Seattle Girl Raises Funds for Uganda Wells

Published November 22, 2011 in Seattle's Child: http://www.seattleschild.com/article/seattle-girl-raises-funds-for-uganda-wells

Seattle resident Isabella Todaro was just eight years old when she made it her mission to bring clean water to other children across the globe. As a first grader at the Meridian School, Isabella was horrified to learn that many people lack access to this basic necessity. By the third grade, she decided to do something about it, and Drop Foundation was born.

Isabella is now a fifth grader, and her foundation has grown from a daydream into a project that has vastly improved the lives of rural villagers in Uganda. Drop Foundation has raised the funds to build desperately needed wells in two villages, Kamira and Mityomere.

Isabella launched her fundraising effort by recruiting her third grade class to make and sell homemade dog biscuits. Learning of the Ugandan children’s passion for soccer and lack of school essentials, she enlisted friends’ help in collecting soccer balls and pencils. Inspired by his sister's dedication, Isabella's brother Max, now 8 years old, began gathering donated books to build libraries in both villages. The siblings have become a fixture at Seattle’s annual Seafair, where they sell dog treats and water to festival-goers. Drop Foundation is now working toward its third $7,000 well.

The funds for each well are channeled through Concern for the Girl Child, a Ugandan-based non-profit organization cofounded by Ann Hayes, a friend of the Todaro family. The organization allocates the funds by locating communities with water shortages, conducting geological surveys to find optimal drilling sites, and hiring contractors to build the wells.

This summer, Isabella traveled with her family to Uganda to visit the people with whom she has developed a lasting connection. “They were the nicest people I’ve ever met,” she says. “No matter how little they had, they were so caring and generous.”

In Kamira, she met some of the 600 children whose crowded primary school is the site of Drop Foundation’s first well. Kamira Primary School students have little in the way of supplies, sharing pencils and close quarters, with approximately 70 children to a classroom. Compounding their educational challenges are the long hours they spend helping their families survive. Fetching water was one arduous task often shouldered by the children. Before the well was built in 2010, villagers had to trek a mile and a half to reach the borehole that they relied upon for all of their water needs, including drinking, bathing, cooking and washing.

Leaving the first village, Isabella and her family traveled to Mityomere to watch the completion of the second well. “We drove for five hours on a road that wasn’t really a road,” recalls Isabella. “Kids were popping out from the bushes.”

The students at Mityomere Primary School face even harsher conditions than those of Kamira, packed into a one-room schoolhouse constructed of cow dung, where cattle roam freely. Other classes are held outside under a tree. Isabella accompanied villagers to the green, brackish marsh that had previously served as their sole water source. Beginning at age five, the children made daily treks to and from the marsh, carrying jugs of water on their heads. Worse than this ongoing hardship was the health hazard posed by the contaminated water source, which villagers shared with their cattle. To keep their new wells safe, members of both villages have formed water committees and built fences to safeguard this vital resource.

Isabella’s goal is to build one well per year. She says that this experience has taught her “to consider myself extremely lucky. I’ll never take water for granted again.”

To find out how you can help, visit www.dropfoundation.org.

This article was made possible through collaboration with earthbongo.com, a social network to make the world a better place, one project at a time. If you would like to conserve water, visit http://earthbongo.com/project/507/shorten-your-shower.

Careers in the Culinary Arts

Published in Next Step Magazine November 2011.
http://www.nextstepu.com/articlePage1.aspx?artId=3839&categoryId=4

Do your original recipes have your family lining up for seconds? If you have a passion for food, love to create and enjoy making others happy, you might consider a career in the culinary arts.

Culinary careers include chefs, cooks and restaurant or catering managers. Many chefs have a specialty, such as seafood or pastries. They may work in an assortment of settings: a restaurant, a hotel, or an institution like a school, hospital or nursing home. Others decide to open their own restaurants or catering businesses.

Education, skills.

It is possible to begin a culinary career straight out of high school, starting as a food preparation or line cook and making your way up the career ladder. However, most chefs and head cooks have completed training programs ranging from a few months to two or more years. Upscale establishments and higher-level positions often require two-year culinary arts degrees, which are offered at culinary institutes, vocational schools, some community colleges and the armed forces. These programs provide courses in cooking skills, restaurant management, health and sanitation and menu creation.

Chef Dean Massey earned his associate degree from Clover Park Technical College (www.cptc.edu ) in Lakewood, Wash. After spending 15 years working for Restaurants Unlimited and the Lobstershop Corporation, he joined the faculty at Clover Park. “There are plenty of chefs who have started at the bottom and worked their way up,” says Massey. “But it’s a long process. An associate degree will help you get in the kitchen at a higher level more quickly.” A bachelor’s degree in hospitality is beneficial for those who start their own business. Whether or not you get formal training, it is important to gain real-world cooking experience to find out if the culinary arts is for you. As a high school student, you can take cooking classes or get an internship or summer job at a food service management company or restaurant.

Typical day

A career in the culinary arts means working in a fast-paced, physically demanding environment. Fitness and physical endurance are important, since these careers involve standing for long hours, lifting heavy pots and kettles and working near hot stoves and ovens. “It’s very pressure-oriented,” Massey says. He adds that while you may have mornings off, you can expect to work evenings, weekends and holidays.

Is it for you?

In addition to being physically fit, cooks and chefs must be quick, efficient and good with their hands. They will be interacting with customers and working as part of a team in the kitchen. Natural cooking talent and a sensitive palette are a must. “You’re going to be working long hours, and you’ll be on your feet 10 to 12 hours a day,” Massey says.

If you can take the heat (literally) you may find a very satisfying career in the culinary arts.

“There’s a lot of creativity in it,” he says.

VITAL STATS

Salary: Earnings depend on the position and the establishment. On average, chefs and head cooks earn $37,000 per year, according to www.bls.gov.

Education: An associate degree will help you attain a more highly paid position.

Free Speech for Real People

Published in Z Magazine Vol. 24, No. 6 (June 2011)

http://www.zcommunications.org/free-speech-for-real-people-by-valerie-saturen

What happens to democracy when corporations are legal persons with the right to free speech? And what happens when free speech is equated with the unchecked flow of cash? In a 5 to 4 decision that flouted legal precedents and campaign finance legislation, the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC last year ruled that corporations have the constitutional right to spend unlimited money toward political advertising. “It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Democrat or Republican,” said Seattle-based MoveOn activist Patricia Daly, “Citizens United is turning over...our democracy in favor of corporations.” Daly is one of many people across the nation taking action to challenge the ruling, push for greater transparency, and promote clean elections.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is through a constitutional amendment. This is precisely what many democracy advocates are calling for. Amending the Constitution is not easy. A proposed amendment must be approved by three-fourths of state legislatures or by ratifying conventions in three-fourths of states. However, there is widespread bipartisan support for an amendment to overturn Citizens United. According to a recent poll by Hart Research Associates, this includes 68 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Independents, and 87 percent of Democrats.

David Cobb, the 2004 Green Party presidential candidate, now travels the country galvanizing that support through “Move to Amend.” He points out that state legislatures from California to Vermont have introduced bills calling for a constitutional amendment protecting the free speech rights of people, not corporations. “This is really about a broad democratizing movement,” said Cobb. “Legal and electoral systems have been hijacked by ruling elites.”

In the shorter term, advocates want greater transparency. While the 2010 mid-term election saw unprecedented campaign spending, the public has remained in the dark about the full extent and sources of that spending. Further, many corporate interest groups hide behind civic-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works, and Citizens United. Requiring campaigns to disclose the identities of donors helps voters make informed choices.

Steve Breaux, a WashPIRG public-interest advocate, urges support for the DISCLOSE Act. The bill, which passed the House, but was blocked in the Senate, would require organizations involved in political campaigns to reveal the identities of major donors.

Like other states, Washington has introduced a bill to shed light on money in politics that has passed the State Senate and now has to clear the House. In 2010, California passed similar legislation, requiring disclosure for political messages that appeal to voters to approve or reject a candidate or measure, even if the ad doesn’t use the “vote for” or “vote against.”

Another way states are promoting clean elections is by providing candidates with a public alternative to corporate campaign financing. Publicly-funded campaigns have worked in seven states: Maine, Arizona, North Carolina, New Mexico, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts. However, clean elections face a tough fight, since their popularity and effectiveness has drawn the ire of corporate interest groups. Legislation in Massachusetts was later repealed and Vermont’s was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which is now ruling on the constitutionality of Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, which levels the playing field by using public funds to match the corporate funding of another candidate.

At the federal level, the Fair Elections Now Act (FENA) calls for public funding of Senate campaigns. The bipartisan bill would allow federal candidates to run for office without relying on large private donations, freeing candidates from the pressures of constant fundraising.

Building the momentum for these efforts requires public education and consciousness-raising, according to John Bonifaz of Free Speech for People. Although voters overwhelmingly agree that corporations wield too much political influence, few have even heard of Citizens United. Hart Research Associates found that only 22 percent of voters were aware of the decision. Some groups are informing the public through teach-ins and forums. Others are taking a more dramatic approach.

Americans are demanding an end to the cynical politicking that has tainted our democracy for far too long. They don’t want to see their elected officials up for sale. In these challenging times, it is essential that our leaders focus on creating jobs, getting our economy back on track, fixing our broken health care system, stopping multiple wars, and addressing ongoing environmental degradation. Putting democracy into the hands of the electorate can help ensure that our lawmakers put these pressing issues, and the wellbeing of the people, first.

The Real Class War (Review of Winner-Take-All Politics)

Reviewed: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, Simon & Schuster, 340 pp., $17.46

Published May 25, 2011 in Toward Freedom: http://towardfreedom.com/americas/2405-the-real-class-war

When then-Senator Barack Obama called for reforms to "spread the wealth around," opponents labeled him a class warrior intent on stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. What they didn't mention, and what too few Americans realize, is that precisely the opposite pattern has unfolded over the past forty years. Winner-Take-All Politics details this dramatic redistribution of wealth and shows how it is no natural outcome of economic forces. It is the result of political decisions. Increasingly dependent upon campaign funds from well-organized special interests, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have legislated in favor of the extremely rich at the expense of everyone else.

Hacker and Pierson back up their assertions with striking data. For example, the share of the nation's income raked in by the top 1 percent shot up from 9 percent in 1974 to 23.5 percent in 2007. The figures are even more remarkable at the very upper echelons: the top 0.1 percent has seen a fourfold increase in their share of the pie, from 2.7 percent to 12.3. Meanwhile, wages for the poor and middle class have stagnated and failed to keep up with the rising cost of living.

Experts often pin the growth of economic inequality on the shift to a knowledge-based economy, which has produced a large gap between the educated and uneducated. But Hacker and Pierson point out that extreme income disparity exists even among the highly educated. Further, the same level of disparity is not found in other developed nations. Clearly, an additional force is at work.

That force, according to Hacker and Pierson, is American government and politics. Since the 1970s, the tax code has become progressively less progressive. Not only have the super-wealthy enjoyed large tax cuts, but they have benefited from loopholes such as the capital gains tax. Since capital gains like investment income are only taxed 15 percent, private equity and hedge fund managers end up paying "a dramatically lower rate than their secretaries." Often, policy decisions go quietly unnoticed in the form of "drift": the government simply fails to respond to changing economic realities. The minimum wage is never updated to keep up with inflation. Legislation fails to address skyrocketing executive pay, which now approaches 300 times the earnings of average workers.

So why, if our democracy is based on the principle of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," have our policies so consistently favored the few? The answer lies in organization. In the past, unions provided a voice for the interests of working Americans. Yet while union representation has sharply declined (from 30% in 1960 to 13% in 2000), lobbyists representing corporate and financial interests have proliferated in the corridors of Washington. Unlike the fragmented and politically uninformed electorate, these special interest groups have banded together and pooled their vast resources to exert powerful political pressure. Hacker and Pierson describe the revolving door between Congress and K Street. Take Max Baucus, the Democratic chair of the Senate Finance Committee, who packed his office with pharmaceutical lobbyists. Or take John Breaux, former Democratic senator from Louisiana. After repeatedly undercutting progressive initiatives, Breaux made the smooth transition from elected official to lavishly paid consultant at a lobbying firm.

Despite the media spectacle that surrounds presidential elections, the growth of inequality has little to do with which party occupies the White House. In fact, it was under Carter that the dynamics of "winner-take-all" began to rapidly accelerate. Hacker and Pierson turn our attention from the presidential "horse race" toward the far more significant "politics of organized combat" that has consumed both parties. They describe a GOP that became incrementally more radicalized over the past four decades, most dramatically under the leadership of House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich in the 1990s. While the GOP shifted further to the right--a shift that would recur with the emergence of the Tea Party--the Democratic Party was forced by the fundraising arms race to become more business-friendly. In turn, business interests were keen to court Democratic leaders who could stall or water down reforms.

Meaningful reform is made even harder by the structural flaws of a system predisposed toward gridlock. Since states have equal representation in the Senate, conservative small states hold disproportionate sway over less numerous but far more populous states. The increasingly ubiquitous use of the filibuster poses another roadblock, making it easy for the minority party to--with the help of a few bought-off colleagues across the aisle--stymie legislation. Such obstructionist tactics always benefit the minority party that employs them, convincing the public that the majority party is inept and that Washington is broken. During Obama's presidency, this has given congressional Republicans an incentive to block any reform-minded legislation rather than engage in bipartisan compromise.

If the problem is organization, Hacker and Pierson conclude, then organization is the solution. And it will have to be sustained. "Political reformers will need to mobilize for the long haul," the authors write, "appreciating that it is not electoral competitions alone that are decisive, but also the creation of organized capacity to…turn electoral victories into substantive and sustainable triumphs."

Citizens United against Citizens United

Local activists fight controversial Supreme Court decision

Published March 16, 2011 in Real Change (Vol. 18 No. 11)

http://www.realchangenews.org/index.php/site/archives/5424/

In a 5 to 4 decision that flouted legal precedents and campaign finance legislation, the Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. F.E.C., last year ruled that corporations can spend unlimited money toward political advertising.

What happens to democracy when corporations have the same rights as people, including the right to influence elections?

On March 10, the University of Washington hosted the forum “After Citizens United: What Now?” Enrique Cerna of KCTS 9 Public Television moderated the discussion, sponsored by Washington Public Campaigns.

Lynne Dodson of the AFL-CIO said Citizens United is part of the same “rapacious pursuit of profit” that caused the current recession. She said the ruling enables corporations to back candidates who support offshoring, deregulation, and fewer labor rights.

Several speakers emphasized that the issue extends beyond corporate free speech rights in the context of elections. Jeff Clements, general counsel of Free Speech for People, said the fundamental question is corporate power, including whether corporations should be treated as legal persons. He called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling and establish that corporations are not people.

Amending the Constitution won’t be easy, the speakers agreed. A proposed amendment must be approved by three-fourths of state legislatures or by ratifying conventions in three-fourths of states.

Free Speech for People Director John Bonifaz pointed out that “overwhelming majorities” across the political spectrum would support such an amendment. According to a recent poll by Hart Research Associates, this includes 68 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Independents, and 87 percent of Democrats.

Advocates worry about transparency in the short term. Steve Breaux, a WashPIRG public-interest advocate, urged support for the DISCLOSE Act. The bill, which passed the House but was blocked in the Senate, would require organizations involved in political campaigning to disclose the identities of large donors. In Washington State, a similar bill (SB 5021) is scheduled for a public hearing at 8 a.m. on March 16.

To challenge Citizens United, people can attend hearings and town halls, contact senators and representatives, write op-eds and letters to the editor, and form grassroots groups, said Claudia Kauffman of the Minority Executive Directors Coalition of King County. Temple De Hirsch Sinai’s Rabbi Alan Cook encouraged people of faith to get their congregations involved in the effort.

Bonifaz told of the late Doris “Granny D” Haddock, who turned 90 while walking across the United States to advocate campaign finance reform. For 14 months, she walked 10 miles per day through wind, ice, rain and snow until she reached the Capitol.

“When she was born, the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote had yet to be enacted,” Bonifaz said. “In the name of Granny D, it is time for us to stand up and fight … to ensure that ‘we the people,’ not ‘we the corporations,’ govern in America."

Making a Difference with Americorps

Published in the February issue of Next Step Magazine:

http://www.nextstepu.com/articlePage1.aspx?artId=3731&categoryId=43

If you want to have a positive impact on a community while earning money for college, then you may want to consider joining AmeriCorps.

AmeriCorps consists of three programs:

1) AmeriCorps State and National, 2) AmeriCorps VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America), and 3) AmeriCorps NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps). AmeriCorps State and National members work with organizations to address community needs in education, public safety, health and the environment.

VISTA members serve with community organizations to build programs geared toward bringing low-income individuals and communities out of poverty. AmeriCorps NCCC is a full-time residential program for people aged 18-24, in which members work intensively in a particular community.

Benefits of service

AmeriCorps members receive health coverage, training, deferment for student loans, a modest stipend to cover living expenses and many also receive housing assistance. Full-time members who complete their service receive $5,350 to pay for college, grad school or existing student loans. (Those who work part time receive a partial award.)

Giving back

One of the most rewarding parts of working with AmeriCorps is the chance to create a positive impact on others’ lives. Robin Solash worked with AmeriCorps’ Northwest Service Academy as an environmental education provider in Toledo, Ore. She implemented environmental service learning activities for middle school students and ran an after-school program.

“I got to meet many different people, and I also got a chance to help out in a community that really needed it.”

Visit AmeriCorps.gov for more info about each of its programs.

March like an Egyptian

Published on Middle East Mirror on January 29, 2011

It began in Tunisia, spreading like wildfire to the streets of Egypt and Yemen. Taking to public squares and defying brutal suppression, the people of these three Middle Eastern nations are demanding an end to the poverty, corruption, and repression they have long endured. For the sixth day, turmoil has continued to shake Egypt, with demonstrators defying curfew and forcing back police barricades. As the dramatic unrest continues, the 30-year Mubarak regime is in a tenuous state.

Under the Bush administration, "spreading democracy" in the Middle East was the oft-heard refrain. Yet when popular enfranchisement failed to bring results favorable to U.S. interests--as in 2006, when free elections brought Hamas to power in Gaza--the tenor began to change. While the administration issued cautious, general praise for aspirations toward democracy, "stability" had become the word of the day.

Now, in the midst of this historic uprising, Obama's rhetoric echoes that of his predecessor. Rather than condemning the autocratic regime, the president merely called on both sides to exercise restraint, mildly affirming Egyptians' democratic hopes and urging reforms. Obama's tepid response reflects a delicate balancing act. Rage against U.S.-backed strongmen fuels anti-Americanism and terrorism, yet democracy may pave the way for Islamist rule.

Obama's dilemma is not without legitimacy or historic precedent. While the demonstrations have had no singular leadership, and despite the prominent role of Nobel Peace Prize winner and former IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood has formed a significant presence within this movement. There is a possibility that this revolt will mirror the 1979 uprising that ousted the U.S.-friendly Shah of Iran. What we now call the Islamic Revolution began as an ideologically diverse movement strongly influenced by secular Marxism; only later did the religious fervor of Khomeini stand at its apex. If the people of Egypt are successful in toppling the regime, only time will tell what kind of replacement will emerge.

The Egyptian army will play a decisive role in the outcome of the unrest. Unlike the police force and security apparatus of the Interior Ministry, the army has not historically served as the boot of the regime. Not only has the army proved generally hesitant to use force on protesters, but there have been reports of soldiers stripping off their uniforms and joining in.

Egypt is a key U.S. ally in the region, receiving nearly $2 billion in annual foreign aid. In 2010, $1.3 billion went to military aid alone. Thus, the results of this uprising will undoubtedly have important consequences for U.S. relations with the Middle East. As the demonstrations continue, Obama's response will test the integrity of America's professed ideals. Will we fall down on the side of the tyrant we know, or will we risk uncertainty and support Egypt's people as they take their destiny into their own hands?

Heeding the Lessons of History in Rwanda: An Interview with Joseph Sebarenzi

Dr. Joseph Sebarenzi was the speaker of the Rwandan parliament from 1997 to 2000. As a young boy, he hid under a neighbor's bed during an outbreak of violence as machete-wielding Hutu men pursued his family. Years later, he, his wife, and their young son fled a Rwanda on the brink of genocide. After this tragedy, he learned that his parents, seven siblings, and countless other family members were among the 800,000 Tutsi brutally murdered. As head of the parliament, Sebarenzi's advocacy for democratic reforms placed him at odds with then-Vice President Paul Kagame, and he was forced to flee the country once again under threat of assassination. Today, he lives in the United States and serves on the faculty of the CONTACT school at the School for International Training. His memoir, God Sleeps in Rwanda (Atria Books, 2009), tells his story and sounds a call for forgiveness and reconciliation.

This year, President Paul Kagame has secured another seven-year term, claiming 93% of the vote. Yet it was an election marred by the exclusion of candidates from opposition parties, a crackdown on critical media outlets, and violence against dissidents. Kagame claims no involvement in the latter. Could you talk about this?

The elections were marred by a crackdown on opponents, assassinations, and arrests of journalists to make sure the true opposition does not participate in these elections. For those of us who are familiar with Rwanda, it's not a surprise. It's something we expected, although some of what took place in recent months was unexpected to us. What was unexpected was, for instance, the assassination of the vice president of the Green Party, Mr. Andre Kagwa Rwisereka. What was also not expected was Kagame’s choice of his competitors, known to be close friends of Kagame’s Rwandan Patriotic Front; the people who are part of the ruling class. And of course, the assassination attempt against the former General Kayumba Nyamwasa in South Africa, where he fled earlier this year. President Kagame is allegedly behind these violent acts. We did of course expect that these elections would be rigged, but none of us would have imagined the occurrence of these terrible violations. We knew well that Kagame was not ready to allow these elections to be free and fair, because - as you can read in my book - Kagame has many motivations to retain power as long as possible.

In your book, God Sleeps in Rwanda, you described how as speaker of the parliament, you challenged the autocratic nature of Kagame's government, and you ended up being exiled from the country as a result.

Yes, that's true. And it's from that perspective that I give my point of view on these elections. A democracy with fairness and transparency is what we needed in Rwanda. That is what we tried to do back then in the late 1990s or early 2000--to build strong institutions, to design a form of democracy that fit the socio-political realities of Rwanda in the post-genocide era. But instead of letting the country move toward strong institutions, Kagame stealthily built himself into a very strong man, an autocrat who basically would stay in power as long as possible, using semblance of elections to make the international community believe that he has a popular mandate.

How do you respond those who point out that Kagame has spearheaded Rwanda's economic development? He's created stability; he's created a large amount of female representation in government. What do you say to those arguments?

You know, I can't deny that, but you need to put those in context. For instance, the increased representation of women in state institutions is not something that was built over time. What it required was for Kagame to take that decision, and on the basis of that decision, everything followed. That's one. Second, having women as majority in parliament - and in the other branches of government - does not mean they have power to help ordinary women improve their situations. So what is the point of having many women in a parliament that is rubber stamp? Yes, we need to have a greater number of women in state institutions, but it’s meaningless if they don’t have power to impact policies. This is one example of the things Kagame does to mislead the international community.

With regard to the economy, I think that if you look closely at what is happening, you will find that at least 50 percent of Rwanda’s national budget is funded by foreign donors. Also, there are many international non-governmental organizations operating in Rwanda because of the genocide; this helps Rwanda’s economy. You also have Western countries that feel guilty for not preventing the genocide or stopping it, and that now show tremendous generosity to help the government build the economy, and so forth. So Kagame’s role in the economic achievements is overstated. These achievements do not reflect a replication of what heads of state in countries like Singapore or South Korea did in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. It is different.

You've also argued that the lessons of history must be heeded before it's too late. What are these lessons?

One is that as long Rwanda does not have political compromise between Hutu and Tutsi regarding how power is shared, there will inevitably be a renewal of violence. Rwanda has a very complex situation where Hutu are an overwhelming majority and Tutsi are a small minority. For the last 50 years there has been a power struggle between the two "ethnic groups," despite the fact that they share a language, they share a culture, and live side by side. As long as Rwanda lacks a consensus democracy to defuse the violent competition for power between the two communities, there may be another cycle of violence. And Kagame is doing nothing resolve this issue. Rather, his rule has kept or reinforced the tensions unresolved and alive – albeit buried under the carpet. So that's one. Second is the issue of justice. Rwanda has achieved some sorts of justice with regard to the 1994 genocide. Some of the perpetrators were arrested and tried in Tanzania by a U.N. court, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; others were tried in Rwanda using domestic courts; and others were tried using traditional courts called the gacaca. But all those tried and convicted--and some have been forgiven--are the Hutu who committed the genocide. The problem is that virtually no justice has been done for the Hutu killed before, during, and after the genocide. As long as Rwanda’s authorities champion a one-sided justice, they are making possible another ethnic-based violence sooner or later. Without justice, victims may seek revenge; may pass on their grievances to future generations; and soon or later opportunistic politicians will misuse genuine grievances and stir up animosity in an effort to acquire or retain power. It is important to note that justice does not have to be retributive. Rwanda can explore a truth and reconciliation commission approach. There are many issues other issues, but those two are the most pressing ones.

I'd like to go back to the issue of ethnic tension that you mentioned. A couple of the opposition leaders, Ingabire and Ntaganda--both of whom were barred from participating in the election--have been charged with violating a law that prohibits "genocide ideology," or speech that promotes ethnic division. Do you feel that Kagame's policy of downplaying the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi is helping to move the country forward, or is it increasing the risk of future violence?

He's actually increasing the risk of future violence, because people like Bernard Ntaganda and Victoire Ingabire are not extremists at all and they definitely don’t advocate for genocide. They don't deny the genocide, contrary to what Kagame’s administration claims. They simply are victims of injustice. And such injustice toward them may be perceived by some Hutu as injustice against their community, which increases the likelihood of further violence in Rwanda. For now, it just creates frustration, anger, and resentment. I think Kagame is misusing the laws on genocide ideology. He's using them as political tools against opponents, including Tutsi opponents such Mushayidi, who is by the way a genocide survivor. These laws should be used to go after the people who truly deny the genocide, and people who advocate division between Hutu and Tutsi--not against innocent political opponents.

It seems like it would be sort of a fine line, though, to determine at what point somebody is actually advocating violence or genocide. How do you make that distinction?

You just need to look carefully at what people say; look carefully at what people write. And on that basis, you can determine whether or not someone is denying genocide or advocating division between Hutu and Tutsi. And I have not seen that so far from Ingabire or Ntaganda. These are some of the more moderate Hutu we have. I know we have Hutu extremists, and we have Tutsi extremists Tutsi. Any extremism is wrong and it should be eradicated through an impartial application of laws – and of course through extensive education in order to change peoples’ minds.

In your book and elsewhere, you've strongly advocated for the need for reconciliation. How do you envision this reconciliation taking place, and what components would it need to have in order to be effective?

In my book, I offer some details about reconciliation. I think that one component of reconciliation in a divided society like Rwanda is to have justice on both sides. Whoever is implicated in either genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or any other human rights violation, should be held accountable, regardless of ethnicity. Impartial justice is essential in the process of reconciliation. I am however mindful of the fact that Rwanda has so many perpetrators in each community that punitive justice would simply jeopardize hope for reconciliation. As I mentioned earlier, we need to have a mix of prosecutions and a truth and reconciliation commission, where those who have the highest responsibility are punished, but others are encouraged to tell the truth. If they tell the truth and apologize, then we can encourage the community to forgive. The ultimate goal should be reconciliation and lasting peace. Another component is power sharing in Rwanda. I advocate for a consensus democracy, which means a democracy with all its attributes, but one that is suitable to the context of Rwanda: a history of interethnic violence, a small minority, an overwhelming majority, etc. We should find a compromise along the lines of what we have in the United States in which states are represented equally in the Senate, whereas in the House of Representatives, states are represented based on the size of the population. The other thing about reconciliation, which I mentioned in my book, is peace education. We need to educate young people from a very early age, and instill into them the ideas of love, forgiveness, and empathy; ideas of seeing themselves first as human beings, as God's creatures, before they see themselves as Hutu or Tutsi. If we do that--and of course we need to work on the economy, and we need the assistance of the international community--I am sure that Rwanda can firmly move toward reconciliation.

I'd like to switch gears a bit and ask you about the lessons that the international community can learn from what happened in Rwanda in 1994. In your book, you described the hate speech that filled the airwaves prior to the genocide, in which Tutsi were referred to as "cockroaches." In the U.S. one often hears dehumanizing rhetoric against immigrants, against Muslims, and against other groups, especially on talk radio. In one particularly striking example, the popular radio host Neal Boortz said, "Muslims don't eat during the day during Ramadan. They fast during the day and eat at night. Sort of like cockroaches." How concerned should we be about this kind of speech?

I cannot talk about specific rhetoric against specific groups, but suffice to say that any dehumanizing speech is dangerous. I hear some inappropriate speech in the U.S., and it makes me sad. But the good thing is that the U.S. has very strong institutions. There is a deep-rooted rule of law. If some of personal attacks or attacks against some groups happened in a country like Rwanda, you would see violence the next day. But those are the things people need to watch carefully. The international community should learn from what happened in Rwanda, because people don't wake up one day and take their machetes or their guns and go after their neighbors. It starts with words. It starts with what people write. So people should pay attention to all that, and prevent [violence] before it's too late. Anything can happen anywhere anytime if the seeds of violence are allowed to develop. And coming back to what happened in Rwanda, people should watch those early signs of violence, such as the pre-election violence, the suspension of independent newspapers, persistent exile of political figures, arrests without charges of military officers, etc. These are early signs of violence. When the international community stands by, it renders a disservice to peace in Rwanda and in the region. It’s imperative that the international community engage - without further delay- Rwanda’s authorities to ensure that democracy is build in consensus way, and lasting reconciliation is promoted.