Presidents' Day Rally and Lobby Day

Olympia, Washington State Capitol

Two weeks from today: Monday, February 15, 2010

More information: Presidents' Day Rally and Lobby Day

War is a Government Riot! (Mouseover)

War is a Government Riot!
(this is a mouseover - try it! move your mouse over the image if you're curious)

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

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?

Last Full Moon Before Bombardment

October 4th, 2009

Moonrise, shortly before 7 PM

This will be the last Full Moon before the NASA and U.S. Government (if successful) bombard an impactor into the surface of the Moon. (ref: NASA LCROSS Mission)

I really wish my government wasn't engaged in this destructive scientific experiment.

The Moon is sacred to me. (So are all the planets. Including Earth. But the Earth is already so deeply affected by human activities - a few human-made bombs are just the tip of the ice-berg in terms of environmental destruction here.) I wish that the Moon would be kept clear and protected against this kind of experiment.

It wouldn't bother me as much if I knew that the results of such scientific endeavor - and any economic gains made as a result - would be shared equitably amongst all people. If the products and suggestions gained from such research were to be used to uplift all people, then I would not be so adamantly opposed to sending people into space.

However, in light of the intense poverty here amongst people on Earth, and in light of the growing gap between rich and poor (the gap is just astronomical) - I do not believe that it can be rationally justified to direct resources to projects such as this. No. It's just not right.

What I believe is that until all people are properly sheltered, nourished, educated and given equitable opportunity to participate in meaningful, non-oppressive (supporting, uplifting, life-serving), and sustainable economic systems - then it is wrong to spend money, energy, and other resources on space exploration (not to mention conquest nor dominance.)

Peace.

Cheers.

Berd

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.

Hold the Torturers Accountable

Hold the Torturers Accountable

Video in which Cheney admits to criminal activity:


Here's another version of the video, direct from FNS:

Laura Nader | When the Rule of Law is Illegal

Hold the Torturers Accountable

Hold the torturers accountable.

I had a conversation with my friend Sarah today about torture. I enjoyed it and I am glad that we got to talk. We talked about waterboarding. I think a lot of people don't understand exactly what it would be like to be waterboarded. She told me that there has been some good coverage in Time magazine, and also in Vanity Fair, which has taken a strong stand against what the Bush Administration has done. She also mentioned the work of Christopher Hitchens (in Vanity Fair,) who apparently went so far as to have himself actually waterboarded. I haven't gone through and looked at those news pieces, but it's promising that it's out there.

Waterboarding is very serious. If you can imagine being strapped to a board, and lifted up while laying on your back to have your head dunked under water until you can't hold your breath... and then gasping for air, only to have your lungs fill with water. Well, it is truly horrible to think about. No one, guilty or innocent, should be treated in such a barbaric manner.

We need to hold the torturers accountable. For the welfare of future generations; It's imperative.

To the Obama Administration: Please, take a strong stand against torture. Investigate to find out if US operatives are still conducting torture (in any form.) And if there is any torture occurring, then put an end to it immediately.

Also, investigate the Bush Administration, to find out who was torturing, where, when, how, and why. I believe that the people deserve to know the truth. We need a full accounting in order to heal as a nation.

Please watch this excellent interview with Christopher Pyle. It's by Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!. It deals with the problem of military overreach into civil society, and the importance of holding the torturers accountable.
Christopher Pyle, Whistleblower Who Sparked Church Hearings of 1970s, on Military Spying of Olympia Peace Activists

Bursting Flower

"We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect." - Aldo Leopold

Want for an End to War

The USA has a new President. Obama's victory over McCain signals a mandate for change - for deep and substantial change - a mandate to end war. We are very much experiencing a different America; the new President does not refer to other nations as components in an "axis of evil," but he instead pushes for dialogue between nations.

Do you want an end to war. Can you imagine another world? What might it look and feel like?

I want an end to war. I can imagine another world. Among other aspects, it's a world without the fear that is created by violence between humans.

How can we make the possibility of another world into the reality of another world? How can we best effect change in the direction of a world where human beings do not hurt each other?

Talk about it.

International Relations in a Culture of Conquest

This is from a book called "2/15". It's a documentary about protest in the run up to the war for and against Iraq.

"There is a power which can serve as a check against abuses by a government or by government officials and that power is the power of the informed citizen — one who has read enough, who understands enough, who has developed a base of knowledge against which to judge truth or falsehood.

"Participation in the great debates of our time must not be relegated to the power elites in Washington. An informed citizenry has to participate, ask questions, and demand answers and accountability to make a country like ours work."

— Robert Byrd, Senator from West Virginia

Dear President Obama: Please Stop Bombing Pakistan

Stop Bombing! Stop Imperialism! Put an end to policies of global hegemony!

Obama, you say you are a friend to the American People. Prove it. Kick the corporations out of Washington D.C..

You have the power to say "no." Please. Please, it's your duty.

If government doesn't protect people and planet against the harms and abuses of powerful businesses, industries and corporations, then what or whom will? The planet and humanity must be protected.

Currently, the government of the USA is not protecting people. Currently, the government is more or less corporatist, and enabling and facilitating a system of corporate theft from the commons. The government of the USA is accomplice to social and environmental degradation.

The people and planet are not served by a government that is insufficient to the task of proper regulation against harmful economic activities. The people and planet certainly don't need a government that enables and works with corporations to promote these iniquitous controlling and imperial doctrines of hegemony.

Stop bombing Pakistan. Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan!

Stop the global resource war! The problem are policies and practices of taking by force, of taking without asking -this is imperialism.

There are answers, which include (among many other concepts, ideas and specifics) curtailment, efficient use and finding alternatives.

But please: Stop Imperialism!

Questions for Thurston County Commissioner Position #3 Candidates

Below is an edited (mainly for clarity and strength) version of an email letter I sent to 11 Candidates for County Commissioner. These Candidates are: Corinne Tobeck, Ed Crawford, Erik Landass, Gayle Broadbent, Jack Turner, Jeff Dickison, Karen Valenzuela, Richard Emde, Russ Lehman, Susan Bogni, and Walt Jorgensen. More information on these candidates, including their application for Office of Commission: Commissioner District #3 — Applicants | Thurston County Democrats

Two changes are in square brackets (i.e. *[]) and italicized or striked through. Some minor changes in punctuation from the original letter are not indicated.

Here's the letter:

To: Candidates for Thurston County Commissioner Position #3

From: Robert F. W. Whitlock
[address redacted]
Olympia, Thurston County, Washington

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

Dear Candidates for County Commissioner Position #3,

Greetings and I hope that this message finds all of you to be well in the new year. I have a question relating to your candidacies for the Office of Commissioner. The question relates to environmental policy: I am deeply concerned about the grievous harm and destruction—essential[ly] acts of violence—that this society, of which this community is part, is causing, and committing against the natural world.

My question is: If you are elected to the Office of Commissioner, would you—and if so, how would you—govern in a way that will move the community substantively and expeditiously toward a harmonious (non-destructive, life-serving) and truly sustainable relationship with both natural and human-made environments?

Please tell me what specific policies that you believe will be the most important, both in terms of protecting ecosystems from human-caused degradation, and also in terms of ameliorating existing harms and damages (e.g. global warming/climate disruption, extinction of species/loss of biodiversity, invasive species, water earth and air pollution, poverty, economic and social inequality/inequity/injustice/prejudice/discrimination, etc., et al.). [—that are already on the record.]

For example, to emphasize the creation of a truly local, benign, sustainable and life-serving economy that would be based virtually entirely on locally sourced and renewable raw materials, as well as local means for production/manufacture (everything from food, to clothing, to shelter, to education and entertainment.) I envision a vertically integrated local economy capable of meeting the basic needs of every one in the local community. The economic vision I have is for a community that is ecologically benign, as well as [socially and economically] equitable and just. Is this a vision that you share?

Thank you and best wishes,

Berd Whitlock
[email redacted]
[phone redacted]

P.S. In their applications, I could not detect email addresses for either candidates Tobeck or Landaas. I was able to find one for Ms. Tobeck via an Internet search, but I am unsure if it is a working address. I have telephoned and voice-mailed Mr. Landaas, to request his email address, and I will forward this message to him as soon as I am able.

Additional apology to Ms. Tobeck, whose email I failed to detect in the cover letter of her application.

Also [3:55pm]: Mr. Landaas just returned my call to notify me of his e-mail address.

Protecting the Natural World from Human Caused Degradation

From OlyBlog: Compromise

I have recently been labeled and accused of such things as zealotry, fanaticism, extremism, and being unwilling to compromise (by people who post on OlyBlog.) This is a response. And let me tell you - I strongly object to being labeled with those terms. But if I am a zealot because I care about the environment, then that is OK with me. In fact, I wouldn't have it any other way.

If I am an extremist, then I am only extreme in the same degree (albeit in the opposite direction) as mainstream culture is extreme. We live in a culture that prides itself on growth and expansion, even while the natural world resultantly suffers harm. I want to stop the destruction and to protect the natural world.

read more