American Disillusion

I grew up with the idea that the USA was the greatest nation on Earth. That this is a land of equal opportunity, a land of altruism. It's easy to see why that story could get confusing in light of the historical realities of the enslavement of Africans and the virtual genocide of Native Peoples. It's hard to know what to believe, I suppose. But the reality on the ground is that America is a very violent place. Ranging from domestic violence to state violence against civilians. Ranging from harmful economic activities to colonialism and outright wars of aggression.

When Obama was elected, and inaugurated, it would have been hard not to feel hopeful. The rhetoric, if not completely correct, was in a pretty good place. But in what's now over a year since the Obama Administration assumed power, there has been a degeneration in the rhetoric, and certainly a widespread feeling of disappointment with the real politic. An example of degeneration of rhetoric is the difference between talking about opportunity and prosperity for all, to the more recent focus on propping up the "middle class." The degeneration has been gradual, like the flim-flam approach to Universal Health Care, and the Obama plan to increase military spending; and yet it has also been spiked with notable events, like the use of the Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance speech to advocate America's supposed need for war, and the dreadful showing at the Copenhagen Climate Conference.

The disillusion is driving home some simple and chilling truths. The socio-economic political system of the United States is broken. It is corrupt. I have been saying this for over 10 years. And articles like the following only make it more and more clear. So what to do...

The fact is that human activities - industrial activities - over the past 200+ years have done tremendous damage to the living systems of this planet Earth. Earth is our home. We would be wise to take care of it. After all it either belongs to all of us, or to none of us at all. The policies coming out of Washington D.C. and other locusts of political power in the USA (as well as other places in the world) make little to no sense. A drastic change in focus is needed. A change toward the direction of taking care of the planet, and taking care of each other. The adversarial, profit-oriented model of destructive competition endangers the future of humanity and most of the life on this planet. Change is due.

First, there needs to be a disruption of the two-party duopoly that represents the amoral corporate profit motive.

Then there is the need to remake the system anew - to make a system that is altruistic and grounded in the intention to serve life.

Yep. So, check out this article for more reason to challenge and oppose the unmanageable and amoral status quo:

February 9, 2010

Obama's "Change" Drops Its Mask

The Democrats are Coming After Social Security

By SHAMUS COOKE

It’s official: the Democrats are coming after Social Security and Medicare. All the backroom scheming and political conspiring is finally out in the open.

In an unusually long, 1,800 word editorial, entitled The Truth about the Deficit, published February 7, The New York Times -- cheerleader for neoliberalism -- gives its solution to the country’s debt problems. The main idea is summed up thus:

“To truly tame deficits will require serious health care reform [Obama’s plan slashes Medicare], the sooner the better. Other aspects of the long-term fiscal problem — raising taxes and retooling [reducing] Social Security — must take place in earnest as the economy recovers.”

read more: http://www.counterpunch.org/cooke02092010.html

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?

Health Care for ALL

Another concrete step that President Obama and the Executive Administration, and Congress, could take is to provide health care for all.

Health Care for ALL

A Sustainable Prosperity for All People

It is so sad that people put economic self-interest ahead of concern for the well-being of others. It has always been immoral to oppress, to exploit, to harm and injure, to enslave, to in any way put down others - either for economic self-interest or otherwise.

But while it has always been immoral and problematic - these injustices, however intolerable they were at the time, have never been a threat to the survival of human beings on the planet in the same way that they are now.

Ever since the industrial revolution, the impact of human activities on the world has increased at an ever expanding rate. The human population has grown many times over in the past 200 years. The level of human technology has developed at a phenomenal rate. So that now we are at a place in our development where we very seriously face a level of environmental degradation that has the potential to cast our very own species into a very problematic place.

Members of our species are engaged in fighting wars on massive scales, killing each other over control of land and resources.

In the past these wars were certainly destructive. But until the last few decades, these wars and industrial activities have not borne the capacity to put the survival of the human species in their cross-hairs of destruction.

What we have now is not only immoral, but impending economic/ecological disaster on a large scale. The air, water and land upon which we depend are being polluted. The pollution is of a scale that is threatening - it is threatening our survival on a very real level.

So change is no longer only a moral imperative. It's not only a matter of ethical values. It's not only about kindness and reciprocity. It's about economic reality. It's about survival.

It's sad that it has come to this. People are dying. If humans are so smart, why isn't society set up to serve life - and to serve people? Why do we have a society that is designed to serve capital? Why are we slaves to capital. It's bogus. And the only reason it's like this is so that some few can have power over so many.

People, we need to stand up and learn to take back control of our governmental institutions. We need to take our government, our society, our community, our culture, our lives, our loves, and our families back, to take it back from the giant corporations.

It's not just about morality and doing what is right. It's about survival. I want to confront the tyranny in our society. To confront the tyranny that is killing people, killing eco-systems, killing plant and animal species. Lay it out bare.

This society is a killing society, this economy is a killing economy. This culture is laying waste to the resources of this planet. Mineral resources are being consumed at an astronomical rate. Will our gifts to future generations survive a legacy of profligacy and tyranny?



The moral argument is strong. Society should never have gotten to this point - where people lie, and cheat, and steal from each other - where people abuse, and threaten, and beat up on, and kill each other. It shouldn't be this way. But now there is an economic imperative. There is the pressure of survival. There is the reality of pending energy shortages.

Something must be done.

A friend lent me a book I that I am interested in exploring in detail, it's called THE TRANSITION HANDBOOK: From oil dependency to local resilience, by Rob Hopkins, who is the Founder of the Transition movement.

I tend to think that the solution exists on the local level. So I probably already agree with most of what Hopkins has to say on this matter.

Well that's my socio/political/economic rant for the day.

Money Driven Medicine

I want to point you to this important film. It's called Money Driven Medicine, and it highlights some of the inherent and deep problems that are systemic in the health care industry.

Money Driven Medicine | Bill Moyers Journal PBS

Laura Nader | When the Rule of Law is Illegal

Ethical Investing

I am reading a book right now that has me turned on to the topic of ethical investing, also known as socially responsible investing. The book is titled, The Richest Man in Babylon, and it talks about strategies and techniques for earning money and gaining financial wealth. It's a very interesting read, and it is challenging some of my thoughts about economic domination and exploitation, in a good way. It is clarifying in many ways. I suppose I have probably written about this before. But I am of the belief that financial wealth, even affluence, is probably not necessarily bad in and of itself. The problem comes, when, to garner the wealth and riches, there is some engagement in harmful activities and behaviors.

Of course, we could spend a year talking about what constitutes harmful behavior. And we should. But that's outside of the scope of this weblog entry. For now, let us ponder what it means to be harmful, any experiences in which we feel that we have been harmed - and also any experiences in which we feel it is likely that we may have harmed, or contributed to the harm, of another (whether it be physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual in nature.)

Ethical Investing, the Precautionary Principle, the notion of leaving the planet in better shape for future generations, "Eco-Psychology" (including a study of the psychological impact of ecological degradation), these are some of the hot topics on my mind recently.

Back to Ethical Investment: it seems to me, based on my sense of moral - my ethical values - that investing in weapons, especially weapons of war, is not socially responsible. In fact, I am of the opinion that it is wrong to make money off of the weapons of war. Well, there's a lot more to write about and discuss about this, but I am in a hurry, so I gotta go. Take Care!

Precautionary Principle

According to Wikipedia, there are already some jurisdictions in Europe use the precautionary principle as a matter of policy. It would be great to get the precautionary principle into the legal structure here in the USA. I was alerted to this concept most recently by reading this article, First, Do No Harm, in the January/February 2006 issue of World Watch Magazine.



I found this copy of the magazine at the Free Store, which has all sorts of stuff that people drop off and leave for others to pick up for free.

Here's the Wikipedia precautionary principle article introduction:

The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.[1] The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation. In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the precautionary principle is also a general and compulsory principle of law.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
date accessed: July 23, 2009

On the Right Side

"I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."

~ Martin Luther King Jr.

Stimulating Economic Change

Instead of using efforts toward economic stimulus to address the symptoms, and to prop up a system which is essentially broken and corrupt —— use economic stimulus to promote fundamental economic change - and economic justice. Move toward a stable, and sustainable steady-state economy. Move toward an economy where everyone has opportunity to live dignified and prosperous lives. Move toward an economy that does no harm - an economy that does not harmfully exploit people or planet...

Yes. It's a radical notion to do no harm. But what's the sense in cutting short our potential. Humans are wonderful and sacred creatures.

We are each complete and sufficient wholly within our own selves...

Let's honor each other and this magical planet. Let's lift each other up. There is another way. Another world is possible. A world of peace, justice, dignity, respect, health, prosperity, sustainability, egalitarianism. We are all one human family.

Yesterday I blogged about the juxtaposition between harmful economic stimulus spending, and harmful human economic activities in general - specifically in regard to the serious problem of ocean acidification. olyblog.net/carbon-emissions-cause-ocean-acidification-unprecedented-time-dinosaurs

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...

Bacevich on Democracy Now

Andrew J. Bacevich appeared on last Friday's edition of Bill Moyers Journal. It was a great interview. He has recently written a book that explores and examines various aspects of US Foreign Policy - especially as it relates to cultural themes of consumerism and the American mentality of entitlement...

Today he appeared on with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! check it out: The Limits of Power: Andrew Bacevich on the End of American Exceptionalism

Andrew Bacevich is a conservative historian who spent twenty-three years serving in the US Army. He also lost his son in Iraq last year. In a new book titled The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, Bacevich argues that although many in this country are paying a heavy price for US domestic and foreign policy decisions, millions of Americans simply continue to shop, spend and satisfy their appetite for cheap oil, credit and the promise of freedom at home. Bacevich writes, “As the American appetite for freedom has grown, so too has our penchant for empire.” [includes rush transcript]

I urge you to check out the interview. It is so timely, relevant and really just important...

Karl Rove Arrest Attempt

[UPDATE Wednesday July 30th: the House Judiciary Committee has voted to recommend holding Karl Rove in contempt of Congress for ignoring a subpoena to appear and testify. Apparently, the contempt charge will move to the full house for a vote.]

Human Rights Peace Activists attempted to arrest Karl Rove for his alleged criminal involvement in various frauds and abuses of power during his time in the White House:

go to original

Group Attempts Citizen's Arrest Of Karl Rove

July 28, 2008 8:28 a.m. EST

Amy Beeman - AHN

Des Moines, Iowa (AHN) -- Four people were arrested Friday for attempting to make a citizen's arrest on Karl Rove.

The group of three Catholic workers and a retired Methodist minister and Peace and Justice Advocate were cited for trespassing and released after trying to enter the Wakonda Country Club in Des Moines where Rove was scheduled to speak at a Republican Fundraiser.

The small group were acting under Iowa law that states private citizens have a responsibility to arrest someone if they believe a felony has been committed. That person is then turned over to police officials and a judge for formal indictment. Under the law a federal judge must evaluate the charges and decide if an indictment should be made.

This is the second attempt by two members of the group to arrest Rove, whom many believe should be held accountable, along with other members of the Bush administration, for war crimes, murder and lies to the public related to the Iraq war.

The retired minister, Rev. Chet Guinn, 80, told reporters who were on site for the pre-arranged arrest that everyone who remains silent when major crimes are being committed against all humanity becomes an accomplice.

Law and Morality, Truth, Love, Peace and Justice

Yesterday at a peace vigil, which I regularly participate in, I was holding a sign that reads, The War is Illegal. I believe that it is true that the war is illegal, because if President Bush did as we can rightly assume he did, based on obvious evidence that exists in the public realm, to intentionally - knowingly and deliberately - mislead Americans about the nature of a threat from Iraq, then he broke the law - egregiously and grievously. Thousands of people have died and suffer as a result.

The war is illegal because members of the Bush Administration took the USA to war based on fraudulent representation of a threat posed by Iraq. They took us to war on a lie. Thousands of soldiers have been killed and many thousands more now suffer grievous injury to mind and body. The situation of the people of Iraq is even worse.

Laws are based on morality. The search for a moral, ethical and benign society is what (supposedly and ideally) dictates the formation of law. Furthermore, Morals are based in essential principles like Love, Truth, Peace and Justice.

So, while holding my sign, which read the war is illegal, I did my best to feel Love toward my fellow human beings. I liked the effects. People seemed to respond and really take notice and appreciate me and the sign I was holding. You might try something similar in your life. Try to feel Love (platonic is usually the preferred sort) toward your fellow human beings - in all of your interactions. Maybe treat it like an experiment. See if you get along better while maintaining a feeling of Love toward others.

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?

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.

Sean Penn on Kucinich for President

In this video is an endorsement of Kucinich for President by Sean Penn. DK for President:

Congress Girds for Oversight Procedures

Well, it's about time.

go to original

Congress girds up for return to oversight

Probes include alleged contracting abuses in Iraq and the alteration of scientific findings.

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - Not since the Depression-era Congress of 1932 has Capitol Hill ramped up so quickly for oversight hearings and related legislation – most targeting the Bush administration.

Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are hiring more lawyers, and watchdog groups say they are swamped with calls from committee staff asking for advice on pursuing the nearly lost art of congressional investigation.

In its first 100 days, the new Congress launched probes on allegations ranging from contracting abuses in Iraq and the alteration of scientific findings to the misuse of federal resources for partisan purposes. Some hearings, such as those on last year's firing of eight US attorneys, were snatched from the headlines; others are longer-term campaigns to try to uncover any government waste and to expand the public's access to how government conducts its business.

...

Cut The Funds - Stop the Killing - Stop the Occupation

The pin on my chest is of a crossed out dollar sign.

Rest assured, I have not completely disbarred capitalism from my world view. I do however believe that the current capitalism that is being practiced in the USA and exported to the rest of the world is destructive, harmful and violent.

The pin is to say no to further appropriations and war funding.

I heard today that since the Democrats got into office, more money is being spent on the war in Iraq.

There will be no peace - There will be no justice - until capitalism can somehow be made to conform to ethical and moral principles. Killing innocent civilians, as has occurred in Iraq, in order to perform economic expansion - as has (arguably) occurred in Iraq - is tantamount to murder, plain and simple.

I know that this is money (and economic resources otherwise) that could be much better spent and used in our communities here in the USA.

To waste it on an aggressive invasion and in the fighting of a pointless occupation of imperialism (which has only served to exacerbate and promote global terrorism by the way) is an atrocity. The invasion and this ongoing military action in Iraq ranks among the highest of crimes.