Showing posts with label doing what is right. Show all posts
Showing posts with label doing what is right. Show all posts
Truthfulness is Necessary to Right Way of Life
Those who reject truth cannot win. You can quote me on that. Not to imply that winning is necessary to living right. But being truthful, and pursuing the right way of life, is winning in itself.
Some Photos and What Not
What's up. Lot's of stuff going on recently. Both locally and globally (and seemingly everything in between.) I have been spending a lot of time thinking and conversing about recent events, mostly as they relate to city government, here in Olympia, Washington. Two major things have attracted the focus of my energy. One is the City Council's vote in approval of a motion to ordain the repeal of the 2005 Nuclear Free Zone Act (an ordinance - i.e. city law.) I oppose the repeal of the ordinance - for a lot of reasons. [video of the September 9th, 2008 Council Meeting including the NFZA repeal and related testimony: Nuclear Free Zone Repeal City Council Meeting]
The NFZA ordinance seeks to prohibit the storage, transport, and production of nuclear weapons within city limits. It also seeks to inform city buying and contracting practices, in order to avoid doing business with companies which are vested in the nuclear weapons industry...
It was a sad day when the vote to repeal went through. What does this repeal motion say about Olympia?
Public officials at the national level use hostile and belligerent rhetoric - even including threats of nuclear attack - in an effort to badger and influence - to intimidate - their adversaries.
These same public officials are supposed to be working toward the goal of disarmament. But they are doing the exact opposite. They are promoting hostility. They are promoting the nuclear weapons establishment...
So this decision to repeal does not reflect the true will of the people. The true will of the people is to take constructive action toward peace.
The other matter of city business that I have been involved in has been the Council's consideration of a spot rezone on the Isthmus of downtown Olympia. I have been posting about that issue some here at In the Course and also at OlyBlog, which seems to be disabled currently (at 2:30pm on Monday, September 22, 2008.)
I have been up to other stuff too. I took 182 photographs yesterday. I posted quite a few of them up to flickr, so go check them out (link is in the side-bar - at the top.)
I'll post a sampling of the photos here. These are all from the City of Olympia Watershed Park:
Forest
Citizens for the Future
Forest Trees
Watershed Park Bridge
On the Trail at Watershed Park
Dark Woods Trail
Leaning Stump on the Trail
[post updated, 5:03 pm 9/22/08]
The NFZA ordinance seeks to prohibit the storage, transport, and production of nuclear weapons within city limits. It also seeks to inform city buying and contracting practices, in order to avoid doing business with companies which are vested in the nuclear weapons industry...
It was a sad day when the vote to repeal went through. What does this repeal motion say about Olympia?
Public officials at the national level use hostile and belligerent rhetoric - even including threats of nuclear attack - in an effort to badger and influence - to intimidate - their adversaries.
These same public officials are supposed to be working toward the goal of disarmament. But they are doing the exact opposite. They are promoting hostility. They are promoting the nuclear weapons establishment...
So this decision to repeal does not reflect the true will of the people. The true will of the people is to take constructive action toward peace.
The other matter of city business that I have been involved in has been the Council's consideration of a spot rezone on the Isthmus of downtown Olympia. I have been posting about that issue some here at In the Course and also at OlyBlog, which seems to be disabled currently (at 2:30pm on Monday, September 22, 2008.)
I have been up to other stuff too. I took 182 photographs yesterday. I posted quite a few of them up to flickr, so go check them out (link is in the side-bar - at the top.)
I'll post a sampling of the photos here. These are all from the City of Olympia Watershed Park:
Forest
Citizens for the Future
Forest Trees
Watershed Park Bridge
On the Trail at Watershed Park
Dark Woods Trail
Leaning Stump on the Trail
[post updated, 5:03 pm 9/22/08]
Members of Congress Invested in Military Industry
Would you be surprised to know that a significant number of Congresspeople have significant personal investments and financial stake in the military industry? This information sheds new light on Eisenhower's reference to the "Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex."
Somehow, I think the following estimation is conservative. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a majority of Members of Congress have quite substantial investments in the "defense", military industry, and related fields.
This raises the question for me of whether or not it is appropriate for lawmakers (who wield such tremendous power to make or break certain industries) to hold any private investments. I mean, shouldn't the prospect of public service be enough for a career politician? It seems that there are some politicians who are in it less for the public service aspects than for the ability to garner power, and wealth.
Lawmakers wield tremendous power and influence over the functions of society and the economy. Should they be allowed to participate in and make decisions on matters that have direct bearing on their own investments and personal financial wealth?
Somehow, I think the following estimation is conservative. I wouldn't be surprised to find that a majority of Members of Congress have quite substantial investments in the "defense", military industry, and related fields.
This raises the question for me of whether or not it is appropriate for lawmakers (who wield such tremendous power to make or break certain industries) to hold any private investments. I mean, shouldn't the prospect of public service be enough for a career politician? It seems that there are some politicians who are in it less for the public service aspects than for the ability to garner power, and wealth.
Lawmakers wield tremendous power and influence over the functions of society and the economy. Should they be allowed to participate in and make decisions on matters that have direct bearing on their own investments and personal financial wealth?
go to original
Lawmakers have $196M invested in defense industry
Study of Congress says conflict of interest possible in votes on Iraq spending
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press
Published on: 04/03/08
WASHINGTON — Members of Congress have as much as $196 million collectively invested in companies doing business with the Defense Department, earning millions since the onset of the Iraq war, according to a study [link to study] by a nonpartisan research group.
Not all the companies in which lawmakers invested are typical defense contractors. Corporations such as PepsiCo, IBM, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson have at one point received defense-related contracts, notes the report by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.
The center's review of lawmakers' 2006 financial disclosure statements suggests that members' holdings could pose a conflict of interest as they decide the fate of Iraq war spending. Several members earning money from these contractors have plum committee or leadership assignments, including Democratic Sen. John Kerry, independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.
The study found that more Republicans than Democrats hold stock in defense companies, but that the Democrats who are invested had significantly more money at stake. In 2006, for example, Democrats held at least $3.7 million in military-related investments, compared to Republican investments of $577,500.
Overall, 151 members hold investments worth $78.7 million to $195.5 million in companies that receive defense contracts that are worth at least $5 million. These investments earned them anywhere between $15.8 million and $62 million between 2004 and 2006, the center concludes.
It is unclear how many members still hold these investments and exactly how much money has been made. Disclosure reports for 2007 aren't due until this May. Also, members are required to report only a general range of their holdings.
According to the report, presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain did not report any defense-related holdings on their filings; Hillary Rodham Clinton did note holdings in such companies as Honeywell, Boeing and Raytheon, but sold the stock in May 2007. All three candidates are members of the Senate.
Earning dividends from companies tied to the military "could be problematic" for lawmakers who oversee defense policy and budgeting, noted the center's Lindsay Renick Mayer. Avoiding every company with a military contract, however, would not be easy for an investor.
"So common are these companies, both as personal investments and as defense contractors, it would appear difficult to build a diverse blue-chip stock portfolio without at least some of them," Mayer wrote
Kerry, D-Mass., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is identified as earning the most — at least $2.6 million between 2004 and 2006 from investments worth up to $38.2 million.
Spokesman David Wade said Kerry, who staunchly opposes the war in Iraq, is one of many beneficiaries of family trusts that he doesn't control. Wade also noted that Kerry does not sit on the Appropriations Committee, which has direct control of the defense budget.
"He has a 24-year Senate record of working and voting in the best interests of our men and women in the military, not of any defense contractors," Wade said.
Lieberman, I-Conn., chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and a member of the Armed Services Committee, held a considerably smaller share at $51,000. A spokesman said the senator, who supports continued operations in Iraq, is "careful to make his policy decisions based only on what is best for the country."
A spokesman for Blunt, R-Mo., a senior member of House GOP leadership who held at least $15,000 in Lockheed Martin stock in 2006, said the insinuation that lawmakers' votes might be affected by their portfolios is "offensive." Like Lieberman, Blunt has been a fierce supporter of the war.
"I don't pretend to speak for other offices, but I am fairly certain that no member would consider their personal finances when voting on issues as important as sending our men and women in uniform into harm's way," said Blunt spokesman Nick Simpson. The Lockheed Martin stock was given to Blunt's wife by her mother, he said.
What if the Occupier Were to Come to this Land
What if it were you. What if, for example, a foreign country X decided that it was in its best interests to invade YOUR country. Let's use water as an example here. What if Country X was worried about running out of water. It's people were in danger, in the not so distant future, of not having sufficient water to live normally.
So Country X started to think about how important it is economically that mostly everyone have enough water to function normally. So they start to buy water from foreign countries. At first a little, then some more, then a lot. This goes on for some time, and most people are mostly happy. Country X starts to build a big military so that it can protect its water interests in the future, because it looks like there might not be enough for everyone in the world to have enough. And they want to make sure that they have access to enough for themselves.
At some point, Country X runs into some major water problems. There is fast approaching a point where there is just not enough supply to meet growing demands... And yuck, they even managed to contaminate large amounts of their own native supplies. Whoops. But damn, wasn't building that military a good idea. Because you know what, Country X is now able to go into other countries and take water without asking. In fact, this idea of using military conquest for resource control even has the potential to be lucrative for those who know how to work it.
What if this were to happen? What if it were to happen to you? What if you found soldiers from Country X in your city, hooking up hoses to your artesian well and shipping it back, perhaps even across an ocean to another continent. Hooking up to the water that you have always depended on for your quality of life in order to supply its own people with enough water so that they can function normally? Don't worry they say - they will start to pay you for the water once they hold elections and establish a new government.
This is what is happening in Iraq. The US is piping oil from Iraq to ships that then bring it to the USA.
I like the old adage that you get what you give.
I want the USA to be aware of how it wages wars for control over resources. Because it might come back to haunt "us" someday. Maybe there is a Country X somewhere out there, polluting its own water resources, watching its supplies struggle to keep up with demands in the face of a growing, and thirsty, population - and anticipating a time when it may be necessary to occupy other countries in order to ensure its own access to sufficient water supplies. Water, oil, air, land. Isn't it time that we figure out ways to use and share the resources of this planet responsibly so that aggressive wars of control over resources are not necessary in the first place?
There are other options besides fueling an addiction to easy petroleum. We need to explore those alternatives if we care about human rights and human dignity. There will be other options, in the future, besides waging wars over who gets access to the world's great water supplies. We can enable those options by speaking out against the great crime of our day - the aggressive crusade for control over oil in Iraq.
Water, unlike petroleum, is absolutely necessary to life on Earth. We need to learn how (if we care about the well-being of future generations) to share and use the Earth's resources responsibly before major wars over water erupt. Because it might just be us who wake up to occupiers in our own backyard.
So Country X started to think about how important it is economically that mostly everyone have enough water to function normally. So they start to buy water from foreign countries. At first a little, then some more, then a lot. This goes on for some time, and most people are mostly happy. Country X starts to build a big military so that it can protect its water interests in the future, because it looks like there might not be enough for everyone in the world to have enough. And they want to make sure that they have access to enough for themselves.
At some point, Country X runs into some major water problems. There is fast approaching a point where there is just not enough supply to meet growing demands... And yuck, they even managed to contaminate large amounts of their own native supplies. Whoops. But damn, wasn't building that military a good idea. Because you know what, Country X is now able to go into other countries and take water without asking. In fact, this idea of using military conquest for resource control even has the potential to be lucrative for those who know how to work it.
What if this were to happen? What if it were to happen to you? What if you found soldiers from Country X in your city, hooking up hoses to your artesian well and shipping it back, perhaps even across an ocean to another continent. Hooking up to the water that you have always depended on for your quality of life in order to supply its own people with enough water so that they can function normally? Don't worry they say - they will start to pay you for the water once they hold elections and establish a new government.
This is what is happening in Iraq. The US is piping oil from Iraq to ships that then bring it to the USA.
I like the old adage that you get what you give.
I want the USA to be aware of how it wages wars for control over resources. Because it might come back to haunt "us" someday. Maybe there is a Country X somewhere out there, polluting its own water resources, watching its supplies struggle to keep up with demands in the face of a growing, and thirsty, population - and anticipating a time when it may be necessary to occupy other countries in order to ensure its own access to sufficient water supplies. Water, oil, air, land. Isn't it time that we figure out ways to use and share the resources of this planet responsibly so that aggressive wars of control over resources are not necessary in the first place?
There are other options besides fueling an addiction to easy petroleum. We need to explore those alternatives if we care about human rights and human dignity. There will be other options, in the future, besides waging wars over who gets access to the world's great water supplies. We can enable those options by speaking out against the great crime of our day - the aggressive crusade for control over oil in Iraq.
Water, unlike petroleum, is absolutely necessary to life on Earth. We need to learn how (if we care about the well-being of future generations) to share and use the Earth's resources responsibly before major wars over water erupt. Because it might just be us who wake up to occupiers in our own backyard.
Question of Conscience
“Cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ Vanity asks the question, ‘Is is popular?’ But, conscience asks the question, ‘Is it right?’ and there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one’s conscience tells one that it is right.”
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)