My best friend, Mystic, has passed on.
My heart is breaking, but I am so blessed to have had this last thirteen years with him. He meant more to me than I can put into words, and there is a huge hole in my life right now - but the Spirit speaks to me of the profound privilege and honor of being able to be Mystic's person for so long, for so many years. He led a very, very good life, and left his paw print on many hearts.
I made an album for him:
Mystic's Album
To all his friends who might read this, if any indeed do (my blog receives little attention from me or anyone else, I'm so busy with other things), thank you from my heart for being Mystic's friend, and helping to make his life a full and happy one.
Love,
:~)aniel
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Friday, May 15, 2009
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Indigenous Native American Prophecy (videos)
Hi!
Here are some great little videos:
Indigenous Native American Prophecy (Elders Speak part 1)
Indigenous Native American Prophecy (Elders Speak part 2)
Indigenous Native American Prophecy (Elders Speak part 3)
Indigenous Native American Prophecy (Elders Speak part 4)
Indigenous Native American Prophecy (Elders Speak part 5)
Here are some great little videos:
Indigenous Native American Prophecy (Elders Speak part 1)
Indigenous Native American Prophecy (Elders Speak part 2)
Indigenous Native American Prophecy (Elders Speak part 3)
Indigenous Native American Prophecy (Elders Speak part 4)
Indigenous Native American Prophecy (Elders Speak part 5)
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Comments reenabled...
Hi!
I've reenabled the comments, with the word verification feature activated. Have a fine day!
:~)
I've reenabled the comments, with the word verification feature activated. Have a fine day!
:~)
Friday, June 06, 2008
Thoughts on the candidates' economic platforms...
A big philosophical difference exists between Barack Obama and John McCain concerning their approach to our economic difficulties. The Republican (McCain's) approach is to ease the tax burden on corporations and businesses in the assumption that they will be able to grow their businesses, hire more people and stimulate the economy. The Democrat philosophy (Obama's) is to create government programs that benefit the public and employ a lot of people that way. Of course there are more elements in each candidate's platforms, but let's look at this fundamental philosophical contrast.
First, both points of view have some rational validity. It's true that Reagan's 'trickle-down' economics theory seems basically sound, and it's also true that the Democrat concept of government programs will work, as it did so well with FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps. Both also have their flaws. Trickle-down economics works if corporations and businesses put the public interest ahead of profit in their list of priorities. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that this is likely to happen. The problem with the Democrat principle is that it results in "bigger government" (i.e. higher taxes) and more regulation.
When one considers these options one must also reflect on the history of our economic decline. There are, of course, innumerable factors, but a fundamental one that seems to sort of jump out is that corporations have had the opportunity to find a proper, or at least workable, balance between profit-margin and public interest values for decades, and have done rather badly, to say the very least. They might have observed the Native American rule that, when confronted with issues that affect the entire tribe, elders must contemplate the impact of their decisions on the next seven generations. Think about that for a minute. Compare it with our current world paradigm. The corporations had more than enough time to balance their priorities a little more on the side of sustainable viability and resource conservation, and a little less on the side of short-term profit, if they were at all so inclined, but they have far too often chosen the course of voracious greed.
There is always an inherent tension between the concepts of individual freedom and social responsibility. Anarchy would be an ideal lifestyle if everyone would cooperate and behave responsibly and honorably. Free trade would be an ideal business model if corporations were willing to balance their quest for profit with their moral responsibility to serve the long-term public interest. Well, people and businesses just don't always do the right thing - it's a fact. Some of us are monstrously selfish. Therefore, we need guidelines, rules, government, and regulation. For both people and businesses. And the degree to which we need them depends on the degree to which people and businesses exercise their freedom without regard for the consequences of their actions. Lately that's been quite a lot, so it would follow that quite a lot of regulation is required.
In an ideal world corporations would voluntarily shift their focus from profit-driven endeavors to those that settle for a little less profit for doing something that truly serves the public interest. They'd self-regulate. Creating jobs in the "green" industry and building businesses that produce valuable goods and services at reasonable cost would be a good example. Downsizing business enterprises so they can tailor their products and services to local needs would be another. Sacrificing immediate profit for long-term goodwill and sensible resource management practices would be another. Unfortunately, we don't live on that planet. Corporations on this planet have had the opportunity to do this for ... forever, for as long as there have been corporations. What on earth... or anywhere else for that matter... could possibly make us think that the Republican policy of allowing businesses and corporations more freedom will result in a shift in the corporate paradigm profound enough to save the economy or our planet? Our recent experiences with a Republican administration and Congress prove unequivocally that relaxing government regulation on corporations, granting them favors and trusting them to "do the right thing," has had disastrous results. Perhaps some day our species might evolve to the point where we don't need strict regulation of commerce, but in view of our clear and present crisis it seems pretty obvious that a significant stiffening of the regulation of businesses must occur, and we must stop entrusting them with our future - they've broken that trust too many times already. Someone said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Obama's proposal, in line with the Democrat platform, is to establish government programs that will create (or encourage the private sector creation of) "green collar" and other jobs that serve the public interest (e.g. health industry, understaffed agencies and departments of the government itself, etc.), and a number of others in related infrastructures. This would not only stimulate the economy, it would move us quite a bit closer to that seventh generation concept. Of course none of us wants "bigger government" intruding into our lives... at least not in the way we're used to experiencing it... but a more benevolent government, one that has our long-term interests and welfare at heart, might be a bit more welcome, don't you think? And as for taxes, well, we get what you pay for. If we want a good government, it's gonna cost us, but the benefits will far outweight that cost. Cheap government is bad government, and look at how much bad government has been costing us! A whole lot more than higher taxes, in the short term, and in the long haul... some of our decisions are costing future generations more than we can possibly calculate. The choice seems clear to me, but I suppose many will continue to work to emasculate the government and empower greedy and powerful national and international corporations. It will no doubt be argued for some time yet, until we find that delicate balance between having enough government but not too much. In the meantime we'd better make a severe course correction or we're headed for the rocks.
First, both points of view have some rational validity. It's true that Reagan's 'trickle-down' economics theory seems basically sound, and it's also true that the Democrat concept of government programs will work, as it did so well with FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps. Both also have their flaws. Trickle-down economics works if corporations and businesses put the public interest ahead of profit in their list of priorities. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that this is likely to happen. The problem with the Democrat principle is that it results in "bigger government" (i.e. higher taxes) and more regulation.
When one considers these options one must also reflect on the history of our economic decline. There are, of course, innumerable factors, but a fundamental one that seems to sort of jump out is that corporations have had the opportunity to find a proper, or at least workable, balance between profit-margin and public interest values for decades, and have done rather badly, to say the very least. They might have observed the Native American rule that, when confronted with issues that affect the entire tribe, elders must contemplate the impact of their decisions on the next seven generations. Think about that for a minute. Compare it with our current world paradigm. The corporations had more than enough time to balance their priorities a little more on the side of sustainable viability and resource conservation, and a little less on the side of short-term profit, if they were at all so inclined, but they have far too often chosen the course of voracious greed.
There is always an inherent tension between the concepts of individual freedom and social responsibility. Anarchy would be an ideal lifestyle if everyone would cooperate and behave responsibly and honorably. Free trade would be an ideal business model if corporations were willing to balance their quest for profit with their moral responsibility to serve the long-term public interest. Well, people and businesses just don't always do the right thing - it's a fact. Some of us are monstrously selfish. Therefore, we need guidelines, rules, government, and regulation. For both people and businesses. And the degree to which we need them depends on the degree to which people and businesses exercise their freedom without regard for the consequences of their actions. Lately that's been quite a lot, so it would follow that quite a lot of regulation is required.
In an ideal world corporations would voluntarily shift their focus from profit-driven endeavors to those that settle for a little less profit for doing something that truly serves the public interest. They'd self-regulate. Creating jobs in the "green" industry and building businesses that produce valuable goods and services at reasonable cost would be a good example. Downsizing business enterprises so they can tailor their products and services to local needs would be another. Sacrificing immediate profit for long-term goodwill and sensible resource management practices would be another. Unfortunately, we don't live on that planet. Corporations on this planet have had the opportunity to do this for ... forever, for as long as there have been corporations. What on earth... or anywhere else for that matter... could possibly make us think that the Republican policy of allowing businesses and corporations more freedom will result in a shift in the corporate paradigm profound enough to save the economy or our planet? Our recent experiences with a Republican administration and Congress prove unequivocally that relaxing government regulation on corporations, granting them favors and trusting them to "do the right thing," has had disastrous results. Perhaps some day our species might evolve to the point where we don't need strict regulation of commerce, but in view of our clear and present crisis it seems pretty obvious that a significant stiffening of the regulation of businesses must occur, and we must stop entrusting them with our future - they've broken that trust too many times already. Someone said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Obama's proposal, in line with the Democrat platform, is to establish government programs that will create (or encourage the private sector creation of) "green collar" and other jobs that serve the public interest (e.g. health industry, understaffed agencies and departments of the government itself, etc.), and a number of others in related infrastructures. This would not only stimulate the economy, it would move us quite a bit closer to that seventh generation concept. Of course none of us wants "bigger government" intruding into our lives... at least not in the way we're used to experiencing it... but a more benevolent government, one that has our long-term interests and welfare at heart, might be a bit more welcome, don't you think? And as for taxes, well, we get what you pay for. If we want a good government, it's gonna cost us, but the benefits will far outweight that cost. Cheap government is bad government, and look at how much bad government has been costing us! A whole lot more than higher taxes, in the short term, and in the long haul... some of our decisions are costing future generations more than we can possibly calculate. The choice seems clear to me, but I suppose many will continue to work to emasculate the government and empower greedy and powerful national and international corporations. It will no doubt be argued for some time yet, until we find that delicate balance between having enough government but not too much. In the meantime we'd better make a severe course correction or we're headed for the rocks.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Disasters...
My condolences to the people whose lives were disrupted by the cyclone in Myanmar and the earthquake in China. My hope for victims of the former is that the people of Myanmar will replace the government with one that serves them better. My hope for victims of both horrific events is that the goodness of life will somehow reassert itself in your lives and not be eclipsed by the pain that inevitably attends us.
Namasté
Namasté
Monday, November 05, 2007
Comments disabled...
Hi!
I'm sorry, but rampant spam postings have forced me to disable comment posting. If you want to post a comment, however, email me and I'll add you to the blog members list so you can post. Have a fine day!
:~)
I'm sorry, but rampant spam postings have forced me to disable comment posting. If you want to post a comment, however, email me and I'll add you to the blog members list so you can post. Have a fine day!
:~)
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Diggin' our new digs...
Hello! Well, my brother and I are livin' in the new home, and we're lovin' it. The season is turning, day's are gettin' colder and colder, so we're sort of hunkerin' down and gettin' ready for the snow - we'll be warm this winter, the new place is so well insulated the heater only has to run for a little while to warm the place up. It doesn't leak heat like the old trailer did; the heater in that place (which was propane) ran all the time, and there were still cold drafts here and there - this is a whole new deal! It will probably take us a couple years to get all the furniture we want, but we're making progress, and are already more comfortable than we had hoped. We are most grateful, and hoping your life is full of joy too.
Love...
Love...
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Summer at the resort!?
Hi!
Well, I've bought a travel trailer and am going to live in it at the resort for the summer while they build my brother's new house. Check out the Bulletin Board on my site (link in the margin) for more info and links. Hope you're phat an' happy...
:~)
Well, I've bought a travel trailer and am going to live in it at the resort for the summer while they build my brother's new house. Check out the Bulletin Board on my site (link in the margin) for more info and links. Hope you're phat an' happy...
:~)
Monday, May 07, 2007
Spring Freshness
Hi! Well, it looks like my brother is going to be able to build a house here on his property! This was the plan, of course, but the reality of it happening is ... pretty darn neat! Anyway, we're going to be a bit displaced this summer while they build the place, and I'm going to be traveling, off and on, and so relatively out of touch... as if that's something new. Anyway, I'm feeling a little better than I was the last time I made an entry here (that was a bit of a low point), and looking forward to vagabonding a bit and coming home to a real home instead of a tiny trailer. Yippee!
:~)
:~)
Friday, March 30, 2007
Autumn peace...
Hi.
This person is just getting old. He has no energy, no drive or sense of purpose or direction. He has little hope mankind will stop shooting himself in the foot any time soon, or learn how to take care of the planet. Things seem awfully bleak and grim to this person.
Oh, this person knows about the golden moments - they are treasures, and there will be more, and the ripples in the pond will keep spreading the goodness and light of those moments down through the ages - but younger people must pick up the tools now, younger hands must carry the load, and younger eyes must see clearly to plot a course for our tribe that leads to prosperity and happiness. Younger people must tend the fires now, it is time for the elders to sit in the warmth and tell stories to those who will listen.
There is a sickness in this white man's world: men have lost their visions, and their interest in hearing the old stories, the old ways, even when they are told with modern words. They cannot feel their connection with all living things, and with nature. They have lost their natural rhythms, and live in an artificial world, a world of illusion where man, instead of the Great Spirit, is the center of the universe. They don't want to hear the stories any more, they are too busy. This is a great wrongness, and brings a great sadness.
This person is tired. This person needs to rest. He is loving you, but quietly, with whispers and prayers. Solitude is one of his friends, and brings him peace. Sit in this circle of peace with this person, and share in his oneness with all things. Know that he is grateful for your company on the road of life. When the circle of life turns and spring arrives in this person's heart he will awaken like the blossoms and bring color to the world again. Until then, he wishes you great good fortune.
:~)aniel
This person is just getting old. He has no energy, no drive or sense of purpose or direction. He has little hope mankind will stop shooting himself in the foot any time soon, or learn how to take care of the planet. Things seem awfully bleak and grim to this person.
Oh, this person knows about the golden moments - they are treasures, and there will be more, and the ripples in the pond will keep spreading the goodness and light of those moments down through the ages - but younger people must pick up the tools now, younger hands must carry the load, and younger eyes must see clearly to plot a course for our tribe that leads to prosperity and happiness. Younger people must tend the fires now, it is time for the elders to sit in the warmth and tell stories to those who will listen.
There is a sickness in this white man's world: men have lost their visions, and their interest in hearing the old stories, the old ways, even when they are told with modern words. They cannot feel their connection with all living things, and with nature. They have lost their natural rhythms, and live in an artificial world, a world of illusion where man, instead of the Great Spirit, is the center of the universe. They don't want to hear the stories any more, they are too busy. This is a great wrongness, and brings a great sadness.
This person is tired. This person needs to rest. He is loving you, but quietly, with whispers and prayers. Solitude is one of his friends, and brings him peace. Sit in this circle of peace with this person, and share in his oneness with all things. Know that he is grateful for your company on the road of life. When the circle of life turns and spring arrives in this person's heart he will awaken like the blossoms and bring color to the world again. Until then, he wishes you great good fortune.
:~)aniel
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Saturday, December 30, 2006
John Edwards for President!
I'm really happy John Edwards is running for president again. Please visit his site, John Edwards for President. I learned a lot about him when I was supporting him in the last elections, and though I didn't agree with his position on every single issue, I found his proposed "Plan for America" to be pretty much in line with most of my thinking. In the two or three years since then he's gotten more experience and perspective, and his ideas about what needs to be done have gotten even better. I think he's eminently qualified, by virtue of his honesty, values, intelligence, and ability to coordinate teams of experts, and I believe he'd make a great leader ~ vote for him in 2008!
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Border Fence?
I was just reading that Mexico's president, Vicente Fox, is criticizing the United States for authorizing the building of a fence along our border, even comparing it to the Berlin Wall. Ummm... Mr. Fox... the Berlin Wall was built to keep people in so they wouldn't be exposed to the "corrupting influences of the capitalistic west," and to keep people out for pretty much the same reason. People were rarely allowed to cross, and getting permission from the government was extremely difficult. In contrast, our border with Mexico has plenty of crossing points, through which people can cross both ways easily - all they have to do is check in. We're not building this wall in an Orwellian effort to keep people in or out, merely to steer them toward the gates so we can keep track of who's coming and going - its purpose is nothing like that of the Berlin Wall.
Look at it from our perspective. Imagine that your house had no walls, and strangers kept walking through. You'd expect that they'd at least stop and ask to come in, but they seem to have no respect, so they just keep sneaking in uninvited, and when confronted, pretend that they're the ones who are wronged! Wouldn't you want to build some walls to protect your home and family? Well, our nation is our home, and our citizens are our family, and your people have been walking (and climbing, and tunneling...) right into our home uninvited for long enough now. There are millions of you here, uninvited, already, and there is, after all, this terrorist problem; so we've simply decided to build some walls and insist that you knock on the door and identify yourself when you come to visit. Assuming our house isn't already full of guests, and we're in the mood for some company, We'll probably welcome you with open arms. Thank you very much.
Your friendly neighbor to the north...
Daniel
Look at it from our perspective. Imagine that your house had no walls, and strangers kept walking through. You'd expect that they'd at least stop and ask to come in, but they seem to have no respect, so they just keep sneaking in uninvited, and when confronted, pretend that they're the ones who are wronged! Wouldn't you want to build some walls to protect your home and family? Well, our nation is our home, and our citizens are our family, and your people have been walking (and climbing, and tunneling...) right into our home uninvited for long enough now. There are millions of you here, uninvited, already, and there is, after all, this terrorist problem; so we've simply decided to build some walls and insist that you knock on the door and identify yourself when you come to visit. Assuming our house isn't already full of guests, and we're in the mood for some company, We'll probably welcome you with open arms. Thank you very much.
Your friendly neighbor to the north...
Daniel
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
"When war is on the horizon, follow the money"
Hello,
I ran across this article in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, and thought it would be appropriate to re-post it here. Most of us know this already, it's pretty basic capitalist economics, but I think many of us seldom think about it. Perhaps, when we exercise our right to vote, we can cast it in such a way that it will have some impact on the way things are - I don't suppose they'll put "Reshape our foreign and environmental policies in such a way as to foster peace among men and sanity in our treatment of the planet" on the ballot in 2008, but... well, do what you can.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
When war is on the horizon, follow the money
GARY FERDMAN AND MYRIAM MIEDZIAN
GUEST COLUMNISTS
Pop quiz: Who founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq?
A. A prominent Iraqi political exile.
B. Bruce Jackson, former Lockheed Martin vice president
C. Neoconservatives William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz.
Answer: b.
What does this mean? To understand our nation's foreign policy, including military interventions, follow the money.
This should come as no surprise. Our country is built on the profit motive; we proved its effectiveness by outlasting the Soviet Union.
While Americans understand that making money motivates McDonald's or Wal-Mart, and some are concerned about businesses donating large sums to influence politicians, most are unaware of how the profit motive helps shape U.S. foreign policy.
This is caused in part by our leaders draping decisions, especially wars, in patriotism. Take Iraq; President Bush leads Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, has weapons of mass destruction, and threatens our national security. Once he invades Iraq, any questioning is portrayed as endangering our troops and homeland.
By the time most Americans realize that none of it is true, thousands of young soldiers are killed or maimed and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are flowing to often incompetent, politically connected Pentagon contractors.
For most decent, caring Americans it is almost unthinkable that the profit motive played a significant role in putting our soldiers in harm's way. It is painful to acknowledge that we have been lied to, and to ask, why? Why was this war started? What role did our president's, vice president's, and secretary of state's close ties to the oil industry play? Which powerful American companies stood to profit?
Bruce Jackson founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in 2002, a few months after retiring from Lockheed Martin. In 2001, he and other members of the neocon Project for a New American Century wrote to President Bush stating that "American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means." A year earlier, Jackson had chaired the subcommittee that produced the Republican Party's foreign policy plank that George Bush ran on in 2000.
Any chance that the views Jackson promoted had something to do with the billions that Lockheed Martin pockets thanks to the war?
For war profiteers, soldiers returning maimed or in caskets, and a $500 billion Pentagon budget paid for by the taxes of ordinary citizens, are externalities -- costs and consequences borne by others.
There is nothing new about weapons manufacturers encouraging wars and profiteering from them.
During the Civil War, President Lincoln stated that those profiteering from defective weapons "ought to have their devilish heads shot off."
The role of weapons manufacturers in creating the tensions that led to World War I is well documented, and no doubt influenced President Roosevelt's 1934 message to Congress that "the uncontrolled activities of the manufacturers, and merchants of engines of destruction," were a menace to world peace.
Profiteering was so common during WWII that then-Sen. Harry Truman became a national hero by bringing to heel war contractors whose waste and inefficiency threatened the war effort.
In his famous farewell address, President Eisenhower warned the nation of the "undue influence" of the military-industrial complex, and the need to control it.
As the war in Iraq grinds on at a cost of more than $250 million per day, and another contractor-heavy organization, the Iran Policy Committee, calls for a pre-emptive strike against Iran, there is a dire need to act on his warning.
Just as government food inspection and child labor laws were enacted to protect us against the worst excesses of capitalist exploitation, our government must assure that corporate interests do not trump the national interest in foreign policy.
Pentagon contractors' congressional allies routinely defeat or bury in committee initiatives that could curtail war profiteering. This June, for example, all 55 Senate Republicans voted to kill an amendment strengthening laws governing waste, fraud and abuse in defense (43 of 45 Democrats voted for it).
In his farewell address, Eisenhower called for "an alert and knowledgeable citizenry" to stand up to the military industrial complex. Isn't it time to heed his call and demand that our representatives rein in the war profiteers?
I ran across this article in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, and thought it would be appropriate to re-post it here. Most of us know this already, it's pretty basic capitalist economics, but I think many of us seldom think about it. Perhaps, when we exercise our right to vote, we can cast it in such a way that it will have some impact on the way things are - I don't suppose they'll put "Reshape our foreign and environmental policies in such a way as to foster peace among men and sanity in our treatment of the planet" on the ballot in 2008, but... well, do what you can.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
When war is on the horizon, follow the money
GARY FERDMAN AND MYRIAM MIEDZIAN
GUEST COLUMNISTS
Pop quiz: Who founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq?
A. A prominent Iraqi political exile.
B. Bruce Jackson, former Lockheed Martin vice president
C. Neoconservatives William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz.
Answer: b.
What does this mean? To understand our nation's foreign policy, including military interventions, follow the money.
This should come as no surprise. Our country is built on the profit motive; we proved its effectiveness by outlasting the Soviet Union.
While Americans understand that making money motivates McDonald's or Wal-Mart, and some are concerned about businesses donating large sums to influence politicians, most are unaware of how the profit motive helps shape U.S. foreign policy.
This is caused in part by our leaders draping decisions, especially wars, in patriotism. Take Iraq; President Bush leads Americans to believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, has weapons of mass destruction, and threatens our national security. Once he invades Iraq, any questioning is portrayed as endangering our troops and homeland.
By the time most Americans realize that none of it is true, thousands of young soldiers are killed or maimed and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are flowing to often incompetent, politically connected Pentagon contractors.
For most decent, caring Americans it is almost unthinkable that the profit motive played a significant role in putting our soldiers in harm's way. It is painful to acknowledge that we have been lied to, and to ask, why? Why was this war started? What role did our president's, vice president's, and secretary of state's close ties to the oil industry play? Which powerful American companies stood to profit?
Bruce Jackson founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in 2002, a few months after retiring from Lockheed Martin. In 2001, he and other members of the neocon Project for a New American Century wrote to President Bush stating that "American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means." A year earlier, Jackson had chaired the subcommittee that produced the Republican Party's foreign policy plank that George Bush ran on in 2000.
Any chance that the views Jackson promoted had something to do with the billions that Lockheed Martin pockets thanks to the war?
For war profiteers, soldiers returning maimed or in caskets, and a $500 billion Pentagon budget paid for by the taxes of ordinary citizens, are externalities -- costs and consequences borne by others.
There is nothing new about weapons manufacturers encouraging wars and profiteering from them.
During the Civil War, President Lincoln stated that those profiteering from defective weapons "ought to have their devilish heads shot off."
The role of weapons manufacturers in creating the tensions that led to World War I is well documented, and no doubt influenced President Roosevelt's 1934 message to Congress that "the uncontrolled activities of the manufacturers, and merchants of engines of destruction," were a menace to world peace.
Profiteering was so common during WWII that then-Sen. Harry Truman became a national hero by bringing to heel war contractors whose waste and inefficiency threatened the war effort.
In his famous farewell address, President Eisenhower warned the nation of the "undue influence" of the military-industrial complex, and the need to control it.
As the war in Iraq grinds on at a cost of more than $250 million per day, and another contractor-heavy organization, the Iran Policy Committee, calls for a pre-emptive strike against Iran, there is a dire need to act on his warning.
Just as government food inspection and child labor laws were enacted to protect us against the worst excesses of capitalist exploitation, our government must assure that corporate interests do not trump the national interest in foreign policy.
Pentagon contractors' congressional allies routinely defeat or bury in committee initiatives that could curtail war profiteering. This June, for example, all 55 Senate Republicans voted to kill an amendment strengthening laws governing waste, fraud and abuse in defense (43 of 45 Democrats voted for it).
In his farewell address, Eisenhower called for "an alert and knowledgeable citizenry" to stand up to the military industrial complex. Isn't it time to heed his call and demand that our representatives rein in the war profiteers?
Friday, July 21, 2006
The Israeli-Palestinian Thing
Okay, so this is my understanding of this whole Israeli-Palestinian thing. IF the facts are as I believe them to be, and have concluded them to be after reading the news about the middle east for some thirty-odd years. There are roughly two distinct viewpoints on this matter, as evidenced most glaringly if one reads several publications from both sides of the political spectrum, the 'left' and the 'right.' Leftist sources would repeatedly blame Israel for being heavy-handed, right-wing publications consistently insist Israel is only defending itself against terrorist attacks, and trying earnestly to avoid 'collateral damage.' In my humble and perhaps uninformed opinion (always open to new information that might change it), The truth is probably more accurately represented (though still perhaps not very objective) in the right-wing publications, because of one glaring omission from most of the more liberal articles: the undeniable and insurmountable fact that the 'terrorists' target civilians with their suicide bombings and their rockets, refusing to participate in political solutions. This fact alone (and there are many others, such as the fact that they have no legitimacy in negotiations as they are not governments and can't control their own factions anyway...) renders whatever arguments they might have rhetorical. So...
A World Court, or some such international body, granted Israel a homeland in 1948 by dividing up some land in Palestine. This same international body apparently made no provisions, or at least not any adequate or viable ones, about what was to happen to the displaced "Palestinians," and the nations of the Arab community didn't invite them into their various countries, so they were in effect relegated to some smaller areas within their original lands. A situation ripe for revolution. Then there was this big dispute between religious groups about who got to have control over some religious sites, too. That didn't help. Religion rarely does.
Hostility grew, and in 1967 Israel was attacked by most of their neighbors. They kicked ass, and occupied some of the surrounding territory in order to prevent further attacks. The defeated people, the Palestinians, have apparently refused to accept either the partitioning of their land or their subsequent defeat in '67, and continue attacking Israel. Having little in the way of resources, and no plan, or even thought, for mutual peaceful coexistence, they resort to sending suicide bombers and launching crude rockets to kill Israeli civilians. For years various Palestinian groups espoused terrorism against civilians as a valid path to accomplishing their goals - they meant it, too, and suited actions to words by conducting a seemingly endless string of atrocities. Israel then continues in its efforts to prevent the attacks on its citizens, eventually becoming a rather onerous burden to the Palestinian people - who unfortunately, and for some unfathomable reason, are unwilling to curb the more violent elements in their society. I avoid saying unable, as such groups couldn't exist without the support, tacit or overt, of the people.
International outcry over the inevitable civilian casualties caused by Israel's aggressive campaign to stop the bombing (where was the outcry over the terrorist bombings?...) eventually pressures Israel into withdrawing from Gaza and parts of the West Bank in an effort to loosen the tensions, and as an indication of their intentions to seek a negotiated two-state solution - but the attacks don't stop. Note here that the civilian casualties caused by Israel were collateral damage (I know, that's politically incorrect, but that never stopped me from telling it like it is) that occurred in spite of efforts to minimize it, and in spite of the fact that the various terrorist groups embed themselves in areas with high civilian populations, or in mosques or other religious sites, using them as shields, and their deaths or destruction as anti-Israeli propoganda, while the innocent civilians killed by the Palestinians were targeted.
In the final analysis it all seems pretty cut and dried, to me. Though there are almost certainly some very valid complaints about the way Israel has treated the Palestinians, these complaints need to be pursued through normal political channels, negotiation, appeals to international bodies, communication, education, illumination, and other peaceful means, to the fullest extent possible. Cripes, hire a Madison Avenue advertising firm to pitch your cause, they can sell darn near anything! If, however, at some point, the level of frustration with the situation and the lack of progress becomes too much to bear, and the Palestinians and their various factions decide they must resort to violence to achieve their ends, then so be it. They have chosen war, and they must be prepared to pay the price. I guess that's the case - they did, after all, elect Hamas, a violent terrorist group, to run their country. What were they thinking?
What, Israel is supposed to sit there while people blow up on the streets and rockets come raining in a few times a day? Uh uh. I'm not saying Israel hasn't made its share of mistakes, I'm just saying that by employing terrorist tactics as the Palestinian groups have done countless times, targeting innocent civilians, is completely unacceptable. It not only renders any legitimate argument they might have had moot or irrelevant, but also invites severe retribution - and the hellish cost of war will be paid by innocent civilians on both sides. It's about time the Palestinian people woke up and realized that they must turn away from the violence promoted by their radical elements, and convince each other that they must pursue peaceful strategies to accomplish their objectives.
In the end it's their choice, though - and if they choose violence, then it's pretty inevitable that they're going to reap what they sow. If that sounds callous, it's not. It isn't as if I don't sympathize and empathize with the plight of the Palestinians, I do, conditions are so bad there I can't even imagine living like they do, under occupation, with a collapsed economy, a history of massive corruption in their various "governments," and so on. But I also sympathize and empathize with the plight of the Israelis... and they're the ones who've been on the receiving end of terrorist attacks for decades, and certainly have a right to defend themselves. There are many nuances and subtleties to all of this, I realize that it's really not quite as cut and dried as this, but I maintain my opinion that it's up to the Palestinians and the other elements that support terrorism (attacking civilians to instill terror in a populace in order to achieve your political goals) to put a stop to this insanity. Then, AFTER the killing stops, we can talk about what Israel needs to do to be a good neighbor to its Palestinian brothers and sisters.
Brief history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Your thoughts?
P.S. (7/30/2006): Just found an article in the Washington Post that explains the legal basis for Israel's response.
A World Court, or some such international body, granted Israel a homeland in 1948 by dividing up some land in Palestine. This same international body apparently made no provisions, or at least not any adequate or viable ones, about what was to happen to the displaced "Palestinians," and the nations of the Arab community didn't invite them into their various countries, so they were in effect relegated to some smaller areas within their original lands. A situation ripe for revolution. Then there was this big dispute between religious groups about who got to have control over some religious sites, too. That didn't help. Religion rarely does.
Hostility grew, and in 1967 Israel was attacked by most of their neighbors. They kicked ass, and occupied some of the surrounding territory in order to prevent further attacks. The defeated people, the Palestinians, have apparently refused to accept either the partitioning of their land or their subsequent defeat in '67, and continue attacking Israel. Having little in the way of resources, and no plan, or even thought, for mutual peaceful coexistence, they resort to sending suicide bombers and launching crude rockets to kill Israeli civilians. For years various Palestinian groups espoused terrorism against civilians as a valid path to accomplishing their goals - they meant it, too, and suited actions to words by conducting a seemingly endless string of atrocities. Israel then continues in its efforts to prevent the attacks on its citizens, eventually becoming a rather onerous burden to the Palestinian people - who unfortunately, and for some unfathomable reason, are unwilling to curb the more violent elements in their society. I avoid saying unable, as such groups couldn't exist without the support, tacit or overt, of the people.
International outcry over the inevitable civilian casualties caused by Israel's aggressive campaign to stop the bombing (where was the outcry over the terrorist bombings?...) eventually pressures Israel into withdrawing from Gaza and parts of the West Bank in an effort to loosen the tensions, and as an indication of their intentions to seek a negotiated two-state solution - but the attacks don't stop. Note here that the civilian casualties caused by Israel were collateral damage (I know, that's politically incorrect, but that never stopped me from telling it like it is) that occurred in spite of efforts to minimize it, and in spite of the fact that the various terrorist groups embed themselves in areas with high civilian populations, or in mosques or other religious sites, using them as shields, and their deaths or destruction as anti-Israeli propoganda, while the innocent civilians killed by the Palestinians were targeted.
In the final analysis it all seems pretty cut and dried, to me. Though there are almost certainly some very valid complaints about the way Israel has treated the Palestinians, these complaints need to be pursued through normal political channels, negotiation, appeals to international bodies, communication, education, illumination, and other peaceful means, to the fullest extent possible. Cripes, hire a Madison Avenue advertising firm to pitch your cause, they can sell darn near anything! If, however, at some point, the level of frustration with the situation and the lack of progress becomes too much to bear, and the Palestinians and their various factions decide they must resort to violence to achieve their ends, then so be it. They have chosen war, and they must be prepared to pay the price. I guess that's the case - they did, after all, elect Hamas, a violent terrorist group, to run their country. What were they thinking?
What, Israel is supposed to sit there while people blow up on the streets and rockets come raining in a few times a day? Uh uh. I'm not saying Israel hasn't made its share of mistakes, I'm just saying that by employing terrorist tactics as the Palestinian groups have done countless times, targeting innocent civilians, is completely unacceptable. It not only renders any legitimate argument they might have had moot or irrelevant, but also invites severe retribution - and the hellish cost of war will be paid by innocent civilians on both sides. It's about time the Palestinian people woke up and realized that they must turn away from the violence promoted by their radical elements, and convince each other that they must pursue peaceful strategies to accomplish their objectives.
In the end it's their choice, though - and if they choose violence, then it's pretty inevitable that they're going to reap what they sow. If that sounds callous, it's not. It isn't as if I don't sympathize and empathize with the plight of the Palestinians, I do, conditions are so bad there I can't even imagine living like they do, under occupation, with a collapsed economy, a history of massive corruption in their various "governments," and so on. But I also sympathize and empathize with the plight of the Israelis... and they're the ones who've been on the receiving end of terrorist attacks for decades, and certainly have a right to defend themselves. There are many nuances and subtleties to all of this, I realize that it's really not quite as cut and dried as this, but I maintain my opinion that it's up to the Palestinians and the other elements that support terrorism (attacking civilians to instill terror in a populace in order to achieve your political goals) to put a stop to this insanity. Then, AFTER the killing stops, we can talk about what Israel needs to do to be a good neighbor to its Palestinian brothers and sisters.
Brief history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Your thoughts?
P.S. (7/30/2006): Just found an article in the Washington Post that explains the legal basis for Israel's response.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Illegal Aliens - America's 21st Century Slave Class
My buddy Rose just sent me a link to this article, which really got my attention and made me think about the implications of this ugly situation. The "corporate mindset" of our nation has allowed us to fail to see, or worse, ignore and do nothing about, the existence of this slave class of people in our culture, and it's causes and effects. Frosty Woodridge, the author of this article (published at Rense.com), examines the phenomenon with relentless logic, and draws some ominous conclusions.
I'm for my buddy Dave's solution - just do away with borders and national identity, let's just all be "people" together on the planet who care about ourselves and each other and live in harmony (well, that's paraphrased, but you get the idea - "Can't we all just get along?"). Well, things seem to be going to hell in a handbasket all over our nice little planet here, so apparently the answer to that is "No, sorry, we can't. We have to act like immature hormonal teenagers for a little while longer, hurt each other some more, and ourselves... maybe after we get tired of killing each other, and being killed, and using each other, and being used (etc.), and have some epiphany that shows us how childishly we're behaving, we'll stop the hatred and the killing and learn how to get along, but for now, we're just not ready yet. But thanks for asking"
God, how I wish the people with real power on this planet would "get it." Okay, I'll keep praying.
:~)
I'm for my buddy Dave's solution - just do away with borders and national identity, let's just all be "people" together on the planet who care about ourselves and each other and live in harmony (well, that's paraphrased, but you get the idea - "Can't we all just get along?"). Well, things seem to be going to hell in a handbasket all over our nice little planet here, so apparently the answer to that is "No, sorry, we can't. We have to act like immature hormonal teenagers for a little while longer, hurt each other some more, and ourselves... maybe after we get tired of killing each other, and being killed, and using each other, and being used (etc.), and have some epiphany that shows us how childishly we're behaving, we'll stop the hatred and the killing and learn how to get along, but for now, we're just not ready yet. But thanks for asking"
God, how I wish the people with real power on this planet would "get it." Okay, I'll keep praying.
:~)
Thursday, June 08, 2006
A Blog Around the Clock...
Hi!
My greatly admired and erudite friend Bora Zivkovic has started a science blog! It's called A Blog Around the Clock... you should check it out, explore. Bora has a broad perspective and a penetrating mind, he'll no doubt make you think. Check out his other older blogs, too (they're linked to on A Blog Around the Clock).
Have a fine day...
My greatly admired and erudite friend Bora Zivkovic has started a science blog! It's called A Blog Around the Clock... you should check it out, explore. Bora has a broad perspective and a penetrating mind, he'll no doubt make you think. Check out his other older blogs, too (they're linked to on A Blog Around the Clock).
Have a fine day...
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
In Search of Balance
Hi!
I haven't written anything in here for a while... it's not because I haven't had anything to say, it's more that I've had too much to say! I get overwhelmed by current events and can't decide where to start, what to include in my rant, what to leave out, what's relevant or superfluous, and so on. I find myself in awe of both the complexity and the simultaneous simplicity of many of the issues that face us today. It's that old paradox thing again.
On immigration, for instance, it seems so obvious that we should secure our borders immediately and effectively, work out some viable immigration policy that allows honest people to come here and work, figure out a humane way to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants that are already here, and institute policies that prevent employers from taking unfair advantage of people by paying them substandard wages and denying them what we consider to be the basic rights of employees (social security, some form of health insurance, and so on). Each one of these seemingly simple concepts, though, is incredibly complicated when one considers the details of implementing them. As with so many other issues, extremists on both sides of the argument stretch their credibility far beyond the cracking point and incur our comtempt for their narrow-mindedness. In their attempts to make their point they exaggerate, twist, ignore or deny conflicting evidence or facts, muddy the waters with unfounded assumptions and conclusions, and obfuscate things until we've lost sight of the big picture. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could break out of our adversarial paradigm and learn to cooperate in sincere efforts to address problems.
It's the same with almost every dillema that faces us - we polarize the issues, separating one 'side' from the other, building walls where none need exist and knocking down any bridges that might contaminate the pure fundamentalist vision of one group with that of the other, frustrating any efforts at compromise, and insuring our continued imprisonment in the cages we've created for ouselves.
Of course I'm doing the same thing right now... trying to oversimplify a very complex situation (different people have different perceptions of what's best for all, for starters), and complicating what is essentially a simple issue (that we should just try our best to work together for the benefit of all, rather than a select few).
Okay, I'll shut up now...
Big sigh. Well, life's a constant balancing act, isn't it? And that's the way it should be, I imagine. May your search for the balance go well.
:~)aniel
I haven't written anything in here for a while... it's not because I haven't had anything to say, it's more that I've had too much to say! I get overwhelmed by current events and can't decide where to start, what to include in my rant, what to leave out, what's relevant or superfluous, and so on. I find myself in awe of both the complexity and the simultaneous simplicity of many of the issues that face us today. It's that old paradox thing again.
On immigration, for instance, it seems so obvious that we should secure our borders immediately and effectively, work out some viable immigration policy that allows honest people to come here and work, figure out a humane way to deal with the millions of illegal immigrants that are already here, and institute policies that prevent employers from taking unfair advantage of people by paying them substandard wages and denying them what we consider to be the basic rights of employees (social security, some form of health insurance, and so on). Each one of these seemingly simple concepts, though, is incredibly complicated when one considers the details of implementing them. As with so many other issues, extremists on both sides of the argument stretch their credibility far beyond the cracking point and incur our comtempt for their narrow-mindedness. In their attempts to make their point they exaggerate, twist, ignore or deny conflicting evidence or facts, muddy the waters with unfounded assumptions and conclusions, and obfuscate things until we've lost sight of the big picture. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could break out of our adversarial paradigm and learn to cooperate in sincere efforts to address problems.
It's the same with almost every dillema that faces us - we polarize the issues, separating one 'side' from the other, building walls where none need exist and knocking down any bridges that might contaminate the pure fundamentalist vision of one group with that of the other, frustrating any efforts at compromise, and insuring our continued imprisonment in the cages we've created for ouselves.
Of course I'm doing the same thing right now... trying to oversimplify a very complex situation (different people have different perceptions of what's best for all, for starters), and complicating what is essentially a simple issue (that we should just try our best to work together for the benefit of all, rather than a select few).
Okay, I'll shut up now...
Big sigh. Well, life's a constant balancing act, isn't it? And that's the way it should be, I imagine. May your search for the balance go well.
:~)aniel
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Indigo Children - Hope for the future?
In the post below titled "The Adversarial Mindset vs. Impartiality and Objectivity," I ended by expressing the hope that "Perhaps we can help find the balance between the realistic skepticism required for self-preservation and the optimistic hope of open-mindedness, objectivity and cooperation required... also for our self-preservation. Let's wish ourselves good fortune and do what we can." This was written in the context of our work at JRE Grassroots, a politically oriented website and community where I'm a site administrator. I used to loathe politics, but learned long ago that, as Pericles said in 430 BC, "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." Our political process, flawed as it is, is still one of the ways we can work for positive change on a national and global scale, so I 'got involved.' There are many other ways, however, people can work to promote tolerance, understanding, peace, and respect for each other and the planet.
Please read that post for context, if you haven't already.
I've just become aware of a phenomenon. Well, I've been aware of the phenomenon itself for many years, but I just learned that others have also become aware of it, and it now has a name. In the last decade or two, more and more children have been discovered to have some unique and impressive traits. Unusual intelligence, and perceptive and analytical abilities, a maturity and wisdom far beyond their years, remarkable musical or other artistic talents, psychic or metaphysical potential or ability, and other characteristics that seem to indicate that something unusual is going on. Their gifts come at a price, however - society isn't really geared to nurturing prodigies who are more often than not non-conformists, impatient with dysfunctional systems, and otherwise frustrated by the way things are in the world today. They don't fit in very well, and they suffer because of it, feeling isolated and unable to relate to current cultural mindsets. They are often misdiagnosed with attention deficit disorder, or hyperactivity, or autisim, or some other mental aberration, and all too often medicated with drugs that may do more harm than good. This phenomenon has been noticed, researched, measured and studied in depth by professionals in the mental health and educational fields. They are known as the Indigo Children, and many believe they may actually be the vanguard of a new stage in human evolution. You can learn more about Indigo Children here. I've also added a link to that site (Metagifted.Org) to the sidebar. Anyway, learning about this has been very interesting, and has given me not only explanations for some of the anomalies in my own life, and a feeling of understanding and connection, but also the hope that there might be enough of these children with the wisdom and power to help guide us through the major changes we'll need to make to restore some balance to our lives, our cultures, and the planet.
I think we're going to be hearing more about these kids.
Peace...
Please read that post for context, if you haven't already.
I've just become aware of a phenomenon. Well, I've been aware of the phenomenon itself for many years, but I just learned that others have also become aware of it, and it now has a name. In the last decade or two, more and more children have been discovered to have some unique and impressive traits. Unusual intelligence, and perceptive and analytical abilities, a maturity and wisdom far beyond their years, remarkable musical or other artistic talents, psychic or metaphysical potential or ability, and other characteristics that seem to indicate that something unusual is going on. Their gifts come at a price, however - society isn't really geared to nurturing prodigies who are more often than not non-conformists, impatient with dysfunctional systems, and otherwise frustrated by the way things are in the world today. They don't fit in very well, and they suffer because of it, feeling isolated and unable to relate to current cultural mindsets. They are often misdiagnosed with attention deficit disorder, or hyperactivity, or autisim, or some other mental aberration, and all too often medicated with drugs that may do more harm than good. This phenomenon has been noticed, researched, measured and studied in depth by professionals in the mental health and educational fields. They are known as the Indigo Children, and many believe they may actually be the vanguard of a new stage in human evolution. You can learn more about Indigo Children here. I've also added a link to that site (Metagifted.Org) to the sidebar. Anyway, learning about this has been very interesting, and has given me not only explanations for some of the anomalies in my own life, and a feeling of understanding and connection, but also the hope that there might be enough of these children with the wisdom and power to help guide us through the major changes we'll need to make to restore some balance to our lives, our cultures, and the planet.
I think we're going to be hearing more about these kids.
Peace...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
