumor promulgated by Obama’s enemies.

(In fact, it turned into a two-fer for the political right, which claimed that Hillary Clinton was behind it!)

Rumor and innuendo have become too influential in our lives, notwithstanding the amusement provided by misbehaving glamour-girls whose function in society seems to be just that. The line between news we need and innuendo is hard to fathom, just when it is so important that we get it right — as in a presidential campaign — and I believe it is the responsibility of every reporter to unblur that line.

That includes getting rid of “gotcha” journalism on televised interviews, usually starring the famous-journalist-as-Perry Mason, more interested in demonstrating how cleverly and in how many ways he can posit a question that still won’t be answered if the subject chooses not to. There is no discovery here, no illumination for the viewer, just the impression that information has been gleaned when in fact only inferences may be drawn from nothing more than implications. It has been reported that if we ask you whether you’ve stopped beating your wife, sir, you’ll deny that you ever did. Do you care to comment?

The question of how to approach and report news is as old as the business itself. A cigar-chomping old-school city editor, under whose tutelage I suffered awhile, insisted on the importance of the right “lede” — the opening sentence of a story — to insure that the reader will be interested enough to read the whole story. He was right. But a lede, or a headline for that matter, can also set the stage, or mood, or predisposition of the reader/viewer to interpret the whole story in a certain way.

In the Washington Post report, the headline was: Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him. Later in the piece, the reporter wrote: “Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a ‘Muslim plant’ in a conspiracy against America,” and then, still later, “The rumors about Obama have been echoed on Internet message boards and chain e-mails.”

Conspicuously missing: Even one sentence stating that the reporter had checked the story and determined it to be completely unfounded. It wasn’t until a post-publication exchange with critics that he used the word “falsehood.” Rumor 1, Truth 0.

Another tough question: When shall we report the news in an historical context that may well leave the reader/viewer with a different impression than if we had reported just the facts of a given event?

If, for example, when reporting that in 2003 Rudy Giuliani married his longtime girlfriend, it would not be appropriate to dig up and publish information about his previous marriage or even marriages, unless it is information clearly related to his qualifications to be president. Knowing that Judi Nathan was his girlfriend a long time before Rudy told his wife, indirectly by way of press conference, that he wanted a divorce, might provide relevant information about his character.

Finally, an issue that still drives me wild: Shall the interviewer let stand a comment by his subject that he knows or suspects to be untrue?

Leaving unchallenged some assertion that the reporter knows to be based on misinformation or, in some cases, an outright lie, allows the statement to live on in the final publication or broadcast, there to become part of the information passed on to the public. It seems to me that in these cases the reporter has at least a responsibility to ask, “Can you prove that? Please tell me where our viewers/readers can confirm that.”

If all else fails, then the reporter, interviewer or editor may still employ the time-honored tradition of the editorial comment, to foil mendacious mischief-makers. Wild accusations should never be allowed to stand.

Freedom of the press is guaranteed by our Constitution, and is critical to the preservation of our democracy. It seems self-evident to me that journalists or editors who recognize an item incorrectly offered as “fact” — whether simply mistaken or mean-spirited in origin — have an obligation to prevent its dissemination or perpetuation and to intercept and reveal untruths.

It takes two to speak the truth — one to speak, and another to hear. - Thoreau

California Dreaming?

Last week I headed to California, amusingly dubbed the “Left Coast” by some, mostly Right-thinking folks. Thanksgiving with the kids and grandkids, and a chance to take another look at the place I chose to leave behind so many years ago.

The flight was smooth, sunny and uncomplicated, and only a few clouds hovered high over San Francisco Bay so the landing was easy. As a recovering white-knuckle flyer, I am now free to complain about other things, and let me just say this about the traffic here.

Bleagh.

Not really “stop and go,” more like “stop and stop.”

When people ask me how I could have brought myself to move to Waxahachie, leaving behind all the wonders of the City by the Bay, I first point out that I really do like being able to drive 60 miles an hour—not to mention being able to drive 60 miles IN an hour, as a friend pointed out recently. And have a place to park when I get there.

We eventually arrived in Oakland, the city that’s still learning how, a mish-mash of cultures and incomes and great views and perfect weather and serious hills with charming cottages packed onto them in every available space.

The sunlight is different here; beaming in sharply from what seems to be a lower place in the sky onto the light-colored stucco walls that are everywhere (no bricks here, Mabel; remember the earthquake thing), so that the whole place seems lighter. But amongst the ubiquitous stucco and Mediterranean styles, cottages like the 1913 “Craftsman chalet,” the pride and joy of my son and his wife, are everywhere, and could just as easily be in Waxahachie and perfect for the Candlelight Tour.


Cute, two bedrooms, wood floors, just 1300 square feet, only $340,000!

On the other side of the Bay, my daughter and her family live in Foster City, a very family-friendly carefully laid-out subdivision built, some 40 years ago, right on the water just a few miles south of San Francisco, so that it is laced with curving streets, canals and delightful walking trails.


Quiet and, of course, sunny. They are renting for now, until they find one they want – and can afford to – buy.

Three bedrooms, 1500 square feet and really quite lovely, just $2500 a month!

Waxahachians, count your blessings!

The sunshine is everywhere I go, since neither of these communities enjoys/suffers the perpetual fog of San Francisco itself, but here’s another reason I left: Too much sunshine and perfect weather gets boring after awhile . . . believe it or not. (Though I do dearly miss the fresh and fragrant lemons available year-round; I brought home some from my daughter's back yard tree!)


California has been a leader in some useful trends, such as control of automobile emissions and household recycling. The City of Oakland, for example, has taken recycling several degrees farther: each household is provided with a 40-gallon recycling bin and a 40-gallon compost bin (plus a little one for indoors), and a smaller bin for everything else. If they choose to participate in the compost program (basically, everything that was ever food, from coffee grounds to steak bones plus any yard waste, goes into the compost bin), then they are entitled to withdraw nicely-processed compost from the community “heap” for their family gardens.

Anyway, by the time all the recycling and compost are removed from your household waste, there is precious little left to use up space in the landfill. Think about it!

Here lately, San Francisco has outlawed plastic grocery bags, the kind made from petroleum, and as of this writing major grocery stores are required to offer paper or biodegradable “plastic” bags, as well as to sell reusable (like canvas) bags. (I've been the proud owner for years of what has become a dozen or so canvas tote bags, and I am here to tell you they make lugging groceries SO much easier! And they are so big and easy to use, the check-out clerks love them!)

This is a worthwhile effort, since recent studies have drawn attention to the vast numbers of discarded plastic bags wreaking havoc on landfill and in the sea.

Maybe a couple of good trends, d’you think?

One last thought: I don’t know if California invented the shopping mall, but last week it seemed to have reached a level I’d just as soon not import, so to speak. The lead story – I mean the LEAD – in Saturday’s San Francisco Chronicle was:

BLACK FRIDAY PACKS ‘EM IN.

Four-column spread on the front page, two big color photos, jump to almost a full page inside. Government wiretapping, Baghdad bombing, Mideast peace? Pshaw! It’s about the SHOPPING -- folks just doing their bit for the war effort.

Makes you wonder.