I hate dry holes.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Professional Rant of the Week: In Praise of the Maligned Sweatshop
I have a real treat for you guys this week--one of my all-time faves. This article was orginally printed in the New York Times, but was back when they were requiring a subscription to read their op-eds. It sure caught my attention and I’m sure it resulted in many folks bunching up their panties in a wad. This is the reason Nick Kristof is one of my favorite journalists. He writes from a real understanding of being on the ground in developing countries and doesn’t pull punches. Enjoy.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060607/ai_n16484112
Here's an earlier article about "sweatshops" (hey, they're factories--he just uses the dirty S word to catch our attention) in Asia:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E0DA1F3FF936A15755C0A9649C8B63
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060607/ai_n16484112
Here's an earlier article about "sweatshops" (hey, they're factories--he just uses the dirty S word to catch our attention) in Asia:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E0DA1F3FF936A15755C0A9649C8B63
Rant of the Week: Enviros
Rant of the Week: Environmentalists
I used to consider myself a pretty radical environmentalist in college. I underwent a pretty significant wakeup call living in Kenya, but the story of that transformation is for another post. Additionally, working with many local, regional and national conservation groups through my job with the BLM has also changed my perception of the environmental movement. I’ve seen many examples of what I would deem “good environmentalism” and “bad environmentalism.” I still consider myself an environmentalist, and unfortunately, many of the practices of western conservation groups work against protecting the environment. What follows is 5 tips for enviros working in the western US.
5 tips for enviros working in the rural west:
1. Work with the community from the grassroots, not against them from the top down.
The thing that most harms the environmental movement in the rural west is imposing environmental “fixes” on local communities from Denver or Washington DC. A conservation group should truly understand the issues locals have to deal with. To do this, they need to station an employee on the ground in rural towns so they can work from the grassroots up. By living and working on the ground in small communities, a representative of an environmental group can forge important relationships and gain critical insights. This helps gain the trust of the locals, and even if some folks never agree with them, they respect where they’re coming from. Fortunately, environmental groups in the west are catching on to this pretty quickly. Small citizens groups are sprouting up in conservative pro-use towns. Larger national or state organizations are putting folks on the ground in these areas, and I have no doubt they’re seeing more results than directing things from Denver and San Francisco. The Nature Conservancy has a good reputation in this regard and is often referred to in my part of the west as “not one of those radical environmental groups” even though they’ve actually had more success in preservation/conservation than more “radical” enviros. Also, the grassroots opposition to drilling the Roan Plateau was downright impressive and gives the Bush Administration a red face in saying they will support local views in natural resource-related issues.
2. Go redneck
So you need some folks on the ground; you’d better send the right ones. The absolute worst thing an enviro group could do in a rural town in the west is to bring in some Birkenstock-wearing dreadlocked kid from Boulder to lecture the locals about their harmful ways. It is very important not to push some outsider on the community and expect to get anything but dirty looks. Groups should hire people with western backgrounds. The best type of environmentalist to introduce to a small community is one that rides dirt bikes and hunts. He or she should drive a beat up Ford pickup, not a Subaru. Someone familiar, even sympathetic to rural western viewpoints has a much greater chance of recruiting locals to help address environmental issues. A fellow “redneck” is better able to mobilize ranchers, hunters and other atypical environmentalists to rally to the cause.
3. Collaborate, compromise where appropriate, and keep your promises
So once you have your hunter enviro on the ground, come to the table when collaborative opportunities present themselves. Collaboration is a good way to gain respect in a community and to make yourself known. Talking face to face often strips away stereotypes and angry feelings. After getting to know someone, even if you disagree with their position, you respect them as a person. In my experience, enviros often find it harder than other interest groups to compromise. This is fine in some situations, but I think it would help their standing if they did move a little on some issues. Unfortunately, enviro groups need money to survive, and they’re damn good at getting it. They don’t get large sums of money from rich liberals in New York and L.A. by compromising; they get it for being stubborn on issues, even when they could cut a deal that better benefits the environment than stalling or suing. Finally, groups need to stick to the deal. When a gray wolf was sighted in northern CO a few years ago, the Division of Wildlife put a broad-based group together to develop a plan for the gray wolf. Enviros and ranchers actually agreed on a plan, which did not include reintroduction of wolves. However, when the state administration became friendlier to their interests, they began to sound the drums for reintroduction. How do you think that made the ranchers feel? Never again will those folks sit down with enviros to hash out a deal. The reintroduction effort is going nowhere and now the enviros are left holding only remnants of burnt bridges.
4. Don’t exaggerate, lie, or use scare tactics.
This one is by far my biggest pet peeve. I see it nearly every day. Again, enviro groups see it as an unfortunate necessity to drum up money from people in New Jersey who don’t know a goddamn thing about what goes on in resource-dependent communities. I could fill eight posts with examples. Just Google any newspaper article that quotes an enviro and you’re probably going to see some fear mongering and spin. The problem with this is they lose a lot of credibility with people who are knowledge about the issues. The lies, exaggerations and scare tactics surrounding the Roan Plateau issue was almost enough to sicken me to the point of not supporting their cause. Some enviros claimed that the gas resource could be tapped by directional drilling from the base of the plateau while they knew very damn well that you can’t directionally drill 3 miles laterally (2,500 to 3,000 ft is the realistic distance). They claimed that a 1% surface disturbance threshold would “devastate” the plateau’s wildlife and that the plateau would be “unrecognizable.” Um, 350 acres of development with rolling reclamation in a 35,000 acre area is going to spell the end to the mule deer? Excuse me? Enviros have lied about protections in resource management plans, about how a BLM plan would “destroy” cultural resources on a piece of state-managed land, and often contradict themselves. Exaggerations may shock people and get them to open their checkbooks or show up for a rally, but I would contend they’re also losing a lot of potential supporters by not being truthful.
5. Don’t just veto every project; provide solutions
Few things drives people nuts as much as enviros who veto every and all development proposals. Oil and gas development? Nope. Coal? No. Nuclear? No way. Solar panels or wind farms all over the west? Sorry. Well then can you please tell me how you think America should meet her energy needs? Many enviro groups are conscious of this problem and are good about saying “we’re not against all development, we just want responsible development in the right places.” While that may or may not actually be the case, at least they’re paying lip service. Here’s another point regarding this issue: one enviro org might not veto every project, but when many NGOs are in the same room, nearly all projects and areas are off limits. Let me give you an example. When the BLM was working with a community group to develop a resource management plan, the mediator handed out maps to everyone and asked them to ciricle areas they wanted off limits to oil and gas development. Well, the Wilderness Society circled all their lands with wilderness qualities, which might have amounted to 30% of the planning area. Okay, not bad. But then Colorado Mountain Club wants all the places they like to hike off limits, and Center for Native Ecosystems wants all critical big game and sage grouse habitat off limits, etc. When we combined all the maps, nearly 90% of the planning area was off limits. Sorry guys, but that’s not balance and it’s no way to meet our energy needs. I realize enviros aren’t a monolithic entity and that they have a diversity of concerns. But it wouldn’t it be great if they could get together and hash out a plan together that is realistic? If not, at least when enviros veto the next project, I’d like to hear a realistic counter proposal.
I used to consider myself a pretty radical environmentalist in college. I underwent a pretty significant wakeup call living in Kenya, but the story of that transformation is for another post. Additionally, working with many local, regional and national conservation groups through my job with the BLM has also changed my perception of the environmental movement. I’ve seen many examples of what I would deem “good environmentalism” and “bad environmentalism.” I still consider myself an environmentalist, and unfortunately, many of the practices of western conservation groups work against protecting the environment. What follows is 5 tips for enviros working in the western US.
5 tips for enviros working in the rural west:
1. Work with the community from the grassroots, not against them from the top down.
The thing that most harms the environmental movement in the rural west is imposing environmental “fixes” on local communities from Denver or Washington DC. A conservation group should truly understand the issues locals have to deal with. To do this, they need to station an employee on the ground in rural towns so they can work from the grassroots up. By living and working on the ground in small communities, a representative of an environmental group can forge important relationships and gain critical insights. This helps gain the trust of the locals, and even if some folks never agree with them, they respect where they’re coming from. Fortunately, environmental groups in the west are catching on to this pretty quickly. Small citizens groups are sprouting up in conservative pro-use towns. Larger national or state organizations are putting folks on the ground in these areas, and I have no doubt they’re seeing more results than directing things from Denver and San Francisco. The Nature Conservancy has a good reputation in this regard and is often referred to in my part of the west as “not one of those radical environmental groups” even though they’ve actually had more success in preservation/conservation than more “radical” enviros. Also, the grassroots opposition to drilling the Roan Plateau was downright impressive and gives the Bush Administration a red face in saying they will support local views in natural resource-related issues.
2. Go redneck
So you need some folks on the ground; you’d better send the right ones. The absolute worst thing an enviro group could do in a rural town in the west is to bring in some Birkenstock-wearing dreadlocked kid from Boulder to lecture the locals about their harmful ways. It is very important not to push some outsider on the community and expect to get anything but dirty looks. Groups should hire people with western backgrounds. The best type of environmentalist to introduce to a small community is one that rides dirt bikes and hunts. He or she should drive a beat up Ford pickup, not a Subaru. Someone familiar, even sympathetic to rural western viewpoints has a much greater chance of recruiting locals to help address environmental issues. A fellow “redneck” is better able to mobilize ranchers, hunters and other atypical environmentalists to rally to the cause.
3. Collaborate, compromise where appropriate, and keep your promises
So once you have your hunter enviro on the ground, come to the table when collaborative opportunities present themselves. Collaboration is a good way to gain respect in a community and to make yourself known. Talking face to face often strips away stereotypes and angry feelings. After getting to know someone, even if you disagree with their position, you respect them as a person. In my experience, enviros often find it harder than other interest groups to compromise. This is fine in some situations, but I think it would help their standing if they did move a little on some issues. Unfortunately, enviro groups need money to survive, and they’re damn good at getting it. They don’t get large sums of money from rich liberals in New York and L.A. by compromising; they get it for being stubborn on issues, even when they could cut a deal that better benefits the environment than stalling or suing. Finally, groups need to stick to the deal. When a gray wolf was sighted in northern CO a few years ago, the Division of Wildlife put a broad-based group together to develop a plan for the gray wolf. Enviros and ranchers actually agreed on a plan, which did not include reintroduction of wolves. However, when the state administration became friendlier to their interests, they began to sound the drums for reintroduction. How do you think that made the ranchers feel? Never again will those folks sit down with enviros to hash out a deal. The reintroduction effort is going nowhere and now the enviros are left holding only remnants of burnt bridges.
4. Don’t exaggerate, lie, or use scare tactics.
This one is by far my biggest pet peeve. I see it nearly every day. Again, enviro groups see it as an unfortunate necessity to drum up money from people in New Jersey who don’t know a goddamn thing about what goes on in resource-dependent communities. I could fill eight posts with examples. Just Google any newspaper article that quotes an enviro and you’re probably going to see some fear mongering and spin. The problem with this is they lose a lot of credibility with people who are knowledge about the issues. The lies, exaggerations and scare tactics surrounding the Roan Plateau issue was almost enough to sicken me to the point of not supporting their cause. Some enviros claimed that the gas resource could be tapped by directional drilling from the base of the plateau while they knew very damn well that you can’t directionally drill 3 miles laterally (2,500 to 3,000 ft is the realistic distance). They claimed that a 1% surface disturbance threshold would “devastate” the plateau’s wildlife and that the plateau would be “unrecognizable.” Um, 350 acres of development with rolling reclamation in a 35,000 acre area is going to spell the end to the mule deer? Excuse me? Enviros have lied about protections in resource management plans, about how a BLM plan would “destroy” cultural resources on a piece of state-managed land, and often contradict themselves. Exaggerations may shock people and get them to open their checkbooks or show up for a rally, but I would contend they’re also losing a lot of potential supporters by not being truthful.
5. Don’t just veto every project; provide solutions
Few things drives people nuts as much as enviros who veto every and all development proposals. Oil and gas development? Nope. Coal? No. Nuclear? No way. Solar panels or wind farms all over the west? Sorry. Well then can you please tell me how you think America should meet her energy needs? Many enviro groups are conscious of this problem and are good about saying “we’re not against all development, we just want responsible development in the right places.” While that may or may not actually be the case, at least they’re paying lip service. Here’s another point regarding this issue: one enviro org might not veto every project, but when many NGOs are in the same room, nearly all projects and areas are off limits. Let me give you an example. When the BLM was working with a community group to develop a resource management plan, the mediator handed out maps to everyone and asked them to ciricle areas they wanted off limits to oil and gas development. Well, the Wilderness Society circled all their lands with wilderness qualities, which might have amounted to 30% of the planning area. Okay, not bad. But then Colorado Mountain Club wants all the places they like to hike off limits, and Center for Native Ecosystems wants all critical big game and sage grouse habitat off limits, etc. When we combined all the maps, nearly 90% of the planning area was off limits. Sorry guys, but that’s not balance and it’s no way to meet our energy needs. I realize enviros aren’t a monolithic entity and that they have a diversity of concerns. But it wouldn’t it be great if they could get together and hash out a plan together that is realistic? If not, at least when enviros veto the next project, I’d like to hear a realistic counter proposal.
Recipe of the week: Fish Taco Platter
The fish marinated in buttermilk and Tabasco is good enough, but with the tomatillo sauce and the pickled jalapenos, it’s the bomb.
Fish Taco Platter
Fish Taco Platter
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Professional Rant of the Week: PC stinks
Robert L. Strauss bends over Peace Corps:
Think Again: The Peace Corps
"In the eyes of Americans, no government agency better exemplifies the optimism, can-do spirit, and selfless nature of the United States than the Peace Corps. Unfortunately, it’s never lived up to its purpose or principles."
Think Again: The Peace Corps
"In the eyes of Americans, no government agency better exemplifies the optimism, can-do spirit, and selfless nature of the United States than the Peace Corps. Unfortunately, it’s never lived up to its purpose or principles."
Guest Rant of the Week: Response to “Think Again: The Peace Corps”
One of my good PC friends, Jon Walsh, jotted an email to Mr. Strauss in response to his article in Foreign Policy above:
Dear Mr. Strauss:
I read your article on the Peace Corps in FP. It was a little brutal. I also thought it was a tad bit unfair. I think you made some generalizations that aren't true (maybe they were for Cameroon, but not elsewhere), and wrongfully place the blame for some things on Peace Corps. Some can be explained as looking just at the bad apples to describe the rest, but I really do think you got a few things wrong.
I served as a volunteer in Kenya in water/sanitation from 1997-1999. Our service was evaluated by more than just a biannual survey. The Wat/San director, Lusimba Rague, came out several times to visit me at my site (and I was in the bush for both of my sites) and would talk to people I worked with when I wasn't around. I was moved halfway through my service when it became apparent that my first site wasn't going to get anything done because of the amount of corruption there. We also had to talk with Mr. Rague upon leaving to determine if it would be worthwhile to send a replacement in the area. We had to make a case. Additionally, the wat/san sector was not trying to do the same things that it had done when Peace Corps was first created. We were more about teaching about health and HIV/AIDS than trying to construct water tanks and wells (although some did, myself included), which was the original mission. And some of the projects that I and others were involved with had nothing to do with wat/san at all, but were seen as needs in our respective community (I helped build some fish ponds to provide money for a local woman's group). I think this shows some accountability and adaptation by the organization that you claim doesn't exist.
Additionally, I think Peace Corps has done some good development work, albeit incremental and not without its share of fighting political BS within and without the organization. As you rightfully state in your article, Peace Corps tries to do a lot of things with little money. Sometimes it doesn't work, but I think going grassroots is a safer bet than throwing more money at problems. Africa has plenty of examples that show that big pockets for development doesn't always get a lot done, and often can be harmful due to ever-present corruption there. More money draws more criminals (just the appearance of this can do it sometimes) which sap the resources and will of people to tackle problems there both short-term and long-term. If you have worked there, I know you know this. And I'll bet that Peace Corps has a better record getting at least something done more often than some of the big money development outfits there simply because of that. I saw examples all the time of this while I was there. And as for solving some of the problems there, but it really is on the people who live there in the end. You can change policies in Peace Corps and other relief efforts all you want, but if the local governments and people aren't willing to take the handout and put it for the greater good, your efforts will be fruitless. Identifying these people takes time and cultivation, and it's something Peace Corps really is a hell of a lot better at doing outside of the capitol of countries than just about anyone else in the development field.
And it's because volunteers really get to know the people. Labeling that as a front for semester-abroad or merely public relations type work it flat out wrong. If you want to criticize something, you should be complaining about how other relief organizations haven't tapped Peace Corps volunteers for their information on who to go to in their sites to try and get work done (So many times I saw clueless NGOs hand out money for projects to people that should have never been trusted in my town). It really is a great untapped resource. I would have to be done delicately so as not to portray volunteers as the conduit to getting lots of money (as stated above), but I think it could be done, especially at the close of service when volunteers really do have a good handle on what is going on (I definitely would not ask volunteers who just got there who would be good to approach).
I have no doubt that some reform is needed in Peace Corps (it is a government organization, after all). I went through two directors in my time at Kenya, and one was absolutely asleep at the wheel. I know of a couple of volunteers that probably never should have made it out of the recruiting process and were probably huge headaches for Peace Crops staff in Kenya. But, for each of those examples, I can come up with 10 other ones where volunteers and staff were doing good work. I'd hate to see your article get used in Congress and elsewhere to smear that effort.I'm sure you have gotten a lot on email on this. I thank you for taking the time to read mine. Hope all is well with you wherever you are.
Sincerely,
Jon Walsh
In a matter of minutes, Mr. Strauss shot Jon back an email from Madagascar:
Peace Corps is not a joke. It's one of the best ideas the US has ever had. It's also one of the most poorly administered best ideas ever. The result is that it horribly undershoots its potential and in the process does a disservice to many of the people involved; volunteers, staff and locals. PC has been over-promising and under-delivering since day one.
It's time to turn that around.
But because of PC's incredible PR machine, this has never happened because no one wants to disturb a beautiful imagine, whether it represents reality or simply perception.
A lot of good work happens in PC but because PC is like a relay race, with one volunteer or staff member handing off to the next, many good things get dropped and disappear with no lasting impact. That isn't always the case, but it is very often the case.It's great that your supervisor got out to see you. Believe it or not, it still happens that in some countries PCVs are lucky to be visited once a year. They should be visited once a month. If that were the case, many of the staff-volunteer resentment issues would go away. Everyone would be focused on the work and on working with and serving the local community.
It's also great that you saw some evolution in your program. But that isn't the case in many places. (I've worked in more than 50 countries and encountered lots of PC and development projects over the years.) But PC itself has not guidance for local evaluations and doesn't support any systematic, objective monitoring and evaluation. That has to change.
I used to say in all sincerity that a great thing about PC is that it has never had enough money to do any real damage. But it has never had enough money to do any real, lasting good either. I would rather see PC (try to) do great things in a small number of countries than to simply limp along in 70 or 80. I don't see the point in that.
I also used to tell PCVs who wanted to continue in development that if they did one day they would see that by the standards of other organizations, PC wasn't such a mess as they thought. But we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to ineffective NGOs or out of touch multi-lateral organizations. We all can see what the potential is and we know we are falling short. We should be shooting for the stars and we're patting ourselves on the back for being better than what is a pretty sorry lot (and I've worked for many of them).
You mention you had two CDs, one asleep at the wheel. I wasn't around PC then but I'll take your word for it. Until very recently, one could become a CD without ever being interviewed in Washington. Can you imagine? I don't say that face-to-face interviews will always reveal something well hidden, but selecting someone to run a PC program without meeting with them first? Hard to believe, but it was true until very recently.
When major things like that are not being handled correctly, you can imagine that some of the smaller but important things hardly getting a passing notice. Peace Corps could do just fabulous things. But it won't happen by sticking with the status quo. Sorry I can't go into more detail right now. A few more emails to answer. I lived in the Bay Area for most of 1982-2002. Moss Landing. Sounds nice. Though foggy and cold.
Thanks for writing. Write back if you feel inclined. I'll get to it. It just may be a while.
And if you'd like a bit more about my thinking on development in general, see https://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2000/mayjun/articles/strauss.html
Regards,
Robert Strauss
Antananarivo, Madagascar
Dear Mr. Strauss:
I read your article on the Peace Corps in FP. It was a little brutal. I also thought it was a tad bit unfair. I think you made some generalizations that aren't true (maybe they were for Cameroon, but not elsewhere), and wrongfully place the blame for some things on Peace Corps. Some can be explained as looking just at the bad apples to describe the rest, but I really do think you got a few things wrong.
I served as a volunteer in Kenya in water/sanitation from 1997-1999. Our service was evaluated by more than just a biannual survey. The Wat/San director, Lusimba Rague, came out several times to visit me at my site (and I was in the bush for both of my sites) and would talk to people I worked with when I wasn't around. I was moved halfway through my service when it became apparent that my first site wasn't going to get anything done because of the amount of corruption there. We also had to talk with Mr. Rague upon leaving to determine if it would be worthwhile to send a replacement in the area. We had to make a case. Additionally, the wat/san sector was not trying to do the same things that it had done when Peace Corps was first created. We were more about teaching about health and HIV/AIDS than trying to construct water tanks and wells (although some did, myself included), which was the original mission. And some of the projects that I and others were involved with had nothing to do with wat/san at all, but were seen as needs in our respective community (I helped build some fish ponds to provide money for a local woman's group). I think this shows some accountability and adaptation by the organization that you claim doesn't exist.
Additionally, I think Peace Corps has done some good development work, albeit incremental and not without its share of fighting political BS within and without the organization. As you rightfully state in your article, Peace Corps tries to do a lot of things with little money. Sometimes it doesn't work, but I think going grassroots is a safer bet than throwing more money at problems. Africa has plenty of examples that show that big pockets for development doesn't always get a lot done, and often can be harmful due to ever-present corruption there. More money draws more criminals (just the appearance of this can do it sometimes) which sap the resources and will of people to tackle problems there both short-term and long-term. If you have worked there, I know you know this. And I'll bet that Peace Corps has a better record getting at least something done more often than some of the big money development outfits there simply because of that. I saw examples all the time of this while I was there. And as for solving some of the problems there, but it really is on the people who live there in the end. You can change policies in Peace Corps and other relief efforts all you want, but if the local governments and people aren't willing to take the handout and put it for the greater good, your efforts will be fruitless. Identifying these people takes time and cultivation, and it's something Peace Corps really is a hell of a lot better at doing outside of the capitol of countries than just about anyone else in the development field.
And it's because volunteers really get to know the people. Labeling that as a front for semester-abroad or merely public relations type work it flat out wrong. If you want to criticize something, you should be complaining about how other relief organizations haven't tapped Peace Corps volunteers for their information on who to go to in their sites to try and get work done (So many times I saw clueless NGOs hand out money for projects to people that should have never been trusted in my town). It really is a great untapped resource. I would have to be done delicately so as not to portray volunteers as the conduit to getting lots of money (as stated above), but I think it could be done, especially at the close of service when volunteers really do have a good handle on what is going on (I definitely would not ask volunteers who just got there who would be good to approach).
I have no doubt that some reform is needed in Peace Corps (it is a government organization, after all). I went through two directors in my time at Kenya, and one was absolutely asleep at the wheel. I know of a couple of volunteers that probably never should have made it out of the recruiting process and were probably huge headaches for Peace Crops staff in Kenya. But, for each of those examples, I can come up with 10 other ones where volunteers and staff were doing good work. I'd hate to see your article get used in Congress and elsewhere to smear that effort.I'm sure you have gotten a lot on email on this. I thank you for taking the time to read mine. Hope all is well with you wherever you are.
Sincerely,
Jon Walsh
In a matter of minutes, Mr. Strauss shot Jon back an email from Madagascar:
Peace Corps is not a joke. It's one of the best ideas the US has ever had. It's also one of the most poorly administered best ideas ever. The result is that it horribly undershoots its potential and in the process does a disservice to many of the people involved; volunteers, staff and locals. PC has been over-promising and under-delivering since day one.
It's time to turn that around.
But because of PC's incredible PR machine, this has never happened because no one wants to disturb a beautiful imagine, whether it represents reality or simply perception.
A lot of good work happens in PC but because PC is like a relay race, with one volunteer or staff member handing off to the next, many good things get dropped and disappear with no lasting impact. That isn't always the case, but it is very often the case.It's great that your supervisor got out to see you. Believe it or not, it still happens that in some countries PCVs are lucky to be visited once a year. They should be visited once a month. If that were the case, many of the staff-volunteer resentment issues would go away. Everyone would be focused on the work and on working with and serving the local community.
It's also great that you saw some evolution in your program. But that isn't the case in many places. (I've worked in more than 50 countries and encountered lots of PC and development projects over the years.) But PC itself has not guidance for local evaluations and doesn't support any systematic, objective monitoring and evaluation. That has to change.
I used to say in all sincerity that a great thing about PC is that it has never had enough money to do any real damage. But it has never had enough money to do any real, lasting good either. I would rather see PC (try to) do great things in a small number of countries than to simply limp along in 70 or 80. I don't see the point in that.
I also used to tell PCVs who wanted to continue in development that if they did one day they would see that by the standards of other organizations, PC wasn't such a mess as they thought. But we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to ineffective NGOs or out of touch multi-lateral organizations. We all can see what the potential is and we know we are falling short. We should be shooting for the stars and we're patting ourselves on the back for being better than what is a pretty sorry lot (and I've worked for many of them).
You mention you had two CDs, one asleep at the wheel. I wasn't around PC then but I'll take your word for it. Until very recently, one could become a CD without ever being interviewed in Washington. Can you imagine? I don't say that face-to-face interviews will always reveal something well hidden, but selecting someone to run a PC program without meeting with them first? Hard to believe, but it was true until very recently.
When major things like that are not being handled correctly, you can imagine that some of the smaller but important things hardly getting a passing notice. Peace Corps could do just fabulous things. But it won't happen by sticking with the status quo. Sorry I can't go into more detail right now. A few more emails to answer. I lived in the Bay Area for most of 1982-2002. Moss Landing. Sounds nice. Though foggy and cold.
Thanks for writing. Write back if you feel inclined. I'll get to it. It just may be a while.
And if you'd like a bit more about my thinking on development in general, see https://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2000/mayjun/articles/strauss.html
Regards,
Robert Strauss
Antananarivo, Madagascar
Rant of the Week: Anti-immigration xenophobes
There is no other issue in Colorado that gets folks riled up like illegal immigration. It’s really quite astonishing. Coming from Idaho and living a short time in Massachusetts, I was not exposed to the great amount of xenophobia in America these days. I was called a “pro illegal immigrant advocate” the other day on the Denver Post forum. For what, expressing a realistic and effective immigration solution for America? The “anti-immigration” interests, if I may call them that, have several solutions to address this issue. Let’s take them one by one.
1. Build an impenetrable fence and aggressively arrest and deport all 12+ million illegal immigrants in America.
I find it quite enjoyable that the only Republican candidate with a semi-reasonable immigration policy is John McCain. This burns the xenophobes big time. This option is just plain infeasible. In a Republican primary debate (yes, I stitched to a few during commercials), Mitt Romney went on a “big wall and mass deportation” rampage, until the debate moderator asked “But is that really feasible?” Mitt stammered and stumbled around and conceded, “No.” But this is the still the only acceptable approach for most of the anti-immigration crowd. I never get a straight answer on how this “round them up and deport them” thing would work. The only thing I can think of is arresting everyone in America with a Latin last name and sort them out in holding camps. Maybe over the top, but how else are we supposed to deport 12+ million people, who mostly live in the shadows? Sadly, the concentration camp scene is fully acceptable to many anti-immigration nuts.
(If you’ve noticed, I’m not calling them anti-illegal immigration zealots. Every anti-immigration person will tell you “I’m not against immigration; I’m against illegal immigration.” This is surely true for some, but not all. They’ll tell you that, then they’ll speak out against issuing work visas and granting amnesty. Don’t buy it.)
2. We can stop illegal immigrants from coming to America by denying them services and perks. We should not be giving illegal immigrants free public education. Wal-Mart should quit “catering” to illegal immigrants by printing everything in Spanish. Illegal immigrants should not be issued drivers licenses. In fact, we support a recent ordinance in Texas that would forbid landlords from renting to illegal immigrants. And of course, we want our hospitals to deny treatment.
I love to picture Jose and Juan at the border with their gallon jugs of water, ready to cross.
“Hey Jose, did you hear?”
“What’s that man?”
“Wal-Mart isn’t going to print their signs in Spanish anymore”
“Oh no! What do we do now, Juan?”
“Fuck this! Let’s go back home and work for pennies so our families starve.”
“Okay, good idea. I can’t see how I could ever live without Wal-Mart printing stuff in Spanish.”
LOL! Immigrants don’t come to America for incentives. They come for jobs. You can strip away all the incentives you want, but until that job in America doesn’t pay 10 times more than it pays in Mexico, it doesn’t help one bit. To assume cutting off services will help the situation is not only a ludicrous notion, but would be damaging to America.
We’ve seen most of these immigration issues before, and we’ve become a stronger nation for it. I’m not saying today’s immigration isn’t different in some regards, because it is. However, immigrants of old were successful because their families eventually pulled themselves up to the middle class by their bootstraps. Why are we hamstringing today’s immigrants so they can’t do the same? There's a proven connection between poverty and crime. If poor illegal immigrants are committing too many crimes as some anti-immigration zealots contend, why do you want to deny them a place to live and schools to attend? How does creating a bunch of uneducated thugs living on the streets solve our immigration problems? That is counterproductive to our nation’s interests. Instead of providing them an opportunity to make a living without resorting to crime, they would force them in this direction. We need to think about creating an avenue to prosperity as part of our immigration policy, not removing it. We need to help uplift our immigrants, not push them down.
Of course, not everyone expressing concerns about illegal immigration are xenophobes. This is a serious issue that warrants action. We need to secure our border in the most efficient way. What about bringing our troops home from Iraq and having the National Guard help on the border? We need to hold employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants. Of course, let’s deport the illegal immigrants that commit violent offences. We need a sound and well-regulated system for our farmers and industries to bring in immigrants on work visas. And finally, we need to create an avenue for the immigrants here currently to get residency. There, I said it! Amnesty amnesty amnesty! Excuse me—I think my neighbours are banging on my door with pitchforks…
1. Build an impenetrable fence and aggressively arrest and deport all 12+ million illegal immigrants in America.
I find it quite enjoyable that the only Republican candidate with a semi-reasonable immigration policy is John McCain. This burns the xenophobes big time. This option is just plain infeasible. In a Republican primary debate (yes, I stitched to a few during commercials), Mitt Romney went on a “big wall and mass deportation” rampage, until the debate moderator asked “But is that really feasible?” Mitt stammered and stumbled around and conceded, “No.” But this is the still the only acceptable approach for most of the anti-immigration crowd. I never get a straight answer on how this “round them up and deport them” thing would work. The only thing I can think of is arresting everyone in America with a Latin last name and sort them out in holding camps. Maybe over the top, but how else are we supposed to deport 12+ million people, who mostly live in the shadows? Sadly, the concentration camp scene is fully acceptable to many anti-immigration nuts.
(If you’ve noticed, I’m not calling them anti-illegal immigration zealots. Every anti-immigration person will tell you “I’m not against immigration; I’m against illegal immigration.” This is surely true for some, but not all. They’ll tell you that, then they’ll speak out against issuing work visas and granting amnesty. Don’t buy it.)
2. We can stop illegal immigrants from coming to America by denying them services and perks. We should not be giving illegal immigrants free public education. Wal-Mart should quit “catering” to illegal immigrants by printing everything in Spanish. Illegal immigrants should not be issued drivers licenses. In fact, we support a recent ordinance in Texas that would forbid landlords from renting to illegal immigrants. And of course, we want our hospitals to deny treatment.
I love to picture Jose and Juan at the border with their gallon jugs of water, ready to cross.
“Hey Jose, did you hear?”
“What’s that man?”
“Wal-Mart isn’t going to print their signs in Spanish anymore”
“Oh no! What do we do now, Juan?”
“Fuck this! Let’s go back home and work for pennies so our families starve.”
“Okay, good idea. I can’t see how I could ever live without Wal-Mart printing stuff in Spanish.”
LOL! Immigrants don’t come to America for incentives. They come for jobs. You can strip away all the incentives you want, but until that job in America doesn’t pay 10 times more than it pays in Mexico, it doesn’t help one bit. To assume cutting off services will help the situation is not only a ludicrous notion, but would be damaging to America.
We’ve seen most of these immigration issues before, and we’ve become a stronger nation for it. I’m not saying today’s immigration isn’t different in some regards, because it is. However, immigrants of old were successful because their families eventually pulled themselves up to the middle class by their bootstraps. Why are we hamstringing today’s immigrants so they can’t do the same? There's a proven connection between poverty and crime. If poor illegal immigrants are committing too many crimes as some anti-immigration zealots contend, why do you want to deny them a place to live and schools to attend? How does creating a bunch of uneducated thugs living on the streets solve our immigration problems? That is counterproductive to our nation’s interests. Instead of providing them an opportunity to make a living without resorting to crime, they would force them in this direction. We need to think about creating an avenue to prosperity as part of our immigration policy, not removing it. We need to help uplift our immigrants, not push them down.
Of course, not everyone expressing concerns about illegal immigration are xenophobes. This is a serious issue that warrants action. We need to secure our border in the most efficient way. What about bringing our troops home from Iraq and having the National Guard help on the border? We need to hold employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants. Of course, let’s deport the illegal immigrants that commit violent offences. We need a sound and well-regulated system for our farmers and industries to bring in immigrants on work visas. And finally, we need to create an avenue for the immigrants here currently to get residency. There, I said it! Amnesty amnesty amnesty! Excuse me—I think my neighbours are banging on my door with pitchforks…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
