War is a Government Riot!
(this is a mouseover - try it! move your mouse over the image if you're curious)
Showing posts with label corporatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporatism. Show all posts
War is a Government Riot! (Mouseover)
War is a Government Riot!
(this is a mouseover - try it! move your mouse over the image if you're curious)
The People Must Believe That They Are Not Being Manipulated In Order For Them To Be Manipulated Effectively
The People must believe that they are not manipulated — in order for them to be manipulated effectively. — Winston Smith, main character in George Orwell's 1984
War is a Racket, by Smedley Butler
Please take some time to watch this important video. It's a theatrical rendering of a speech delivered by Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC, to the National VFW, in 1933:
War is a Racket by Smedley Butler
War is a Racket by Smedley Butler
The White House, the Pentagon, and War (etc.)
The following is a comment (slightly amended for clarity) that I just posted to the White House Facebook Page. I was inspired by a Nick Turse article from Tomdispatch.com, Tomgram: Nick Turse, In Afghanistan, the Pentagon Digs in.
To President Obama and Administration:[I also wrote another one yesterday, viewable at this link: Letter to the President, as Posted on Facebook]
I believe that war is an outmoded and archaic way to deal with dispute. The USA has a serious problem in its relationship with the world - because our government seems to be content to enable a corporatist policy of global dominance. Under the policy of global dominance, some few act as though they are entitled to receive state support for their efforts to "take without asking" (of material and other resources) - and to exert political and economic influence on sovereign peoples/nations/lands.
That's imperialism. It hurts people. It's very sad.
I strongly believe that a "hands off" approach is a far better way to approach international relationships. No coercive pressure. No economic exploitation. The disparity in wealth between rich and poor is astronomical - and I strongly believe that the massive riches of some is all too often NOT based purely on merit.
The extreme wealth of a very small class of people is based more purely on single-minded (and unregulated) ambition. The extreme wealth is based on a willingness to dominate others and "put others down" (including the natural environment.) The tremendous treasure of those few is based in economically exploitative behaviors that, when all is said and done, serve only an individual's economic interest. Some people's wealth comes at the expense of the well-being of others. It's an arrangement that is very far from copacetic.
Please stop the torturing and the bombing. It's a horrible disservice to humanity.
We can choose to go in the direction of truth, love, hope and justice. Or we can continue this horrible decay of war and environmental abuses. We have a choice. Please, President Obama and Administration, use your voice. Lead America toward the right choice. Lead away from violence, fear, and hate. Lead toward kindness, love, truth, justice and peace. Show us that you are not profiteers by clamping down on these tremendously harmful behaviors.
In Afghanistan - there is no military solution short of total destruction, and that is not a solution at all. So there is no military solution. Many people of Afghanistan hate the Taliban. But many of them have come to hate America even more. American soldiers have been told that the way to win the war is to make people fear them more than anyone else. To rule by fear. It's not the way to make friends - nor is it the way to peace.
Does the USA want peace, or does the USA want domination? It's a serious question. The only rational interpretation is that the USA wants domination. The USA can't have it both ways. It's either domination or peace. They don't go hand in hand.
Please choose the path of peace. Please show us the caring spirit that exists in the hearts of all human beings. Please demonstrate your concern for the well-being of all people.
The situation is serious. The planet's ecological systems are in crisis. We need to confront the problem of perpetual economic growth and come to understand that it is antithetical to sustainability. Instead of growth dependent markets, we would do well to transition to a steady state economy.
Thank you.
Capitalism ≠ Democracy
Capitalism does not equal democracy. In fact, in many respects, an under-regulated/deregulated/unregulated capitalism is anti-democratic. In a capitalistic society, where monied interests have privilege and special influence over government, democracy is threatened, because the pre-requisite for full access to political participation is money. Under capitalism, money is the object of worship - instead of democracy, where participation in decision-making by people is the ideal. So, capitalism does not equal democracy. Nor does the practice of free-market capitalism constitute freedom. True freedom necessitates freedom for all. In a capitalism that is practiced without adherence to humanistic moral principles (where, for example, great powers are driven to war with each other for profit,) there is no freedom. There is only slavery. Even the rich are enslaved to the financial bottom-line, enslaved by want for money, and enslaved also by fear of losing money. In a society where capitalistic is under-regulated, the interests of profit are put before the interests of people. People are hurt, sacrificed, and more-or-less enslaved to serve the interests of capital.Instead of this, I think it would be better where people work to serve the interests of themselves, of humanity, and of all life. Toward a life-serving society, Berd
Bohemian Grove Summer Encampment with the Cremation of "Dull Care"
Every Summer, about 2,500 of some of the world's richest and most powerful men gather at the Bohemian Grove. During the encampment's opening ceremony, a ritual sacrifice is performed. It's called the "Cremation of Care." In the initiation, the effigy of a human child named "Dull Care" is ritually sacrificed, and then cremated.
Rumors abound that in times past the ritual involved the sacrifice of a real actual living human child. I don't know if that's true or not. But whether or not that's actually the case, this ceremony is disturbing on many different levels. Two ways in which it is disturbing are: one, the basic idea of human sacrifice, and two, the notion of wanting to do away with care (via cremation.)
Ritual human sacrifice, and cremating care - that is the effigy of a child named "Dull Care": this seems strange to me. What's behind it? - I wonder.
Personally, I think it is wrong. The idea of some of the world's most powerful men gathering, performing ritual human sacrifice, and celebrating the concept of doing away with care: it's just wrong.
Care is a virtue. Care is a form of love - not something to be lightly or gaily discarded. Children are not to be sacrificed. They are to be protected, to be cared for, to be treated with love, understanding, respect, and kindness - to be taught about the magic of life, and the deep and sacred majesty of the planet, and their fellow humankind.
So Please - Don't sacrifice people (even for pretend.) And don't cremate care!
Dear President Obama: Please Stop Bombing Pakistan
Stop Bombing! Stop Imperialism! Put an end to policies of global hegemony!
Obama, you say you are a friend to the American People. Prove it. Kick the corporations out of Washington D.C..
You have the power to say "no." Please. Please, it's your duty.
If government doesn't protect people and planet against the harms and abuses of powerful businesses, industries and corporations, then what or whom will? The planet and humanity must be protected.
Currently, the government of the USA is not protecting people. Currently, the government is more or less corporatist, and enabling and facilitating a system of corporate theft from the commons. The government of the USA is accomplice to social and environmental degradation.
The people and planet are not served by a government that is insufficient to the task of proper regulation against harmful economic activities. The people and planet certainly don't need a government that enables and works with corporations to promote these iniquitous controlling and imperial doctrines of hegemony.
Stop bombing Pakistan. Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan!
Stop the global resource war! The problem are policies and practices of taking by force, of taking without asking -this is imperialism.
There are answers, which include (among many other concepts, ideas and specifics) curtailment, efficient use and finding alternatives.
But please: Stop Imperialism!
Obama, you say you are a friend to the American People. Prove it. Kick the corporations out of Washington D.C..
You have the power to say "no." Please. Please, it's your duty.
If government doesn't protect people and planet against the harms and abuses of powerful businesses, industries and corporations, then what or whom will? The planet and humanity must be protected.
Currently, the government of the USA is not protecting people. Currently, the government is more or less corporatist, and enabling and facilitating a system of corporate theft from the commons. The government of the USA is accomplice to social and environmental degradation. The people and planet are not served by a government that is insufficient to the task of proper regulation against harmful economic activities. The people and planet certainly don't need a government that enables and works with corporations to promote these iniquitous controlling and imperial doctrines of hegemony.
Stop bombing Pakistan. Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan!
Stop the global resource war! The problem are policies and practices of taking by force, of taking without asking -this is imperialism.
There are answers, which include (among many other concepts, ideas and specifics) curtailment, efficient use and finding alternatives.
But please: Stop Imperialism!
Political Frustration and What's Up
I am back in Olympia after a couple weeks spent traveling to Houston, TX and back. It was a good trip, but even after being back for over a week I feel like I am still recovering. I drove out there, by myself, which I wouldn't recommend. It would have been much better to have someone to drive with.
I am back and looking forward to what's next.
So the election is over. Here we are on the precipice of a new day in America. We have the potential for a better government - one that is more geared toward the service of life, rather than the service of big business.
That's what we need. We need a government that is interested in representing people. What we have is a government that is basically representing the interests of the biggest and most powerful, the most influential, businesses. Which is not a bad thing, if you're a big business person. But most of us are not big business people. In fact well over 90% of the world's human population do not derive special benefit from big business. And the fact is that what is good for business is not always good for the greater body of people - in fact what is good for business is often times not good for the overall population - the public.
Now - not all business, businesses, or business activities are disharmonious with the interests of the public (people and planet.) Some business activities can benefit people. But the fact is that many business activities and interests are harmful overall - harmful to the people, to the planet, to plants and animals and ecosystems...
We need a government that is in the service of life. We need a government that is in the service of the people. We need to stand up to, we need to oppose and resist a government that is playing host to the influences of the biggest businesses as they push for imperialism via wars of aggression - as they push for weakened regulation to enable even greater exploitation of resources (be they mineral, human, financial, or whatever.)
We need a government that has an eye not for protection of private property and wealth, we need a government that has an eye for protection of ecosystems, of human rights, civil liberties, and a healthy world to pass on to generations of humans far into the future.
There is Hope. Obama represents a truly new frontier. Someone wrote of the momentous historic aspect of a black family moving into the "White House" (the real color is actually a light tint of green - I saw that on the Discovery channel years ago) - the White House that was the product of a society that was built on the backs of black slaves...
I am so glad that Obama won. However I must be frank and personal - I was frustrated by the Presidential Election because I don't feel that either of the candidates represent my true best interests. It seems to me that government has been hi-jacked by big-business.
This election took the concept of divide and conquer to new territory - the appearance of contrast between the presidential candidates was stark. I am so glad that Obama won the election - or rather, maybe my gladness is more due to McCain (and Palin) not winning. But then again, let's ask: what are the real differences between Obama and McCain? How will the presidency of these two men differ on some of the most formative issues of our time - issues like corporate and foreign policies?
The real work begins now. Special interests are lining up for more of the same - more influence over Congress and White House. It is imperative that the common interest be represented effectively. Public and common interest must be represented in a way that it is clearly prioritized above the special interests of big businesses and corporations.
No longer can motive for financial profit be placed above the health and long term well-being of people, plants, animals, ecosystems and indeed, the whole planet.
Peace to you and good health, bert
I am back and looking forward to what's next.
So the election is over. Here we are on the precipice of a new day in America. We have the potential for a better government - one that is more geared toward the service of life, rather than the service of big business.
That's what we need. We need a government that is interested in representing people. What we have is a government that is basically representing the interests of the biggest and most powerful, the most influential, businesses. Which is not a bad thing, if you're a big business person. But most of us are not big business people. In fact well over 90% of the world's human population do not derive special benefit from big business. And the fact is that what is good for business is not always good for the greater body of people - in fact what is good for business is often times not good for the overall population - the public.
Now - not all business, businesses, or business activities are disharmonious with the interests of the public (people and planet.) Some business activities can benefit people. But the fact is that many business activities and interests are harmful overall - harmful to the people, to the planet, to plants and animals and ecosystems...
We need a government that is in the service of life. We need a government that is in the service of the people. We need to stand up to, we need to oppose and resist a government that is playing host to the influences of the biggest businesses as they push for imperialism via wars of aggression - as they push for weakened regulation to enable even greater exploitation of resources (be they mineral, human, financial, or whatever.)
We need a government that has an eye not for protection of private property and wealth, we need a government that has an eye for protection of ecosystems, of human rights, civil liberties, and a healthy world to pass on to generations of humans far into the future.
There is Hope. Obama represents a truly new frontier. Someone wrote of the momentous historic aspect of a black family moving into the "White House" (the real color is actually a light tint of green - I saw that on the Discovery channel years ago) - the White House that was the product of a society that was built on the backs of black slaves...
I am so glad that Obama won. However I must be frank and personal - I was frustrated by the Presidential Election because I don't feel that either of the candidates represent my true best interests. It seems to me that government has been hi-jacked by big-business.
This election took the concept of divide and conquer to new territory - the appearance of contrast between the presidential candidates was stark. I am so glad that Obama won the election - or rather, maybe my gladness is more due to McCain (and Palin) not winning. But then again, let's ask: what are the real differences between Obama and McCain? How will the presidency of these two men differ on some of the most formative issues of our time - issues like corporate and foreign policies?
The real work begins now. Special interests are lining up for more of the same - more influence over Congress and White House. It is imperative that the common interest be represented effectively. Public and common interest must be represented in a way that it is clearly prioritized above the special interests of big businesses and corporations.
No longer can motive for financial profit be placed above the health and long term well-being of people, plants, animals, ecosystems and indeed, the whole planet.
Peace to you and good health, bert
Post Debate Analysis
I am in Texas. I drove from Washington state. Long drive. Very long. However, it's (relatively) warm outside right now where I am here in Eastern Texas, and I can hear crickets chirping. - So I'm not complaining!
Anyway, I want to mention the U.S. presidential debates. Last night, during the third and final presidential debate, I was crossing the border from Colorado into Kansas. Reception was fuzzy, and I missed some, but I was able to listen to a good portion. I had better reception from about a third of the way until the end.
America is under stress. The people and economy of America are both under duress. There have been so many changes, major and minor, over the last few years and decades. So many changes so fast and we really haven't taken stock of how these changes are affecting people (much less the planet.) So it is with that context that I listened to the debate. Knowing how this society is harming the planet. Knowing how people are hurting. Knowing that there is so much potential and promise - such possibility for such an awesome, nurturing and stable - peaceful and prosperous world - for all.
So I am sad! And it is made all the more acute because I don't have more choices than Obama and McCain. More choices like I would have, for example, if McKinney and Nader were to appear on a preferential ballot. But what came across quite clearly to me was the distinction between these two men, Obama and McCain. What stood out to me, what I noticed in particular were what I perceived as McCain's cheap shots - the falsifications, distortions and even obfuscations.
The reason I will vote for Obama is not that I believe an Obama Administration will likely be the herald of the changes that would be necessary to heal America. The reason I will vote for Obama is more because of John McCain. That said, maybe I am being too harsh on Obama... Obama might actually be a step in the right direction. But I am not sure. And I want more. For example, I want real change on foreign policy. So - it's too bad that my choices are essentially limited by a system that has arbitrarily decided to exclude and discriminate against legitimate third party candidates. This has all the markings of corporatism.
[The media has completely hi-jacked this discussion, which should be front and center for any political discussion in America. American foreign policy is not about defense from terrorists, as the media and too many Washington D.C. public officials / politicians (and an astounding number of public officials / politicians elsewhere) would have me (and you) believe. American foreign policy is about imperialism; it is about dominance and hegemony. The public infrastructure of the U.S. military is being used to pursue this policy. The military is not being used to keep the peace in an altruistic sense. The military, all 700+ foreign military base installations (plus the various fortress flotillas) is being used to prop up a foreign policy of interventionism - a foreign policy of inserting "American friendly" people into strategic locations within governments.
So the media has all but completely hi-jacked this discussion. And what will come of it? Benefit for the American people at large (or the people of the world at large?) I don't think so. We need people in government who can, and will, stand up to this new media tyranny...(But how can we get these people into government when the media controls the government, and the debate? - Maybe it's hopeless to seek change at that level? We need a public interest coup!)]
Tax cuts. McCain's tax cuts would be an escalation of the Bush years. And look what 8 years of Bush have brought us. Financial and economic instability. The rich are richer (and their numbers multiplied), and the poor are poorer. Massive inequities are causing social tension. People are losing their jobs and in danger of losing shelter. Meanwhile, vested interests are benefitting - and influencing government to do more of the same - to promote their benefit at the sake of others' wellbeing. Obama wins on tax cuts. Tax the wealthy. It's not "class-warfare." It's called "just compensation." It's called social interest, and public interest. It's called good-government. Tax the wealthy. Especially the biggest corporations.
There was a lot from the debate. A lot to respond to. It's overwhelming at this point. I guess they succeeded if that's there goal. It just pushes me away really. Makes me want to look toward more localized solutions... It was frustrating at times to listen to the debate. And I wanted to call in to a post-debate public radio show. I probably would have if I wouldn't have forgotten my cellphone battery charger.
I wish Nader would have been allowed to debate!
It was frustrating to hear both Obama and McCain speak against Venezuela - considering all of the positive social reforms that have taken place there. The poor people of Venezuela are being lifted up by their government. They are being provided with the basics for a better life: food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, and work. What's so bad about Venezuela; is it the socialism? If that's the case, then what's bad about socialism in Venezuela, and good about socialism on Wall Street? What's the difference? Or is the distinction just an arbitrary one - is it just a matter of "mine is okay, when yours is not."
I am frustrated because I think it will take more than Obama's chanting "Hope" and "Change" to actually affect meaningful changes within the system. The powers that influence government are deeply entrenched. Does Obama really mean what he says when he talks of advocating reform, or are his words just empty rhetoric, and only designed to boost him into a position of power? What are Obama's true motivations for seeking the presidency? Is it to serve the best and highest interests of the American people - or is it simply to attain power as a manifestation of personal desire, of selfish egoism? America would do well with having, rather than a "politician" as president, having a public service president - a servant to the highest needs and loftiest aspirations of the American people and future generations. The people need health. Healthy food, air, land, water - healthy and stable ecosytems - sustainability. The people need meaningful work. The people need to fit into a sustainable society. The people need to belong to a community. The people need education. The people need justice. (I could go on and on - but people - all people - do have the same needs, a basic set of needs that is common to all people.)
Perhaps most importantly: The people need the truth.
The people do not need to be living, and taking, at the sake of the planetary (human and ecological) community - nor is it at all desirable for the people to do so. The people do not need to be living in a way that is causing harm to other people and the planet.
This planet Earth is a tremendous "gift" - really it is not a gift. It doesn't belong to any of us, nor any group of us, nor all of us collectively. It is of its own. It is a tremendous and wonderful being all on its own. - It is its own. - All of its own, on its own (except for the sun and moon, and other planets, and stars, etc.). It was here before humans came into being. It may likely be here long after humans have faded into the past. The Earth is full - full of such wonder and beauty. There is so much potential. - So it is sad to see so much of it wasted and trashed and abused. I lay this culture of destruction squarely at the feet of politicians and vested business interests, notably in the entertainment and media and military sectors.
Back to the debate and the post debate call-in show. One of the callers to the after-debate public-radio-show mentioned the possibility of war over energy resources. She said it as if there was the future possibility of this happening. Honestly, I think she was being sarcastic or facetious or perhaps just explicitly understating the obvious.
I mean really people! - The Global War on Terror is a facade for active and ongoing wars over energy resources: resource wars - people killing people over things (minerals).
The front line of the United States government's foreign policy of global dominance, aka "hegemony," as it is promoted by big business corporate hegemons - seems to be evinced quite clearly in the obvious efforts to control foreign energy resources. We see this in both Iraq and Afghanistan (the latter being home to a major pipeline.) We see this in Georgia, where fighting recently broke out in a separatist area. Georgia is home to a major pipeline for transporting Caspian sea fossil fuels to the West.
And we also see this developing, most alarmingly, in a posture of belligerence, and in the use of bellicose rhetoric by U.S. officials, toward Iran. About Iran, I will say this: neither the state nor the people of Iran (including the Iranian Revolutionary Guard) are terrorists. If Iran wants to pursue nuclear weapons, why shouldn't it be able to? Shouldn't individual nations have the right to self-determination? What gives the U.S. the right to deliberate which nation can and which nation cannot pursue nuclear power, or nuclear weapons? Forgive my digression. But a U.S. (or Israeli) attack on Iran would have truly devastating economic consequences. Your $10 gallon of gasoline? That would likely do it. America and Americans, and indeed the world, would possibly be pushed into an emergency disaster scenario. All because of political posturing. All because of an attitude of belligerence and a drive for hegemony. It's sick.
These foreign wars over resources, certainly in at least the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, can rightly understood to be aggression, and these wars are illegal and immoral. My government, your government, our government - of the USA - is attacking countries, bullying them. What it's doing is, essentially, to take without asking. It's not much different than what happened a couple hundred years ago with the "Manifest Destiny" when Europeans thought themselves to be superior and rightful in their conquering of the North American continent, much however to the detriment of Native people and culture.
It doesn't have to be like this. There is a better way! Violence is not the solution. People, as individuals and as collective societies, must be treated equally and fairly.
We must ask ourselves what kind of a world we want to leave to future generations: scorched and barren, or healthy and fertile?
We have the power to effect change. We need healing. The planet needs healing. It would be a benefit to have a healer - one who seeks to reconcile, who seeks to achieve mutually beneficial solutions, who seeks to find a balance in the best interests of future generations and in the holistic best interests the whole planet - elected to president. Sadly for America and the World, I do not think that either of Obama or McCain is just such a healer.
###end of rant###
Anyway, I want to mention the U.S. presidential debates. Last night, during the third and final presidential debate, I was crossing the border from Colorado into Kansas. Reception was fuzzy, and I missed some, but I was able to listen to a good portion. I had better reception from about a third of the way until the end.
America is under stress. The people and economy of America are both under duress. There have been so many changes, major and minor, over the last few years and decades. So many changes so fast and we really haven't taken stock of how these changes are affecting people (much less the planet.) So it is with that context that I listened to the debate. Knowing how this society is harming the planet. Knowing how people are hurting. Knowing that there is so much potential and promise - such possibility for such an awesome, nurturing and stable - peaceful and prosperous world - for all.
So I am sad! And it is made all the more acute because I don't have more choices than Obama and McCain. More choices like I would have, for example, if McKinney and Nader were to appear on a preferential ballot. But what came across quite clearly to me was the distinction between these two men, Obama and McCain. What stood out to me, what I noticed in particular were what I perceived as McCain's cheap shots - the falsifications, distortions and even obfuscations.
The reason I will vote for Obama is not that I believe an Obama Administration will likely be the herald of the changes that would be necessary to heal America. The reason I will vote for Obama is more because of John McCain. That said, maybe I am being too harsh on Obama... Obama might actually be a step in the right direction. But I am not sure. And I want more. For example, I want real change on foreign policy. So - it's too bad that my choices are essentially limited by a system that has arbitrarily decided to exclude and discriminate against legitimate third party candidates. This has all the markings of corporatism.
[The media has completely hi-jacked this discussion, which should be front and center for any political discussion in America. American foreign policy is not about defense from terrorists, as the media and too many Washington D.C. public officials / politicians (and an astounding number of public officials / politicians elsewhere) would have me (and you) believe. American foreign policy is about imperialism; it is about dominance and hegemony. The public infrastructure of the U.S. military is being used to pursue this policy. The military is not being used to keep the peace in an altruistic sense. The military, all 700+ foreign military base installations (plus the various fortress flotillas) is being used to prop up a foreign policy of interventionism - a foreign policy of inserting "American friendly" people into strategic locations within governments.
So the media has all but completely hi-jacked this discussion. And what will come of it? Benefit for the American people at large (or the people of the world at large?) I don't think so. We need people in government who can, and will, stand up to this new media tyranny...(But how can we get these people into government when the media controls the government, and the debate? - Maybe it's hopeless to seek change at that level? We need a public interest coup!)]
Tax cuts. McCain's tax cuts would be an escalation of the Bush years. And look what 8 years of Bush have brought us. Financial and economic instability. The rich are richer (and their numbers multiplied), and the poor are poorer. Massive inequities are causing social tension. People are losing their jobs and in danger of losing shelter. Meanwhile, vested interests are benefitting - and influencing government to do more of the same - to promote their benefit at the sake of others' wellbeing. Obama wins on tax cuts. Tax the wealthy. It's not "class-warfare." It's called "just compensation." It's called social interest, and public interest. It's called good-government. Tax the wealthy. Especially the biggest corporations.
There was a lot from the debate. A lot to respond to. It's overwhelming at this point. I guess they succeeded if that's there goal. It just pushes me away really. Makes me want to look toward more localized solutions... It was frustrating at times to listen to the debate. And I wanted to call in to a post-debate public radio show. I probably would have if I wouldn't have forgotten my cellphone battery charger.
I wish Nader would have been allowed to debate!
It was frustrating to hear both Obama and McCain speak against Venezuela - considering all of the positive social reforms that have taken place there. The poor people of Venezuela are being lifted up by their government. They are being provided with the basics for a better life: food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, and work. What's so bad about Venezuela; is it the socialism? If that's the case, then what's bad about socialism in Venezuela, and good about socialism on Wall Street? What's the difference? Or is the distinction just an arbitrary one - is it just a matter of "mine is okay, when yours is not."
I am frustrated because I think it will take more than Obama's chanting "Hope" and "Change" to actually affect meaningful changes within the system. The powers that influence government are deeply entrenched. Does Obama really mean what he says when he talks of advocating reform, or are his words just empty rhetoric, and only designed to boost him into a position of power? What are Obama's true motivations for seeking the presidency? Is it to serve the best and highest interests of the American people - or is it simply to attain power as a manifestation of personal desire, of selfish egoism? America would do well with having, rather than a "politician" as president, having a public service president - a servant to the highest needs and loftiest aspirations of the American people and future generations. The people need health. Healthy food, air, land, water - healthy and stable ecosytems - sustainability. The people need meaningful work. The people need to fit into a sustainable society. The people need to belong to a community. The people need education. The people need justice. (I could go on and on - but people - all people - do have the same needs, a basic set of needs that is common to all people.)
Perhaps most importantly: The people need the truth.
The people do not need to be living, and taking, at the sake of the planetary (human and ecological) community - nor is it at all desirable for the people to do so. The people do not need to be living in a way that is causing harm to other people and the planet.
This planet Earth is a tremendous "gift" - really it is not a gift. It doesn't belong to any of us, nor any group of us, nor all of us collectively. It is of its own. It is a tremendous and wonderful being all on its own. - It is its own. - All of its own, on its own (except for the sun and moon, and other planets, and stars, etc.). It was here before humans came into being. It may likely be here long after humans have faded into the past. The Earth is full - full of such wonder and beauty. There is so much potential. - So it is sad to see so much of it wasted and trashed and abused. I lay this culture of destruction squarely at the feet of politicians and vested business interests, notably in the entertainment and media and military sectors.
Back to the debate and the post debate call-in show. One of the callers to the after-debate public-radio-show mentioned the possibility of war over energy resources. She said it as if there was the future possibility of this happening. Honestly, I think she was being sarcastic or facetious or perhaps just explicitly understating the obvious.
I mean really people! - The Global War on Terror is a facade for active and ongoing wars over energy resources: resource wars - people killing people over things (minerals).
The front line of the United States government's foreign policy of global dominance, aka "hegemony," as it is promoted by big business corporate hegemons - seems to be evinced quite clearly in the obvious efforts to control foreign energy resources. We see this in both Iraq and Afghanistan (the latter being home to a major pipeline.) We see this in Georgia, where fighting recently broke out in a separatist area. Georgia is home to a major pipeline for transporting Caspian sea fossil fuels to the West.
And we also see this developing, most alarmingly, in a posture of belligerence, and in the use of bellicose rhetoric by U.S. officials, toward Iran. About Iran, I will say this: neither the state nor the people of Iran (including the Iranian Revolutionary Guard) are terrorists. If Iran wants to pursue nuclear weapons, why shouldn't it be able to? Shouldn't individual nations have the right to self-determination? What gives the U.S. the right to deliberate which nation can and which nation cannot pursue nuclear power, or nuclear weapons? Forgive my digression. But a U.S. (or Israeli) attack on Iran would have truly devastating economic consequences. Your $10 gallon of gasoline? That would likely do it. America and Americans, and indeed the world, would possibly be pushed into an emergency disaster scenario. All because of political posturing. All because of an attitude of belligerence and a drive for hegemony. It's sick.
These foreign wars over resources, certainly in at least the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, can rightly understood to be aggression, and these wars are illegal and immoral. My government, your government, our government - of the USA - is attacking countries, bullying them. What it's doing is, essentially, to take without asking. It's not much different than what happened a couple hundred years ago with the "Manifest Destiny" when Europeans thought themselves to be superior and rightful in their conquering of the North American continent, much however to the detriment of Native people and culture.
It doesn't have to be like this. There is a better way! Violence is not the solution. People, as individuals and as collective societies, must be treated equally and fairly.
We must ask ourselves what kind of a world we want to leave to future generations: scorched and barren, or healthy and fertile?
We have the power to effect change. We need healing. The planet needs healing. It would be a benefit to have a healer - one who seeks to reconcile, who seeks to achieve mutually beneficial solutions, who seeks to find a balance in the best interests of future generations and in the holistic best interests the whole planet - elected to president. Sadly for America and the World, I do not think that either of Obama or McCain is just such a healer.
###end of rant###
Democrats and Republicans: Good Cop / Bad Cop?
I just wrote this in an email response to a group of people who were sharing their support for the Democrats. Damnit. It's time for truth-telling. Corporatism is hurting people, it is hurting the planet. We can do better. A better world is possible...
So read this:
So read this:
Hi,
I don't know where all of your political leanings are, so I hope not to offend. But I have had it. And it's time for truth-telling.
I am pulling for Ralph Nader.
Obama and McCain are too similar in their corporatism (willingness to drill for oil, go to war against Iran, prolong American empire.)
I've had enough.
I won't be badgered or kowtowed toward the lesser of two evils. Yes. It can rightly be argued that Democrats do less harm than Republicans. Democrats are the lesser of two evils (at least from the liberal perspective). That's how they (both D and R) stay in power.
Divide and Conquer.
Sow fear and watch the masses flock.
Gore Vidal said in 1981 that two parties are really just two wings of the same party. It's still true 27 years later.
We need something better. We deserve something better.
Let Nader Debate (link to campaign issues).
I am disappointed in Obama. I even served as a precinct delegate for him at the local County Democratic Convention/ Caucus.
But I am disillusioned after his recent bows to American foreign policy belligerence.
I might vote for Obama if it close between him and McCain here in Washington State (and given the pathetic condition of the establishment mainstream media - which is, in itself, just another symptom of the big business corporate power two party duopoly - that's a possibility.)
[added here: I might vote for Obama out of sheer pragmatism. But even my belief that the solutions - the path to a better world - might be attainable via baby steps is in doubt. The Democrats are not speaking truth to power. And we need the truth. I support Ralph Nader.]
I support Ralph Nader and it will be just another example of the sham government and political system if challengers like him, and Cynthia McKinney, are disallowed from participating in the election (open debates in particular) as legitimate and credible candidates.
With Love,
bert
Esoteric Function of War
I have posted this before. But it is worthy of reposting. So here it is again. Orwell, in his classic novel, 1984, speaks to the fundamental motives behind perpetual war. Very much worth revisiting on a regular basis:
From Orwell's 1984:
"The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial society...It's a great book. Read George Orwell's 1984.
"...it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction — indeed, in some sense was the destruction — of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance...
"...Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition inevitable. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.
"The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships. Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another Floating Fortress is built. In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population..."
Quotes are courtesy of the program: (The Actors' Gang 1984 Program [pdf]):
All the war-propaganda, all the screaming
and lies and hatred, comes invariably
from people who are not fighting.
~ George Orwell
Every war when it comes, or before it
comes, is represented not as a war but as
an act of self-defense against a homicidal
maniac.
~ George Orwell
The first casualty when war comes is
truth.
~ Hiram Johnson
In a time of universal deceit - telling the
truth is a revolutionary act.
~ George Orwell
The very concept of objective truth is
fading out of the world. Lies will pass
into history.
~ George Orwell
All war is deception.
~ Sun Tzu
War against a foreign country only
happens when the moneyed classes
think they are going to profit from it.
~ George Orwell
The most tyrannical governments are
those which make crimes of opinions, for
everyone has an inalienable right over his
thoughts-- nay, such a state of things
leads to the rule of popular passion.
~ Benedictus de Spinoza, from
Theological-Political Treatise
War is a way of shattering to pieces...
materials which might otherwise be used
to make the masses... too intelligent.
~ George Orwell
Corporate Power: the Ethics of Social and Environmental Degradation
This is a work in progress. Here are few statements that I want to explore, and a few questions that I want to answer and work with in more depth.
1) Statement: Corporate Power - that power which is vested in the biggest and most massive (primarily) international corporations - is doing harm to humanity and to the planet (to animals, plants, rocks, landscapes, mountains, oceans, air, water, etc.).
2) Question: Is it unethical to reap financial profit, from those activities which do harm and cause degradation: whether to individuals, whole societies, or whole systems (eco-systems or planets)? An alternative question is to ask "what are the ethics involved in" the process of reaping financial reward from activities which do harm / cause degradation.
(Yes, moralizing can be difficult, but we have social values and morals and ethics for a reason - to provide for the well-being, and to protect, individual, society, and increasingly more so, the very planet itself.)
Taken to its extreme and ultimate final end product, social and environmental degradation could possibly result in a destroyed planet - i.e. planetary destruction. It's scary to think that humanity may be so advanced "techno'logically'" that it will even be able to escape such a destroyed planet - only to spread a culture of degradation and destruction into other worlds...
1) Statement: Corporate Power - that power which is vested in the biggest and most massive (primarily) international corporations - is doing harm to humanity and to the planet (to animals, plants, rocks, landscapes, mountains, oceans, air, water, etc.).
2) Question: Is it unethical to reap financial profit, from those activities which do harm and cause degradation: whether to individuals, whole societies, or whole systems (eco-systems or planets)? An alternative question is to ask "what are the ethics involved in" the process of reaping financial reward from activities which do harm / cause degradation.
(Yes, moralizing can be difficult, but we have social values and morals and ethics for a reason - to provide for the well-being, and to protect, individual, society, and increasingly more so, the very planet itself.)
Taken to its extreme and ultimate final end product, social and environmental degradation could possibly result in a destroyed planet - i.e. planetary destruction. It's scary to think that humanity may be so advanced "techno'logically'" that it will even be able to escape such a destroyed planet - only to spread a culture of degradation and destruction into other worlds...
America in Peril
I am concerned about the health of America. The economy is in turmoil. Corporate power is elevated to never before seen heights. There is a major push toward privatization and deregulation. It seems that many of the lessons learned after the market crash of October 1929 and the subsequent recession (dubbed the "Great Depression"), have gone unheeded by those who continue to push for unregulated free market economies. However, we have seen that in the absence of governmental oversight, market economies often times have negative and harmful consequences for the general public. It is essential that government manage the economy with an eye toward the public interest and the welfare of all.
This management must encompass taxation to guard against offshore tax havens, it must include regulation to protect against exploitation and inhumane work environments, as well as ethical business practices to guard against graft, extortion. Government must protect against the influence of special private interests. Government must serve the greater good, in the interests of sustainability, human rights, environmental protection and equitable and respectful relations amongst all.
The recent trend in American government toward increased representation of special, private interests particularly in the elite corporate sphere is troubling. Now that America is no longer tithed to the gold standard, it seems that market disaster may be avoidable - but harm to the public is already occurring.
What is scary is the media-ministration of pro-corporate-power-propaganda. This corporate power social privatization agenda is harmful, and truly dangerous to the future health and prosperity of America.
This management must encompass taxation to guard against offshore tax havens, it must include regulation to protect against exploitation and inhumane work environments, as well as ethical business practices to guard against graft, extortion. Government must protect against the influence of special private interests. Government must serve the greater good, in the interests of sustainability, human rights, environmental protection and equitable and respectful relations amongst all.
The recent trend in American government toward increased representation of special, private interests particularly in the elite corporate sphere is troubling. Now that America is no longer tithed to the gold standard, it seems that market disaster may be avoidable - but harm to the public is already occurring.
What is scary is the media-ministration of pro-corporate-power-propaganda. This corporate power social privatization agenda is harmful, and truly dangerous to the future health and prosperity of America.
Turse: Bush Administration Getting it Done on Iraq Oil
From TomDispatch.com:
Tomgram: Nick Turse, The Bush Administration Strikes Oil in Iraq
…and speaking of oil, just when we were barely getting used to Big Oil and Iraq hitting the front pages of American newspapers in tandem, here comes Afghanistan! Who now remembers that delegation of Taliban officials, shepherded by Unocal ("We're an oil and gas company. We go where the oil and gas is…"), back in 1999, that made an all-expenses paid visit to the U.S. There was even that side trip to Mt. Rushmore, while the company (with U.S. encouragement) was negotiating a $1.9 billion pipeline that would bring Central Asian oil and natural gas through Afghanistan to Pakistan? Oh, an! d who was a special consultant to Unocal on the prospective deal? Zalmay Khalilzad, our present neocon ambassador to the U.N., George W. Bush's former viceroy of Kabul and then Baghdad, and a rumored future "Afghan" presidential candidate.
Those pipeline negotiations only broke down definitively in August 2001, one month before, well, you know… and, as Toronto's Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin put it, "Washington was furious, leading to speculation it might take out the Taliban. After 9/11, the Taliban, with good reason, were removed -- and pipeline planning continued with the Karzai government. U.S. forces installed bases near Kandahar, where the pipeline was to run. A key motivation for the pipeline was to block a competing bid involving Iran, a charter member of the 'axis of evil.'"
Well, speak of the dead and not-quite-buried. It turns out that, in April, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India (acronymically TAPI) signed a Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement to build a U.S.-backed $7.6 billion pipeline. It would, of course, bypass Iran and new energy giant Russia, carrying Turkmeni natural gas and oil to Pakistan and India. Construction would, theoretically, begin in 2010. Put the emphasis on "theoretically," because the pipeline is, once again, to run straight through Kandahar and so directly into the heartland of the Taliban insurgency.
Pepe Escobar of Asia Times caught the spirit of the moment perfectly: "The government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which cannot even provide security for a few streets in central Kabul, has engaged in Hollywood-style suspension of disbelief by assuring unsuspecting customers it will not only get rid of millions of land mines blocking TAPI's route, it will get rid of the Taliban themselves." Nonetheless, as in Iraq, American (and NATO) troops could one day be directly protecting (and dying for) the investments of Big Oil in a new version of the old imperial "Great Game" with a special modern emphasis on pipeline politics.
There has been a flurry of reportage on the revived pipeline plan in Canada, where -- bizarrely enough -- journalists and columnists actually worry about such ephemeral possibilities as Canadian troops spending the next half century protecting Turkmeni energy. If you happen to live in the U.S., though, you would really have no way of knowing about such developments, no less their backstory, unless you were wandering the foreign press online.
Nick Turse, author of the indispensable new book, The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives, considers the Iraq oil story that did, at last, hit the mainstream news here (only a few years late in the Great Game) and offers suggestions for mainstream reporters now ready to pursue the story wherever it leads, even back into an ignored, and oily, past. Tom
The Iraqi Oil Ministry's New Fave Five
All the Oil News That's Fit to Print (Attn: The New York Times)
By Nick Turse
Bill Moyers Address to National Conference for Media Reform
Quote from the video: "Sadly, in many respects, the fourth estate has become the fifth column of democracy, colluding with the powers that be in a culture of deception that subverts the thing most necessary to freedom – and that is the truth." – Bill Moyers
Also see here: http://www.freepress.net/node/41318
From Truthout.org [link in title above]:
Media Conference: The Freedom That Makes Freedom PossibleVideo is also, alternately, available at YouTube.com: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0r71L7cojE
Saturday 07 June 2008
by: Bennett Gordon, Utne Reader
Bill Moyers addresses the need for responsible public media.
Legendary journalist Bill Moyers address the National Conference for Media Reform in Minneapolis, June 7, 2008. Presented by FreePress.net.
"As journalism goes, so goes democracy," renowned PBS host Bill Moyers told the crowd at the National Conference for Media Reform. And right now, journalism is in trouble.
In his serious and eloquent style, Moyers warned the crowd of the "mighty armada of power and influence" that threatens the media and democracy today-propagating junk news that dominates the national discussion and forces out more legitimate and competing storylines.
There is one central tenet that runs through the media reform movement, according to Moyers: Everyone here sees media consolidation as a "corrosive force." As the wall between journalism and advertising is broken down by businesses pushing profit over public good, honest information and accountability in this country literally disappears. He called out the "myths of the marketplace," including the idea that private systems will provide for the public good, and the business mantra that public interest is what the public is interested in.
Moyers effortlessly drew connections from the complicity of the media in the war in Iraq to the near-constant attacks on the environment, from the "political marionettes" in Washington, D.C., to the soaring credit card debt and inequality in America today. The way to combat these problems is with media reform, and the only way reform the media is with a healthy and popular movement.
"In numbers is strength, and in strength is success," Moyers told the crowd of journalists and activists, urging them to support a diversity of voices from all communities. He called on journalists and activists to "be vigilant" and "show courage," because their job is literally to protect "the freedom that makes all other freedom possible."
Support Our Troops?
It's frustrating to hear people say how they support our troops, while at the same time supporting the Bush Administration, President Bush et al., and the 'wars' in Iraq, Afghanistan and 'against terror.'
Prominent members from within the Bush Administration, and associated interests, have led this nation into aggressive military conflicts. The 'wars' are based on lies. The 'wars' are exacerbating anti-American sentiment. Our troops are being sacrificed, not to defend our freedom or to provide for our security, but instead to protect the interests of, and to support the expansion of, Western Corporations and Corporatist Governments (e.g. the US Gov't under Bush and to be fair, Clinton before him.)
From Mr. Fish:
Prominent members from within the Bush Administration, and associated interests, have led this nation into aggressive military conflicts. The 'wars' are based on lies. The 'wars' are exacerbating anti-American sentiment. Our troops are being sacrificed, not to defend our freedom or to provide for our security, but instead to protect the interests of, and to support the expansion of, Western Corporations and Corporatist Governments (e.g. the US Gov't under Bush and to be fair, Clinton before him.)
From Mr. Fish:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)