Viewer be advised: This is very graphic and highly disturbing material.
Showing posts with label dominance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dominance. Show all posts
No Donkey! No Elephant!
No Donkey, No Elephant
"No" to bi-partisan support for U.S. international policies.
Policies of dominance and aggression, and exploitation of overseas material and labor resources are wrong - these policies are harmful and violent!
If the U.S.A. wants to counteract "extremist" opposition - then the people of the U.S. will need to take a look at the extremely abusive economic policies that have their roots in U.S. policies and practices.
No to Abusive Economic Policies!
View Larger: No Donkey, No Elephant
Cremation of Care
One of the biggest stories that I followed in 2009 was about the Bohemian Grove and the Cremation of Care. In early June of 2009, Lindsey Baum, an eleven year old child from McCleary, Washington went missing (and was possibly abducted.) McCleary is near Olympia and the story received a lot of attention. For some reason, the abduction of this child struck me, and made me think of the Cremation of Care ceremony that occurs at the annual midsummer Bohemian Grove encampment. In the ceremony, the effigy of a child named Dull Care gets cremated.Alex Jones claims to have infiltrated the grove and the ceremony, and to have made the following video of the ceremony - which is shocking and highly disturbing.
I believe that to care is a virtue, and oughtn't be thought of as onerous or burdensome. And as you can see from the video of the ceremony, it is obvious that some of the members of the Bohemian Grove may think differently - maybe even going so far as to think of care as an obstacle to the workings of the marketplace.
An attitude of disdain for care - amongst some of the world's most powerful, and influential, men of business and government - an attitude of disdain for the important necessary moral place of care in our society is, I believe, a tremendous driver of social and environmental violence (ranging from child abductions and other domestic violence, to industrial pollution, global warming, and the extinction of species, to the structural roots of the world's problem of one billion chronically hungry human beings, to war and the military-congressional-industrial complex, and the multitudinous various oppressions and injustices that exist in between...)
I don't know about the authenticity of this video - but it seems to be genuine. I don't know how Alex Jones could have possibly infiltrated the Grove - he even claims to have been stopped numerous times by security, meanwhile the secret camera he has in a bag just happens to be out of tape at the time. I think it's possible that the Jones video was done with some sort of consent (very much unlike Alex Shoumatoff's visit.) And I certainly do not necessarily agree with Alex Jones on everything, including some of the comments made in the video (some of which sounded quite racist, homophobic, and anti-pagan (just because the Bohos do some pagan ritual doesn't mean that all paganism is corrupt and/or evil!)) But the ceremony is interesting to see, and you can judge for yourself.
Your truth will set you free.
So check it out, and see/decide for yourself.
And I should add a warning - this video is quite shocking and disturbing.
Here's what I think is the full length video, though I can't be sure. The CC Ceremony starts about 1 hour and 17 minutes into the video:
The following video is a smaller excerpt from the above. I recommend watching the above.
http://www.blogger.com/video-play.mp4?contentId=5ebf0bd11a8549b5&type=video%2Fmp4
Here's an embed of the same video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5617720002953136903
Who Would Jesus Bomb
Who would Jesus bomb?
Christmas Day, 2009
Olympia Fellowship of Reconciliation Peace Vigil
Percival Landing, Olympia, Washington
War is immoral. All war begins with aggression. Aggression is immoral. Military aggression is widely considered immoral, and there are numerous international legally binding treaties established against war of aggression. It is probably unanimous amongst international political bodies that aggression is immoral and illegal. How could it not be? If stealing is illegal, if rape is illegal, if murder is illegal - then how could the most horrendous violence possible - the violence of a war of aggression - ever be considered legal.
Self-defense is one thing. A reasonable and proportional self-defense against immediate attack. But the wars of the United States of America are a different beast. The wars of the USA are not truly self-defense - nor a legitimate protection of "national interest." What the wars of the USA defend is the selfishness and the greed of the USA. The wars are an effort to further international policies of and practices of oppression and exploitation, under which the USA operates. The wars of the USA do not truly defend the national interest. The wars and international policies of the USA defend the corporate interest - the interest of the most influential and powerful (typically multi-national) giant corporations.
War is immoral. For good reason. War is the worst violence known to humanity. War is waste. It is oblivion. War is destruction defined.
People and nations have a right to defend themselves. But people and nations do not have a right - and in fact they betray the rights of all people - when they commit the crime of a war of aggression.
The wars of the USA are aggressive wars - imperialistic wars - wars designed to further the establishment of dominance - of global hegemony.
I believe that the imperialism of the USA, and the giant corporations that are its keepers, is the worst violence known to modern humanity.
But this perspective - these truths - are very effectively kept away from the American people by a revolving door between cultural affectation, and a media structure that feed off of, and create, each other.
There is a horrible myth in today's America, and to a lesser extent in today's world. It is the myth that America is the greatest nation on Earth - when in reality, the very opposite may be true. It may be more true that America is the worst nation on Earth - that America is the world's greatest perpetrator of violence and oppression - even to the point of wars of aggression, conquest and imperialism.
In America, terrible violence is part of mainstream culture. In America, there is a disparity in wealth between rich and poor that is maintained through systematic oppression.
In America, some people make profit when bombs are dropped. People profit when wars are waged. People profit from all sorts of harmful, destructive and violent economic (and anti-economic) activities!
So, really, I ask you to please answer this question: who would Jesus bomb?
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
Thanking the Troops
I just posted a version of this on the White House Facebook page:
Thanking the Troops
Imagine that the troops are actually doing the work that they are popularly claimed to be doing - that is, protecting us from irrational terrorists, (the "bad guys,") whom are bent upon destruction of our way of life (we're the "good guys!") Assuming that's the case, then hell yeah - thanks for protecting us.
But then again, what if it's not so simple—not so clear. What if the truth is something different than that reality as presented so often in mainstream media. What if the troops are actually protecting US access to global mineral resources? What if the troops are actually enabling the execution of a foreign policy of dominance? Should we still thank them if it turns out that they aren't protecting us? What if the truth is that they are actually protecting the interests of oil companies, war contractors, and the likes of Halliburton, et al.?
The reality on the ground—the truth as I see it, is that the USA is pursuing a foreign policy of dominance. That's to say that the goal of the US government is to enable domination of the global economy by US and Western, and other associated interests.
It can also be rightly stated and understood that the US attack on Iraq was unprovoked. And even though the attack of Afghanistan was (arguably) provoked by the 9/11 attacks, it also doesn't mean that the attack was justified (either by law or by legitimate defensive strategy.)
The greatest crime is a foreign policy of dominance as it seeks to employ the means of violence, militarism and aggression in order to accomplish it's oppressive ends. This dominance policy is a foreign policy of might makes right, and it would be absolutely intolerable if it was being practiced against "us" rather than by "us." (''Us" in quotes because of my desire to separate myself from the dreadfully wrong foreign policy of my government.)
The above sign is a sticker as it was seen on the front door of a restaurant in Northern Wisconsin (where, perhaps coincidentally, my long beard received plenty of stares.)
So, Thank You. Thank you to those soldiers who refuse to serve in illegal and immoral imperial wars of aggression. You're the real heroes. You're the ones who dutifully uphold your oath of service, your oath to the constitution.
To those troops who serve either willingly or unwillingly, I am so sad. And I am sorry that you have been thrust into this horrible position. I will continue to work to hold our government accountable so that the military is not used to further aggressive and intrusive foreign policy agendas.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwhitlock/3141396189/
Thanking the Troops
Imagine that the troops are actually doing the work that they are popularly claimed to be doing - that is, protecting us from irrational terrorists, (the "bad guys,") whom are bent upon destruction of our way of life (we're the "good guys!") Assuming that's the case, then hell yeah - thanks for protecting us.
But then again, what if it's not so simple—not so clear. What if the truth is something different than that reality as presented so often in mainstream media. What if the troops are actually protecting US access to global mineral resources? What if the troops are actually enabling the execution of a foreign policy of dominance? Should we still thank them if it turns out that they aren't protecting us? What if the truth is that they are actually protecting the interests of oil companies, war contractors, and the likes of Halliburton, et al.?
The reality on the ground—the truth as I see it, is that the USA is pursuing a foreign policy of dominance. That's to say that the goal of the US government is to enable domination of the global economy by US and Western, and other associated interests.
It can also be rightly stated and understood that the US attack on Iraq was unprovoked. And even though the attack of Afghanistan was (arguably) provoked by the 9/11 attacks, it also doesn't mean that the attack was justified (either by law or by legitimate defensive strategy.)
The greatest crime is a foreign policy of dominance as it seeks to employ the means of violence, militarism and aggression in order to accomplish it's oppressive ends. This dominance policy is a foreign policy of might makes right, and it would be absolutely intolerable if it was being practiced against "us" rather than by "us." (''Us" in quotes because of my desire to separate myself from the dreadfully wrong foreign policy of my government.)
The above sign is a sticker as it was seen on the front door of a restaurant in Northern Wisconsin (where, perhaps coincidentally, my long beard received plenty of stares.)
So, Thank You. Thank you to those soldiers who refuse to serve in illegal and immoral imperial wars of aggression. You're the real heroes. You're the ones who dutifully uphold your oath of service, your oath to the constitution.
To those troops who serve either willingly or unwillingly, I am so sad. And I am sorry that you have been thrust into this horrible position. I will continue to work to hold our government accountable so that the military is not used to further aggressive and intrusive foreign policy agendas.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rwhitlock/3141396189/
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
Care is "Dull" at the Bohemian Grove: Global Dominance, Economic Exploitation, and Social Violence
I left the following comment on The Olympian.com. I believe that the problems of social violence, economic exploitation, and environmental degradation are connected with policies like global dominance, which is a political concept espoused by many of the most powerful men in the world, some of whom meet at the Bohemian Grove (near Monte Rio, CA), for a Summer Encampment - where they celebrate the "Cremation of Care." Here's a link to a story about the case of Lindsey Baum. Lindsey is a missing child, who disappeared more than four months ago. I believe the problem of missing children is interrelated with other problems of society. Link to the story with my comment: After four months, authorities have little evidence in Lindsey Baum case
And here's the comment I made:
And here's the comment I made:
I am of the opinion that the problem of missing children is directly related to the societal ethics of putting profit before people. Lindsey Baum went missing about a month before the annual Bohemian Grove Summer Encampment. At the encampment, some of the world's most powerful businessmen and political decision makers partake in a ceremony called The Cremation of Care, which involves the ritual cremation of "Dull Care" - the effigy of a sacrificed child. I believe this attitude - that care is dull - on the part of the world's most powerful men is directly related to societal violence, and domestic abuses, including but certainly not limited to child disappearances and abductions.
[more information:] Missing Children, Global Dominance, The Bohemian Grove, and The Cremation of Care
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.
War is a Government Riot
The government uses war as a supposed solution to conflict. But war is really unnecessary. Our own government engages in offensive wars of conquest (AKA: Aggression), cloaking it as "necessary defense" against terrorism. But it's not necessary. And to boot, it was policies and politics (and specific practices) of (and related to) conquest (AKA domination and/or imperialism), which have created the environment and the will for terrorists and terrorism to develop.
On the Right Side of the Law
Laws, and rules, exist to protect people, and planet. If rules do not protect people, then of what good are they - of what use?Protesters who oppose the use of public roadways and municipal transportation facilities, for enablement of movement of military hardware that is destined for the cause of imperialistic and interventionist wars, are on the right side of the law - even to the point when they act in direct action, civil resistance (necessarily nonviolent,) to the military traffic.
Mass nonviolent civil resistance is a promising avenue of direct action for stopping the imperialism of the government of the USA. Real policy changes must occur. The current corruption is much too costly.
(In part, to the people of law enforcement agencies:) Get on the right side of the law. Oppose imperialism and aggression!
Nonviolent Strike Against War!
Six Year War Anniversary Protest
March 2009, Iraq War Sixth Anniversary Protest
Six years of war in Iraq. The imperialistic set of foreign affairs are unacceptable.
Interaction on Flickr: Speaking the Truth about Empire and Conquest
I often engage others in political discussion on the Internet. Flickr is a frequent locale for such discussion. The open format there, and focus on photographs, gives a really topical format which lends itself to discussion. Here's an example of a recent interaction:
Here's how to deal with Iran and N. Korea
America airpower can, alone, deliver massive devastation on military, government, and economic targets inside these nations with virtual impunity.
Comments
scarley says:
this is a really beautiful shot.
^Berd says:
Looks like something out of star wars - the evil empire strikes back.
Wayne in Indy says:
Thank you. Your definition of America as an "evil empire" illustrates with perfect clarity the stark contrast between how liberals and conservatives see America.
scarley says:
Scarlett is ashamed of people like ^Berd. Shame on you. SHAME ON YOU!!! These guys keep you SAFE! These guys are the product of freedom. They are the product of freedom to explore technology and science. Freedom to create! These wouldn't be if it were not for our freedom. And in this day in age, were it not for these, our freedom would be overrun.
Wayne in Indy says:
You're wasting your breath, Scar. He's commented on other of my photos. In Berd's view, America is the "evil" in the world. And he equates the idea of "America First" with "hatred". Get this: When I related my world-view to him, he bagan to ask me if I'd had a traumatic-type childhood!
It's the liberal mindset, Scar. If some Tyrone-from-the-ghetto type [check on the racism -berd] attacked and assaulted my wife, I'd happily blow the guy away without a second thought. If the same happened to Berd's wife, however, he'd likely try to "understand" what might have motivated the animal in question to perpetrate such a misdeed. Berd would likely conclude that the real criminal was George Bush because he didn't shovel more money into the ghettos which, in turn, caused the poor man to "strike out" at society.
Don't laugh. This is how these people think.
scarley says:
Oh I don't think it's funny at all. I think it's pitiful and shameful.
^Berd says:
Freedom to create—weapons of mass destruction. What an irony.
These machines are used as tools of empire and conquest. That's not creative. That's destructive. These machines are used to wage war and instill fear in those whom are opposed to the military and economic juggernaut of the USA.
The USA has so much potential to be a truly uplifting and constructive force in the world. But the current situation, the status quo is of tremendous harm. The current economic reality is one of planetary environmental and social degradation.
The USA is on the road to empire. The USA is on the road to ruin.
To save our republic - Stop our empire!
All human beings deserve to be treated equally and fairly.
Oppression, in all of its forms, must be challenged, opposed and eradicated. Another world is possible. A world where human beings belong to a universal fellowship of love, respect and tolerance of personal differences... Another world is possible. A world where cooperation—not conquest—is the principle. A world where people everywhere share, and hold in trust for all, the limited resources afforded by this wonderful planet.
Here's how to deal with Iran and N. Korea
America airpower can, alone, deliver massive devastation on military, government, and economic targets inside these nations with virtual impunity.
Comments
scarley says:
this is a really beautiful shot.
^Berd says:
Looks like something out of star wars - the evil empire strikes back.
Wayne in Indy says:
Thank you. Your definition of America as an "evil empire" illustrates with perfect clarity the stark contrast between how liberals and conservatives see America.
scarley says:
Scarlett is ashamed of people like ^Berd. Shame on you. SHAME ON YOU!!! These guys keep you SAFE! These guys are the product of freedom. They are the product of freedom to explore technology and science. Freedom to create! These wouldn't be if it were not for our freedom. And in this day in age, were it not for these, our freedom would be overrun.
Wayne in Indy says:
You're wasting your breath, Scar. He's commented on other of my photos. In Berd's view, America is the "evil" in the world. And he equates the idea of "America First" with "hatred". Get this: When I related my world-view to him, he bagan to ask me if I'd had a traumatic-type childhood!
It's the liberal mindset, Scar. If some Tyrone-from-the-ghetto type [check on the racism -berd] attacked and assaulted my wife, I'd happily blow the guy away without a second thought. If the same happened to Berd's wife, however, he'd likely try to "understand" what might have motivated the animal in question to perpetrate such a misdeed. Berd would likely conclude that the real criminal was George Bush because he didn't shovel more money into the ghettos which, in turn, caused the poor man to "strike out" at society.
Don't laugh. This is how these people think.
scarley says:
Oh I don't think it's funny at all. I think it's pitiful and shameful.
^Berd says:
Freedom to create—weapons of mass destruction. What an irony.
These machines are used as tools of empire and conquest. That's not creative. That's destructive. These machines are used to wage war and instill fear in those whom are opposed to the military and economic juggernaut of the USA.
The USA has so much potential to be a truly uplifting and constructive force in the world. But the current situation, the status quo is of tremendous harm. The current economic reality is one of planetary environmental and social degradation.
The USA is on the road to empire. The USA is on the road to ruin.
To save our republic - Stop our empire!
All human beings deserve to be treated equally and fairly.
Oppression, in all of its forms, must be challenged, opposed and eradicated. Another world is possible. A world where human beings belong to a universal fellowship of love, respect and tolerance of personal differences... Another world is possible. A world where cooperation—not conquest—is the principle. A world where people everywhere share, and hold in trust for all, the limited resources afforded by this wonderful planet.
Go Obama!
Happy Inauguration Day! I was inspired by President Obama's message for hope and change, and I look forward to support President Obama, and encouraging him to approach necessary changes to a culture of conquest. It is important to remember how violent and destructive Western Societies have been toward indigenous populations and traditional cultures. As technology has developed, it has been used more and more to oppress human societies, and to exploit the material resources of the Earth. So, if we want change to truly better the position of humanity in the world, then we will have to explore and reconcile these fundamental conflicts between popular culture and the interests of sustainability and future generations.Instead of seeking to defeat those who oppose the culture of conquest, it would be better to be open to dialogue and peaceful resolution of differences. Violence has not brought peace to our lives, and there is no rational reason to believe that it is capable of doing so.
In Nonviolent resolution of conflict and disagreement there is the greatest hope for uplifting and mutually beneficial, sustainable and lasting, and true solutions. Culture of conquest and militarism must continue to be vigorously challenged: I support President Barak Obama's potential to courageously come forward to speak these truths about, and confront, the harmful aspects of present day society.
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###
God, Gold, War, Oil Pipelines, and Sarah Palin
These videos of Sarah Palin speaking in a church is a scary example of fundamentalist thought and ethos.
It reminds me of a recent post about Jeff Sharlet's book "The Family." The Family: Elite Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.
People use the concept of a higher power, aka God, to assume their own power, or somehow justify their own power over others and over planetary resources.
I wonder if these supposed Christians understand the Golden Rule (ethic of reciprocity.) Because, I can't imagine anyone using petroleum like there is no tomorrow, without regard to the environmental and social (health, etc.) impacts - not to mention impact on future generations.
How are they so sure that Armageddon is near? Perhaps it is because theirs is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anyway. agh.
I am a spiritual person. I believe that all matter and all energy that exists is part of a great whole that can be understood as a higher power. I understand that everything is part of God. Life is given as a lesson - to learn and to evolve spiritually as individuals, but also as humans collectively. That's what I believe.
So I am saddened by this fundamentalist ethos of domination, of fear-based preaching about "end-times." I wonder if those who belong to these types of communities have a love-based reality or do they perceive the world from a reality that is fear-based? Do they like it, or do they feel trapped and too fearful to break out?
p.s. Maybe Palin just has "God" confused with "Gold."
Part one
Part two
It reminds me of a recent post about Jeff Sharlet's book "The Family." The Family: Elite Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.
People use the concept of a higher power, aka God, to assume their own power, or somehow justify their own power over others and over planetary resources.
I wonder if these supposed Christians understand the Golden Rule (ethic of reciprocity.) Because, I can't imagine anyone using petroleum like there is no tomorrow, without regard to the environmental and social (health, etc.) impacts - not to mention impact on future generations.
How are they so sure that Armageddon is near? Perhaps it is because theirs is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anyway. agh.
I am a spiritual person. I believe that all matter and all energy that exists is part of a great whole that can be understood as a higher power. I understand that everything is part of God. Life is given as a lesson - to learn and to evolve spiritually as individuals, but also as humans collectively. That's what I believe.
So I am saddened by this fundamentalist ethos of domination, of fear-based preaching about "end-times." I wonder if those who belong to these types of communities have a love-based reality or do they perceive the world from a reality that is fear-based? Do they like it, or do they feel trapped and too fearful to break out?
p.s. Maybe Palin just has "God" confused with "Gold."
Part one
Part two
U.S. Global Dominance and the National Interest
Is global dominance in the national interest of the USA? I wish there was consensus on what constitutes the national interest, because it seems that for some, wars of aggression can be fought in the national interest. After all, there are people who justify the invasion, conquest and occupation of a foreign country (which posed no threat to the USA) as part of the national interest. For example, let's say that Iraq has mineral resources, the control of which is necessary to the maintenance of US global dominance. Does the control of those resources justify aggression toward Iraq (keep in mind the consequential suffering of the civilian population of Iraq)? Is global dominance necessary to maintain the US lifestyle? - Maybe it is just that wars of aggression are the "American way." I don't think so.There are those who will attempt to obfuscate the facts and say that the reason for the US occupation of Iraq is because of the terrorists. Well, don't let them fool you! The reason that there is terrorism in Iraq is precisely because Iraq is occupied by the US!
So, what is the national interest? For me, the national interest is having a healthy population; it is living in a sustainable and conscious manner. It is in the national interest to demonstrate respect for all life, for diversity and for future generations. For example, how better can we demonstrate respect for future generations than by living sustainably?For President Bush, the national interest appears to be promoting and maintaining global dominance, including the ability for [
I am frustrated. Invading Iraq was not in the national interest; at least it was not in my national interest. Maintaining global dominance is also not in my lexicon of national interests. What would be in my national interest? How about fostering a cooperative and friendly, or neighborly, relationship with international partners? That would be interesting. But to play the part of an international bully is not for me, nor for the USA that I love. Woe that my country does such grievous harm in my name. Woe that people suffer for the sake of a supposed US "national interest."Please see Bill Moyers Journal | Body of War
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03212008/profile.html
[full video available online]
Competition and Dominance
I am playing in an Ultimate league. We are known as team Säcré Blüë. We are 0 - 3. We got routed tonight. 5 of our teammates didn't show up. But I tried to keep my head up. I don't like to let losing get me down. I am sensitive to others' emotions, and when people get down, it affects me. I worry that I am letting down the team. Which makes me feel sad and insecure. But I am a big boy, and to be honest, I really like the people on my team and I can say that the criticism that I have received has been constructive. I don't know if I have received enough though. Part of it is that I am not in top-notch shape for playing Ultimate. I haven't been jogging as much recently. I went for a run on Sunday, the first real run I took in about a month, and I am still sore today.
So. Here we are. I was hesitant about signing up for the league because it was marketed as a "competitive" league for "moderate" to "advanced" players. I am definitely not an advanced player - and I probably won't ever be. I might be a moderate player, if I was playing in a novice league. But I was encouraged to sign up for the league anyway, partly I think because of concerns that there would not be enough people to field 4 teams. Which is not to say that I wasn't encouraged for my positive attitude or my sense of humor, for example, among the long list of my good qualities that there are to choose from.
But I was uncomfortable about the competitiveness even before league started. I am a person who does not like domination. For one, I don't like to feel like I am being dominated. I play Ultimate because it's fun and it's a good work out, and I enjoy some of the social aspects. I don't like to be dominated and I don't like to dominate. I don't have a win at all costs attitude, and I tend to be conservative in terms of my physical investment. Pulled and strained muscles have taught me that it's not always worth going all out. And I have a somewhat sensitive muscular-skeletal composition.
Anyway, I have been grappling with a personal question recently, about Ultimate and about life. Is it possible to compete without dominating? My mom is sort of a sports/life philosopher from her days on the tennis courts, maybe she has a point of view. But I talked with a few of my fellow teammates and my fellow opponents as well, Ultimateers all of us. The preliminary conclusion that was somewhat mutually arrived at was that it is possible to compete without having a domineering attitude or exhibiting the behaviors associated with domination. It is possible to compete and to have fun - and to win - without a "win at all costs" attitude.
Speaking personally, domination takes the fun out of it for me. I would prefer to have fun even if (and when) losing. I don't think that makes me a loser. If anything this is one of my more realistic, pragmatic views. I'm going to be 30 next year. Maybe I am becoming more conservative! hahaha! I think finding workable alternatives to dominating behaviors is an important part of
making the transition to a "life serving society." It can happen. I just know it.
Maybe this inner conflict is related to my belief that the ends do not justify the means...
So. Here we are. I was hesitant about signing up for the league because it was marketed as a "competitive" league for "moderate" to "advanced" players. I am definitely not an advanced player - and I probably won't ever be. I might be a moderate player, if I was playing in a novice league. But I was encouraged to sign up for the league anyway, partly I think because of concerns that there would not be enough people to field 4 teams. Which is not to say that I wasn't encouraged for my positive attitude or my sense of humor, for example, among the long list of my good qualities that there are to choose from.But I was uncomfortable about the competitiveness even before league started. I am a person who does not like domination. For one, I don't like to feel like I am being dominated. I play Ultimate because it's fun and it's a good work out, and I enjoy some of the social aspects. I don't like to be dominated and I don't like to dominate. I don't have a win at all costs attitude, and I tend to be conservative in terms of my physical investment. Pulled and strained muscles have taught me that it's not always worth going all out. And I have a somewhat sensitive muscular-skeletal composition.
Anyway, I have been grappling with a personal question recently, about Ultimate and about life. Is it possible to compete without dominating? My mom is sort of a sports/life philosopher from her days on the tennis courts, maybe she has a point of view. But I talked with a few of my fellow teammates and my fellow opponents as well, Ultimateers all of us. The preliminary conclusion that was somewhat mutually arrived at was that it is possible to compete without having a domineering attitude or exhibiting the behaviors associated with domination. It is possible to compete and to have fun - and to win - without a "win at all costs" attitude.
Speaking personally, domination takes the fun out of it for me. I would prefer to have fun even if (and when) losing. I don't think that makes me a loser. If anything this is one of my more realistic, pragmatic views. I'm going to be 30 next year. Maybe I am becoming more conservative! hahaha! I think finding workable alternatives to dominating behaviors is an important part of
making the transition to a "life serving society." It can happen. I just know it.Maybe this inner conflict is related to my belief that the ends do not justify the means...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)