a
There is a lot of overheated discussion these days about socialism. The discussion centers on President Obama’s economic programs, which are unquestionably socialistic. America blames the democrats for fostering these views and for writing legislation that mirrors socialism, but with President Obama they specifically find fault, even taking the extreme by calling him a communist. However, for many Americans it is the old simplistic view that my Great Grandfather preached: “Democrats are for the poor,” therefore democrats support entitlements and take a liberal view on legislative issues and do embrace the corporatocracy; “Republicans are for the rich,” therefore republicans do not support entitlements, or it’s better to say they support limited entitlements, and take a conservative or more fundamental view on legislative issues, but seemingly at least more socialistic when it comes to the corporatocracy and Wall Street. The empirical facts are that republican, democrat, or independent embrace policies that are socialistic and all in some fashion or degree embrace a certain level of entitlement spending through taxation: the government taking from those who have and giving it to those who have not. Entitlements are socialistic: we do have a centralized government that does plan and control the economy in which they legislate entitlements and taxes to pay for them.
Within the debate of American socialism there is also a lot of discussion about the benefits of a democracy and the need to promote it and freedom around the world, as if democracy and freedom were synonymous with each other; as if as in Iraq they vote therefore they are free. The fact is that in a democracy freedom is not inherent; but in a society with authentic freedom, a society that is not coercive and without restrictions, such a society by definition is democratic: self-government adhering to the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
Our economic system is Keynesian: a system advocating government monetary and fiscal programs designed to increase employment and stimulate business activity, which is socialism.
Democracy, freedom, entitlements, and taxes are all tethered to American socialism, and are not Obamaism or Obamanomics, it is not particular to any political party, it is the social, political and economic system that America has embraced for centuries. (as an aside, a very good example of American socialism is our public school system)
My critics tag me as a socialist, but they are simply wrong. As a matter of fact, in reality, most of those who call me a socialist are like the “pot calling the kettle black,” because they are to a greater extent socialist. I am not in favor of public ownership and sharing of work and the goods produced. I am not a Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, collectivist, or communist. My views are libertarian leaning and authentically democratic as in the meaning of that previously defined word, not to be confused with the Democratic Party, republicanism or conservatism. I support individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times. It should not be interpreted as a political view, but a life style view.
I am tagged a socialist or even a communist because I believe in community, community action and community action groups like ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, as important to the political process; because within our political and economic system I support entitlements for those in need as the only way they will receive the necessities of life within the economic and social system America embraces; and most of all because I voted for and I support Obama. President Obama was the best choice from all of the presidential candidates, the one who has the leadership skills to get the job done, again, within the contemporary economic-social system Americans through their leadership have adopted, and because his rhetoric expressed a vision of peace as opposed to war .
I can envision a future where helping and caring for the less fortunate will be done of our own free will, individually, and through local community organization. I can envision a world that embraces heterarchial or homoarchial, a non-state super-complex society, as opposed to our contemporary hierarchical organization. I can envision a world embracing a libertarian life style. I can envision a world at peace where violence and war, as a method of solving problems, are obsolete. But that does not mean I believe that we should not have laws and regulations in place to adjudicate and regulate those who are greedy and who will do anything to take illegal or immoral advantages of others, or to allow freedom to engage in carte blanch criminality, as what takes place in our current system. We will always need governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws. In my view we will never be laissez faire.
In my view, the nexus of our problems are embedded in our monetary-based economy system. If we had a system such as Jacque Fresco’s resource-based economic system there would not be a discussion about communism, socialism, capitalism, free market, avarice, war, or poverty. In my view money is a coconspirator with evil.
When I contemplate the message of Robert F. Kennedy who said, “There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” I simply ask in the name of Robert F. Kennedy, why not? I wholeheartedly believe that “yes we can” is doable.
America and the world need to take on new ways of thinking about things, a new vision. We need to unload the baggage of our past. We can no longer accept that we did it this way because we have always done it this way. We need to explore “New Frontiers of Social Change.”
a
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Guns don’t kill people, people do
a
My reaction to an email I received today regarding the Columbine High School shootings.
It does not matter what may be your particular definition of God, Darrell Scott’s message “hit the nail on the head.” He said, “… Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room [he was speaking to members of the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on crime hearings on “Pending Firearms Legislation and the Administration’s Enforcement of Current Gun Laws, May 27, 1999].”
I say, all of the real blame belongs on Americans who don’t understand that we cannot look for a God outside of ourselves for solutions to our problems, but into our hearts, our souls, our consciousness, into the inner-world of oneself, for in there lies the reason and the solution to all things. If you believe in God that is what God gave us in order to sort these things out.
Darrel said, "In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death.”
Well Darrel, I disagree, they and as an extension we are responsible. I have owned guns, I was a hunter, I have had weapons training in the military, and I can tell you guns serve one fundamental purpose and that is to kill. Some are designed for target shooting, some are designed to kill animals, and others are designed to kill human beings. The memberships of the NRA are human beings, and their attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities are seriously misplaced. When you support, defend, and allow weapons that are designed to kill human beings, as opposed to designed for target shooting or if you prefer hunt, particularly when you support the sale and use of guns without regulation, you are simply morally wrong, and when so many of those NRA members and hunters say, “guns don’t kill people, people do,” of course people do that is exactly the point.
a
My reaction to an email I received today regarding the Columbine High School shootings.
It does not matter what may be your particular definition of God, Darrell Scott’s message “hit the nail on the head.” He said, “… Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room [he was speaking to members of the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on crime hearings on “Pending Firearms Legislation and the Administration’s Enforcement of Current Gun Laws, May 27, 1999].”
I say, all of the real blame belongs on Americans who don’t understand that we cannot look for a God outside of ourselves for solutions to our problems, but into our hearts, our souls, our consciousness, into the inner-world of oneself, for in there lies the reason and the solution to all things. If you believe in God that is what God gave us in order to sort these things out.
Darrel said, "In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death.”
Well Darrel, I disagree, they and as an extension we are responsible. I have owned guns, I was a hunter, I have had weapons training in the military, and I can tell you guns serve one fundamental purpose and that is to kill. Some are designed for target shooting, some are designed to kill animals, and others are designed to kill human beings. The memberships of the NRA are human beings, and their attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities are seriously misplaced. When you support, defend, and allow weapons that are designed to kill human beings, as opposed to designed for target shooting or if you prefer hunt, particularly when you support the sale and use of guns without regulation, you are simply morally wrong, and when so many of those NRA members and hunters say, “guns don’t kill people, people do,” of course people do that is exactly the point.
a
Thursday, April 23, 2009
New Ways of Thinking: Negotiation or Appeasement
a
“I remain convinced that a transformation must take place, a transformation in the hearts and minds of individuals that ultimately creates peace and harmony in our relationships with one another. If we do not link arms to face today’s formidable challenges, our future could be in jeopardy.” Sandra P Thomas, Transforming Nurses’ Stress and Anger’
No question about it! We do need change. We need thinking outside of the box. We need a transformation in thinking of how we interact with others in non-confrontational ways.
One change in a new way of thinking is in our thinking of the necessity to wage war over diplomacy: Do we kill or is it better to talk? Winston Churchill once said to Jaw-Jaw is always better than to War-War.
In our communities we make great efforts to curtail violence. In our communities we provide conflict resolution services. We speak out against hostility in our hospitals, businesses, schools, on the street, and in our homes. Yet on the international stage we accept war as an acceptable method of resolving conflict, supporting America’s hostile actions towards others on the international stage when we oppose and disapprove hostility at home in our daily lives. Talking and trying to work out our differences is labeled by many as appeasement. Why?
Perhaps it is as simple as we do not know the meaning of the word appeasement.
However, most likely the reason why is because Americans have the warrior mindset. We immortalize the warrior. A warrior is our hero. It has been an enculturation in which we have been inculcated with the mythical falsehood that the military is the solution to solving our foreign policy conflicts. A warrior’s seeks to act rather than talk.
There are simply too many preconceptions based on past history and the notion that if we didn’t have a military we would not have a country. “Thinking outside the box” is a breaking away from “traditional or conventional thought to develop a unique, superior solution to a difficult problem. It refers to looking at a problem from a new fresh perspective without preconceptions.
The notion that diplomatic negotiation is analogous to appeasement is simply false reasoning.
The process of diplomatic negotiation begins with opening avenues of communication. In its most basic meaning, the word communication means the creation of understanding. It is bilateral and multilateral, and can be under some circumstances, although not preferred, unilateral.
Communication then becomes negotiation when there is a need for an agreement or a resolution. Negotiation is an interaction of influences. “Such interactions, for example, include the process of resolving conflicts or disputes, agreeing upon courses of action, bargaining for individual or collective advantage, or crafting outcomes to satisfy various interests. Negotiation is thus a form of alternative dispute/conflict resolution.” And, in negotiation there is always a need for diplomacy. Diplomacy means “using skill, tact, and sensitivity in communicating with others.”
Creating understanding, interacting, using skill, tact, and diplomacy are simply not the same as making concessions, albeit negotiation will always incorporate some appropriate form of give and take, it is not synonymous with making concessions -- conciliation, pacification, or accession.
Diplomatic negotiation, however, does.
In an ad hoc way, diplomatic negotiation in conflict resolution should not begin with negotiation. It should not begin at the point where there is a need for agreement -- in many cases it is then too late. This is principally where those who oppose negotiation make their error. If negotiation has had little success in the past it was precisely because the negotiation was started too late in the process to succeed. Negotiation is a process that begins with seeds of authentic communication. Just as with all things, the thing does not begin with the thing in and of itself – a need all of a sudden to negotiate, for example. The things we value such as a car, an automobile, a television, a cell phone, or a computer are the result of accumulative knowledge learned through many modes of communication; when we open up avenues of communication it will lead to the accumulative knowledge necessary for negotiation and the application of diplomacy.
It is the same process in which we engage everyday: we talk to our friends, neighbors, colleagues, and others, and as a result we have a more complete understanding of their feelings, concerns, their needs, hopes and dreams, and who they are as a person. As a result of this communication, when the knowledge gained through understanding is used appropriately, we are all better-off for it.
Moreover, this is an infinite process that evolves over time. There is not an end to this process – it’s ongoing. There is no beginning or ending.
Warrior strategies are always near-sighted and reactive.
We need a new way of thinking, “a transformation in the hearts and minds of individuals,” a new script and a new beginning!
a
“I remain convinced that a transformation must take place, a transformation in the hearts and minds of individuals that ultimately creates peace and harmony in our relationships with one another. If we do not link arms to face today’s formidable challenges, our future could be in jeopardy.” Sandra P Thomas, Transforming Nurses’ Stress and Anger’
No question about it! We do need change. We need thinking outside of the box. We need a transformation in thinking of how we interact with others in non-confrontational ways.
One change in a new way of thinking is in our thinking of the necessity to wage war over diplomacy: Do we kill or is it better to talk? Winston Churchill once said to Jaw-Jaw is always better than to War-War.
In our communities we make great efforts to curtail violence. In our communities we provide conflict resolution services. We speak out against hostility in our hospitals, businesses, schools, on the street, and in our homes. Yet on the international stage we accept war as an acceptable method of resolving conflict, supporting America’s hostile actions towards others on the international stage when we oppose and disapprove hostility at home in our daily lives. Talking and trying to work out our differences is labeled by many as appeasement. Why?
Perhaps it is as simple as we do not know the meaning of the word appeasement.
However, most likely the reason why is because Americans have the warrior mindset. We immortalize the warrior. A warrior is our hero. It has been an enculturation in which we have been inculcated with the mythical falsehood that the military is the solution to solving our foreign policy conflicts. A warrior’s seeks to act rather than talk.
There are simply too many preconceptions based on past history and the notion that if we didn’t have a military we would not have a country. “Thinking outside the box” is a breaking away from “traditional or conventional thought to develop a unique, superior solution to a difficult problem. It refers to looking at a problem from a new fresh perspective without preconceptions.
The notion that diplomatic negotiation is analogous to appeasement is simply false reasoning.
The process of diplomatic negotiation begins with opening avenues of communication. In its most basic meaning, the word communication means the creation of understanding. It is bilateral and multilateral, and can be under some circumstances, although not preferred, unilateral.
Communication then becomes negotiation when there is a need for an agreement or a resolution. Negotiation is an interaction of influences. “Such interactions, for example, include the process of resolving conflicts or disputes, agreeing upon courses of action, bargaining for individual or collective advantage, or crafting outcomes to satisfy various interests. Negotiation is thus a form of alternative dispute/conflict resolution.” And, in negotiation there is always a need for diplomacy. Diplomacy means “using skill, tact, and sensitivity in communicating with others.”
Creating understanding, interacting, using skill, tact, and diplomacy are simply not the same as making concessions, albeit negotiation will always incorporate some appropriate form of give and take, it is not synonymous with making concessions -- conciliation, pacification, or accession.
Diplomatic negotiation, however, does.
In an ad hoc way, diplomatic negotiation in conflict resolution should not begin with negotiation. It should not begin at the point where there is a need for agreement -- in many cases it is then too late. This is principally where those who oppose negotiation make their error. If negotiation has had little success in the past it was precisely because the negotiation was started too late in the process to succeed. Negotiation is a process that begins with seeds of authentic communication. Just as with all things, the thing does not begin with the thing in and of itself – a need all of a sudden to negotiate, for example. The things we value such as a car, an automobile, a television, a cell phone, or a computer are the result of accumulative knowledge learned through many modes of communication; when we open up avenues of communication it will lead to the accumulative knowledge necessary for negotiation and the application of diplomacy.
It is the same process in which we engage everyday: we talk to our friends, neighbors, colleagues, and others, and as a result we have a more complete understanding of their feelings, concerns, their needs, hopes and dreams, and who they are as a person. As a result of this communication, when the knowledge gained through understanding is used appropriately, we are all better-off for it.
Moreover, this is an infinite process that evolves over time. There is not an end to this process – it’s ongoing. There is no beginning or ending.
Warrior strategies are always near-sighted and reactive.
We need a new way of thinking, “a transformation in the hearts and minds of individuals,” a new script and a new beginning!
a
A New Cuba Policy
a
The Case for a New Cuba Policy: “Long-term normalization would correct a policy that increasingly requires verbal cartwheels to rationalize. Although Tehran supports terrorist groups and is developing a nuclear program in defiance of the international community, the United States maintains more comprehensive sanctions on Cuba than on Iran. Kim Jong-Il developed a clandestine nuclear program and actually possesses nuclear weapons that may have been sold on the black market, but North Korea was just removed from the list of countries supporting terrorism while Cuba remains on it. The United States purchased more than $300 billion of goods last year from China, a country with serious human rights concerns, but bans imports from Cuba.”
Compared to our relationship with every other once adversarial nation, including Vietnam, U.S. policy toward Cuba simply isn’t logical. For close to 50 years Cuba has been considered our enemy. A country which is just about 90 miles from the United States with whom we have not been able to patch-up our differences is indefensible. To an extent it has halted our growth and evolution as a nation, certainly that of Cuba as well, and it’s about time that the stagnant status quo changed.
Obama’s outreach to Cuba, and Venezuela during his attendance at the Summit of the Americas conference, coupled with Raúl Castro’s and Hugo Chavez’s seemingly meaningful response is an important signal that the United States is attempting to build a new political landscape.
The United States must to the extent possible depoliticize our relationships with Cuba, and engage in dialogue that will lead to needed reconciliations.
In Our National Interest: The Top Ten Reasons for Changing U.S. Policy Toward Cuba
a
The Case for a New Cuba Policy: “Long-term normalization would correct a policy that increasingly requires verbal cartwheels to rationalize. Although Tehran supports terrorist groups and is developing a nuclear program in defiance of the international community, the United States maintains more comprehensive sanctions on Cuba than on Iran. Kim Jong-Il developed a clandestine nuclear program and actually possesses nuclear weapons that may have been sold on the black market, but North Korea was just removed from the list of countries supporting terrorism while Cuba remains on it. The United States purchased more than $300 billion of goods last year from China, a country with serious human rights concerns, but bans imports from Cuba.”
Compared to our relationship with every other once adversarial nation, including Vietnam, U.S. policy toward Cuba simply isn’t logical. For close to 50 years Cuba has been considered our enemy. A country which is just about 90 miles from the United States with whom we have not been able to patch-up our differences is indefensible. To an extent it has halted our growth and evolution as a nation, certainly that of Cuba as well, and it’s about time that the stagnant status quo changed.
Obama’s outreach to Cuba, and Venezuela during his attendance at the Summit of the Americas conference, coupled with Raúl Castro’s and Hugo Chavez’s seemingly meaningful response is an important signal that the United States is attempting to build a new political landscape.
The United States must to the extent possible depoliticize our relationships with Cuba, and engage in dialogue that will lead to needed reconciliations.
In Our National Interest: The Top Ten Reasons for Changing U.S. Policy Toward Cuba
a
DJ -- Music Really Is a Universal Language, Study Finds
a
Here is only one example of many examples in life where human beings are more alike than they are different. Universally, we are all essentially more alike than our diversity would suggest.
In a study by a team led by cognitive scientist Thomas Fritz of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany, African Mafa farmers who shun Western culture demonstrate widespread recognition of basic emotions in music: Mafa and Western listeners similarly derive emotional meaning from the tempo and key of musical passages. Both groups tended to classify fast-paced pieces as happy and slow ones as scared or fearful, and mostly agreed on which passages were sad, but assigned no particular tempo with them. Mafa and Westerners also generally regarded major-key pieces as happy, minor-key excerpts as fearful and passages with an indeterminate key as sad.
The finding provides the first solid evidence for a universal human ability to distinguish basic emotions in music
Cameroon’s Mafa farmers don’t know U2 from YouTube, and that’s how they like it. So it comes as a scientific revelation that, according to a new study, these Africans who are cocooned from Western culture recognize expressions of happiness, sadness and fear in the same musical passages that Westerners do.
It is in acknowledging all those things in which we as human beings are universally alike and at the same time embracing our diversity that will build paths to a world at peace.
You can find the full articles at RockOm or at ScienceNews.
a
Here is only one example of many examples in life where human beings are more alike than they are different. Universally, we are all essentially more alike than our diversity would suggest.
In a study by a team led by cognitive scientist Thomas Fritz of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany, African Mafa farmers who shun Western culture demonstrate widespread recognition of basic emotions in music: Mafa and Western listeners similarly derive emotional meaning from the tempo and key of musical passages. Both groups tended to classify fast-paced pieces as happy and slow ones as scared or fearful, and mostly agreed on which passages were sad, but assigned no particular tempo with them. Mafa and Westerners also generally regarded major-key pieces as happy, minor-key excerpts as fearful and passages with an indeterminate key as sad.
The finding provides the first solid evidence for a universal human ability to distinguish basic emotions in music
Cameroon’s Mafa farmers don’t know U2 from YouTube, and that’s how they like it. So it comes as a scientific revelation that, according to a new study, these Africans who are cocooned from Western culture recognize expressions of happiness, sadness and fear in the same musical passages that Westerners do.
It is in acknowledging all those things in which we as human beings are universally alike and at the same time embracing our diversity that will build paths to a world at peace.
You can find the full articles at RockOm or at ScienceNews.
a
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Earth Day 2009
a
Earth day is the day we set aside to remind ourselves of all the benefits to our lives all those other living and non-living things provide for us. Our environment is a laboratory, a place for practice, observation, and testing, where we gain greater knowledge about our existence and informs us on how we should proceed; it is essential to our evolution, the very purpose of our life.
All of us should take the time to reflect upon any one or number of these elements: would your life exist if there were no trees, without quality air; without gravity or, in view of our understanding of special relativity, without the earth or the other planets orbits; what would happen if we decided to just plain level the surface of the earth and tarmac, and build only buildings upon it? Could life exist? No!
Without all of the various elements, living and non-living, in our environment working together in the way it does our human life simply would not exist. We all must take actions to protect our planet from being in harms way.
a
Earth day is the day we set aside to remind ourselves of all the benefits to our lives all those other living and non-living things provide for us. Our environment is a laboratory, a place for practice, observation, and testing, where we gain greater knowledge about our existence and informs us on how we should proceed; it is essential to our evolution, the very purpose of our life.All of us should take the time to reflect upon any one or number of these elements: would your life exist if there were no trees, without quality air; without gravity or, in view of our understanding of special relativity, without the earth or the other planets orbits; what would happen if we decided to just plain level the surface of the earth and tarmac, and build only buildings upon it? Could life exist? No!
Without all of the various elements, living and non-living, in our environment working together in the way it does our human life simply would not exist. We all must take actions to protect our planet from being in harms way.
a
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
We Don't Turture
a
It has been morally reprehensible and defenseless that the United States of America has allowed this to happen.
Obama’a response has been not to look backward, let bygones be bygones and move on. In general I do agree, however, if someone commits murder should we not look back at what occurred and take action to protect others by investigating the crime, and prosecuting those responsible? Of course we should. Obama’s response is disappointing, it’s political, and in itself demoralizing.
Jon Stewarts video satire is outstanding:
a
It’s reprehensible that the United States would hand-over to another country a prisoner for interrogation in order to circumvent policy and law prohibiting torture, and for that country to perform violations on our behalf against another human being that America by statute cannot do, but otherwise it would do if allowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable for America to circumvent our obligation to protect human rights and the civil liberties of anyone regardless of reason or what that person may or may not have done even if they are “the worst of the worst.”
How can America with any credibility be critical of others of their policies on civil liberty and human rights when America’s own civil rights and human rights record are so vile. When we simply overlook them, and move on. When we claim to be a nation of laws and yet by example prove the contrary.
a
a
It has been morally reprehensible and defenseless that the United States of America has allowed this to happen.
Obama’a response has been not to look backward, let bygones be bygones and move on. In general I do agree, however, if someone commits murder should we not look back at what occurred and take action to protect others by investigating the crime, and prosecuting those responsible? Of course we should. Obama’s response is disappointing, it’s political, and in itself demoralizing.
Jon Stewarts video satire is outstanding:
a
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| We Don't Torture | ||||
| ||||
It’s reprehensible that the United States would hand-over to another country a prisoner for interrogation in order to circumvent policy and law prohibiting torture, and for that country to perform violations on our behalf against another human being that America by statute cannot do, but otherwise it would do if allowed. It’s absolutely unacceptable for America to circumvent our obligation to protect human rights and the civil liberties of anyone regardless of reason or what that person may or may not have done even if they are “the worst of the worst.”
How can America with any credibility be critical of others of their policies on civil liberty and human rights when America’s own civil rights and human rights record are so vile. When we simply overlook them, and move on. When we claim to be a nation of laws and yet by example prove the contrary.
a
a
Protecting Wolves
a
One of those most important things that people can do to work towards a world of peace is to recognize the importance of all life to our existence and work to preserve and defend it in non-violent, non-confrontational ways..
I believe we should all do our part in protecting our world from harm, which includes all living and non-living things. Humans must find ways to live on this earth with all of life's properties and species, which of course includes wolves. It's man who must curtail their activities in such a way as to preserve earth’s property and life. After all humans are the only species on earth with the capacity, the technical know-how to achieve these protections.
In March, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved the Bush Administration's discredited plan to eliminate Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in Idaho and Montana – a decision that could lead to the deaths of more than 1,000 wolves!
Last year, when the Bush/Cheney Administration briefly eliminated federal Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in the Northern Rockies, more than 100 of the region's estimated 1,600 wolves were killed in just a couple of short months.
This time, even more wolves – as many of two-thirds of the region's wolf population – could be killed. That is why we need your help.
Urge President Obama to stop this flawed plan before it goes into effect on May 4th – and maintain Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in Idaho and Montana.
Please sign the petition.
a
One of those most important things that people can do to work towards a world of peace is to recognize the importance of all life to our existence and work to preserve and defend it in non-violent, non-confrontational ways..
I believe we should all do our part in protecting our world from harm, which includes all living and non-living things. Humans must find ways to live on this earth with all of life's properties and species, which of course includes wolves. It's man who must curtail their activities in such a way as to preserve earth’s property and life. After all humans are the only species on earth with the capacity, the technical know-how to achieve these protections.
In March, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved the Bush Administration's discredited plan to eliminate Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in Idaho and Montana – a decision that could lead to the deaths of more than 1,000 wolves!Last year, when the Bush/Cheney Administration briefly eliminated federal Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in the Northern Rockies, more than 100 of the region's estimated 1,600 wolves were killed in just a couple of short months.
This time, even more wolves – as many of two-thirds of the region's wolf population – could be killed. That is why we need your help.
Urge President Obama to stop this flawed plan before it goes into effect on May 4th – and maintain Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in Idaho and Montana.
Please sign the petition.
a
Sunday, April 19, 2009
New Ways of Thinking: Global Warming regardless of fact or fiction
a
Our world is in great conflict over global warming. The prediction: an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase will cause climatic change that will have disastrous affects on our health and our economy, will create extreme weather, and deleteriously impact fragile ecosystems. The conflict centers around whether or not global warming is fact or fiction.
Many chastise Al Gore for his dire warnings and his proselytizations; they condemn him for using fear tactics to gain support for his stance on this issue. Some of the criticism is politically based, and some of it is made in earnest concern. Author Steve Milloy’s book, “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them,” argues that the Green Movement's anti-business agenda limits personal freedom. Fox News, “Fox Attacks the Environment,” and many others in and out of the scientific community are saying, at the very worst in their criticism, that it is a hoax.
According to U.S. Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu, experts say there is a 50% chance of a 3 degrees C (11 degrees F) climate warming change by the end of this century.
Dr. Chu points out that from the ice age to now the earth has warmed by 5 degrees C. So it can be expected that in the same time forward we should expect the earth to acceleratingly rise in temperature. During the ice age of some 20,000 years ago extensive sheets of ice covered much of the globe. Since then the earth has warmed to where there are no longer sheets of ice and much of the polar icecap is melting. One must ask if there has been this considerable climatic change over the last 20,000 years, what kind of climatic change can be expect over the next 20,000 years, and how will that incrementally impact life on earth.
Whether the science is wrong in that global warming is caused by humans, or whether global warming is a natural occurrence in nature, regardlessly it is in fact occurring. The argument should not be as to whether global warming is fact or fiction, for it is fact, but addressing what actions we need to take to adjust for the trend. As we gain knowledge we will increasingly have the technological expertise to manage it. We will gain that knowledge only if we acknowledge the fact that warming is occurring regardless of who or what is responsible and not ignore it, but embrace it.
a
Our world is in great conflict over global warming. The prediction: an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase will cause climatic change that will have disastrous affects on our health and our economy, will create extreme weather, and deleteriously impact fragile ecosystems. The conflict centers around whether or not global warming is fact or fiction.
Many chastise Al Gore for his dire warnings and his proselytizations; they condemn him for using fear tactics to gain support for his stance on this issue. Some of the criticism is politically based, and some of it is made in earnest concern. Author Steve Milloy’s book, “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them,” argues that the Green Movement's anti-business agenda limits personal freedom. Fox News, “Fox Attacks the Environment,” and many others in and out of the scientific community are saying, at the very worst in their criticism, that it is a hoax.
According to U.S. Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu, experts say there is a 50% chance of a 3 degrees C (11 degrees F) climate warming change by the end of this century.
Dr. Chu points out that from the ice age to now the earth has warmed by 5 degrees C. So it can be expected that in the same time forward we should expect the earth to acceleratingly rise in temperature. During the ice age of some 20,000 years ago extensive sheets of ice covered much of the globe. Since then the earth has warmed to where there are no longer sheets of ice and much of the polar icecap is melting. One must ask if there has been this considerable climatic change over the last 20,000 years, what kind of climatic change can be expect over the next 20,000 years, and how will that incrementally impact life on earth.
Whether the science is wrong in that global warming is caused by humans, or whether global warming is a natural occurrence in nature, regardlessly it is in fact occurring. The argument should not be as to whether global warming is fact or fiction, for it is fact, but addressing what actions we need to take to adjust for the trend. As we gain knowledge we will increasingly have the technological expertise to manage it. We will gain that knowledge only if we acknowledge the fact that warming is occurring regardless of who or what is responsible and not ignore it, but embrace it.
a
Saturday, April 11, 2009
New Ways of Thinking: The Venus Project
In the mid-1970s, Jacque Fresco started The Venus Project and the non-profit organization Future by Design together with Roxanne Meadows that reflects the culmination of Fresco’s life work. To this day he writes and lectures extensively on subjects ranging from the holistic design of sustainable cities, energy efficiency, natural resource management and advanced automation, focusing on the benefits it will bring to society.
The purpose of our Life is our evolution. I have an unyielding passion for Peace. The Venus Project has proclaimed its devotion to the goal of eradicating the need for politics, poverty, and war through new ways of thinking, which will scientifically lead to innovation, research, design, testing, and the implementation of new ways to tackle social problems.
The Venus Project understands it is a very long term project, and the only way it will reach fruition is through its evolution. For me, there can not be no greater goal than to eliminate life’s calamities, poverty, and war.
Jacque Fresco is a 93 year old man who spent the last 39 years devoted to the cause of, in reality, eliminating poverty and war.
We should all acknowledge any effort by anyone who promotes the abolition of poverty and war. The Venus Project deserves our acknowledgement and support.
The purpose of our Life is our evolution. I have an unyielding passion for Peace. The Venus Project has proclaimed its devotion to the goal of eradicating the need for politics, poverty, and war through new ways of thinking, which will scientifically lead to innovation, research, design, testing, and the implementation of new ways to tackle social problems.
The Venus Project understands it is a very long term project, and the only way it will reach fruition is through its evolution. For me, there can not be no greater goal than to eliminate life’s calamities, poverty, and war.
Jacque Fresco is a 93 year old man who spent the last 39 years devoted to the cause of, in reality, eliminating poverty and war.
We should all acknowledge any effort by anyone who promotes the abolition of poverty and war. The Venus Project deserves our acknowledgement and support.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
New Ways of Thinking: The Zeitgeist Movement
a
If you can change your thinking, you can change your world view. That’s the only way that one day we will have a world at peace.
To some this presentation may evoke deeply felt religious views or sentiments that may hamper ones thinking. It should be viewed with a completely open, receptive mind.
The message is profoundly important.
a
a ohn Per
Book Reference on the Federal Reserve:kins
The Creature from Jekyll Island by G Edward Griffin
If you can change your thinking, you can change your world view. That’s the only way that one day we will have a world at peace.
To some this presentation may evoke deeply felt religious views or sentiments that may hamper ones thinking. It should be viewed with a completely open, receptive mind.
The message is profoundly important.
a
a ohn Per
Book Reference on the Federal Reserve:kins
The Creature from Jekyll Island by G Edward Griffin
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The Oliver Stone Movie "W"
a
Last night I viewed the Movie “W.”
Anyone who knows me knows my stance in regard to Mr. Bush and his presidency, as well as my stance on issues in regard to society, and that of war. But, in fairness, in my view “W” was over the top in terms of Oliver Stone’s liberal use of artistic license in his portrayal of George W. Bush.
It was a good movie. Some of the actors mirrored their real life character portrayals exceptionally well. In particular, Richard Dreyfuss’s portrayal of Dick Cheney was, I thought, outstanding. Mr. Dreyfuss is an exceptional actor. He is not only an outstanding actor, but his personal views as expressed on a Fox News in an interview with Mike Huckabee are exceptional.
I am in agreement with his view:
“Richard Dreyfuss appeared on ‘The View’ to publicize ‘W.,’ in which he plays Dick Cheney, but ended up criticizing the film and director Oliver Stone instead.”
“When asked why he made the film, he said he did it for ‘money.’ Dreyfuss also said, ‘I think it's 6/8ths of a great film.’”
“Asked how it was to work with Oliver Stone, he said "imagine working for Sean Hannity... you can be a fascist, even when you're on the left.’”
'“He also said he isn't sure the film "will have any historical legs."'
Quotations from the huffingtonpost.com (Video of interview may be viewed at this site)
The Fox News interview can be found on YouTube, “Richard Dreyfuss Explains How We Are ALL Slaves!”
a
Last night I viewed the Movie “W.”
Anyone who knows me knows my stance in regard to Mr. Bush and his presidency, as well as my stance on issues in regard to society, and that of war. But, in fairness, in my view “W” was over the top in terms of Oliver Stone’s liberal use of artistic license in his portrayal of George W. Bush.
It was a good movie. Some of the actors mirrored their real life character portrayals exceptionally well. In particular, Richard Dreyfuss’s portrayal of Dick Cheney was, I thought, outstanding. Mr. Dreyfuss is an exceptional actor. He is not only an outstanding actor, but his personal views as expressed on a Fox News in an interview with Mike Huckabee are exceptional.
I am in agreement with his view:
“Richard Dreyfuss appeared on ‘The View’ to publicize ‘W.,’ in which he plays Dick Cheney, but ended up criticizing the film and director Oliver Stone instead.”
“When asked why he made the film, he said he did it for ‘money.’ Dreyfuss also said, ‘I think it's 6/8ths of a great film.’”
“Asked how it was to work with Oliver Stone, he said "imagine working for Sean Hannity... you can be a fascist, even when you're on the left.’”
'“He also said he isn't sure the film "will have any historical legs."'
Quotations from the huffingtonpost.com (Video of interview may be viewed at this site)
The Fox News interview can be found on YouTube, “Richard Dreyfuss Explains How We Are ALL Slaves!”
a
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
"Resist or Become Serfs"
a
I recently receive an email with the following article, “Resist or Become Serfs,” attached.
The email sender said, “I know you will like this article. This man does not give his definition of Capitalism. By the way what is yours????? … this seems to be a point where we disagree. There has never been pure capitalism in this country. That is the problem.“
It is important to note that the mailer is a free market capitalist and an alumni of the Free Enterprise Institute, founded by Andrew J. Galambos.
MY RESPONSE:
It may seem to some to be over-the-top, particularly the first paragraph, but if we don't make significance progress in solving the mess we are in, if this administration is not successful, I believe “We can resist, which means street protests, disruptions of the system and demonstrations, or become serfs” probably will bear fruit. We should have somewhat of a handle on Obama’s progress in about 6 to 8 weeks. I think it is not unthinkable to think revolution. We will have to resist because, in the end, we will not have any other choice.
I have read Chris Hedges, I particularly found his book, "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" very insightful. He, in that book, presented a perspective of war that should be mandatory reading (if that would be possible, of course) for every High School and university/college Humanities curriculum.
MY DEFINITION OF CAPITALISM:
Capitalism is a system of economics that is laissez faire; a nonpolitical system based on an absolute free market, one of complete 100% freedom (used in the spirit of your/Galambos’s expression of freedom, and it’s a good one). It provides for anyone the inalienable right to the possession and control of property (and, I do know Galambos’s definition of property: “property being individual man's life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life,” not that I disagree): the absolute nongovernmental, nonpolitical, noninterference economic social system that gives all an absolute legal right to manage, buy or sell, derive profit from, or to hire and fire anyone he/she wishes in the use of labor to produce or provide for goods/services for a profit, or for nonprofit, if she/he wishes, for that is their prerogative.
That being said and I do agree, “there has never been pure capitalism in this country,” however, Democrat-Republican-Independent and even Libertarian (in the sense they wish to minimize government whereas the Capitalism of my definition means total [100%] nongovernmental interference) Capitalism, in its contemporary form, has failed America and the World. I don’t see this to be an arguable point.
I also don’t see it to be arguable, in view of this contemporary form of Capitalism, to insist on legal binding restrictions, regulation, or creation of boundaries within which capitalist must act within that system.
The Conservative, Republican, Independent/unenrolled, and Federal Reserve under Greenspan, notion that Capitalist are willing and capable of policing themselves has proved to be a fallacy.
Capitalism, under my definition, will always fail as long as it is believed that it is a political system instead of a way of life.
There is a lot to change if we are ever going to achieve, as you and Galambos put it: 100% freedom; 100% of the time. It can be done: man created it and man can change it. It is simply a matter of educating Americans and the world community to new ways of thinking.
a
I recently receive an email with the following article, “Resist or Become Serfs,” attached.
The email sender said, “I know you will like this article. This man does not give his definition of Capitalism. By the way what is yours????? … this seems to be a point where we disagree. There has never been pure capitalism in this country. That is the problem.“
It is important to note that the mailer is a free market capitalist and an alumni of the Free Enterprise Institute, founded by Andrew J. Galambos.
MY RESPONSE:
It may seem to some to be over-the-top, particularly the first paragraph, but if we don't make significance progress in solving the mess we are in, if this administration is not successful, I believe “We can resist, which means street protests, disruptions of the system and demonstrations, or become serfs” probably will bear fruit. We should have somewhat of a handle on Obama’s progress in about 6 to 8 weeks. I think it is not unthinkable to think revolution. We will have to resist because, in the end, we will not have any other choice.
I have read Chris Hedges, I particularly found his book, "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" very insightful. He, in that book, presented a perspective of war that should be mandatory reading (if that would be possible, of course) for every High School and university/college Humanities curriculum.
MY DEFINITION OF CAPITALISM:
Capitalism is a system of economics that is laissez faire; a nonpolitical system based on an absolute free market, one of complete 100% freedom (used in the spirit of your/Galambos’s expression of freedom, and it’s a good one). It provides for anyone the inalienable right to the possession and control of property (and, I do know Galambos’s definition of property: “property being individual man's life and all non-procreative derivatives of his life,” not that I disagree): the absolute nongovernmental, nonpolitical, noninterference economic social system that gives all an absolute legal right to manage, buy or sell, derive profit from, or to hire and fire anyone he/she wishes in the use of labor to produce or provide for goods/services for a profit, or for nonprofit, if she/he wishes, for that is their prerogative.
That being said and I do agree, “there has never been pure capitalism in this country,” however, Democrat-Republican-Independent and even Libertarian (in the sense they wish to minimize government whereas the Capitalism of my definition means total [100%] nongovernmental interference) Capitalism, in its contemporary form, has failed America and the World. I don’t see this to be an arguable point.
I also don’t see it to be arguable, in view of this contemporary form of Capitalism, to insist on legal binding restrictions, regulation, or creation of boundaries within which capitalist must act within that system.
The Conservative, Republican, Independent/unenrolled, and Federal Reserve under Greenspan, notion that Capitalist are willing and capable of policing themselves has proved to be a fallacy.
Capitalism, under my definition, will always fail as long as it is believed that it is a political system instead of a way of life.
There is a lot to change if we are ever going to achieve, as you and Galambos put it: 100% freedom; 100% of the time. It can be done: man created it and man can change it. It is simply a matter of educating Americans and the world community to new ways of thinking.
a
Saturday, April 4, 2009
“The Making of an International Monetary Crisis”
a
“The Making of an International Monetary Crisis” is a very good article. I was a little bit taken back, amused I guess, when I read that it was essentially written in April 1973, somewhat at least. It is a good diachronic explanation on how we got into our current predicament.
I support libertarian views; I believe in the smallest possible governance. I believe in the concept of free market capitalism. I believe in an asset based monetary system of which gold is the leading contender. However, embedded in that belief are many caveats and concerns.
In this article, other than glorifying the benefits of free market and capitalism, I would agree with a monetary system valued on gold, a gold standard; I certainly am not in favor of counterfeit dollars, nonconvertible fiat money that’s only convertible for goods and services; the bank will not exchange our dollar for anything except in payment of a debt. Dollars valued based on the value of gold, or any other asset based system for that matter, would still not prevent greed, stupidity, and fraud from compromising its promise. An economic system based on a laissez faire paradigm, just simply is “pie in the sky” thinking that it works.
Because, no matter in what way anyone would proselytize the benefits of free market capitalism, the free market capitalism system failed us. In its simplest explanation, they failed us in their inability to self-regulate themselves. Greenspan was wrong when he thought they could, and even later admitted that that assumption was wrong. They, the free market capitalist, failed to self-police the actors in the financial markets and let greed, stupidity, and fraud reign.
I don't agree that "Reagan teamed up with some great advisors to return the US to prosperity and stability which served the world well for over twenty-five years;” certainly not when he was a player in getting us into the mess we are in now. He was an enthusiastic proponent for deregulation, and “trickle down” economics, for example.
Reaganism, in particular Reagonomics, is overly hyped, in my opinion. Supply side, “trickle down,” economics do not work. It has contributed to our economic decline. Supply side thinking essentially says that creative and entrepreneurial producers will create the things that they believe the consumer needs -- and will create and exaggerate the need through advertising and promotion: the advent of technological gadgets is a good example of creating a need/desire for human non-essentials; other remarkable examples are the old standby example of Valentines Day, Mothers Day … greeting cards, and of which Christmas is the prime example. It establishes the economic base for a borrow-owe rather than a save-consume consumer inculcation based on authentic human need, after which discretionary spending can take place.
Policy Makers as well as Capitalist have failed society.
a
“The Making of an International Monetary Crisis” is a very good article. I was a little bit taken back, amused I guess, when I read that it was essentially written in April 1973, somewhat at least. It is a good diachronic explanation on how we got into our current predicament.
I support libertarian views; I believe in the smallest possible governance. I believe in the concept of free market capitalism. I believe in an asset based monetary system of which gold is the leading contender. However, embedded in that belief are many caveats and concerns.
In this article, other than glorifying the benefits of free market and capitalism, I would agree with a monetary system valued on gold, a gold standard; I certainly am not in favor of counterfeit dollars, nonconvertible fiat money that’s only convertible for goods and services; the bank will not exchange our dollar for anything except in payment of a debt. Dollars valued based on the value of gold, or any other asset based system for that matter, would still not prevent greed, stupidity, and fraud from compromising its promise. An economic system based on a laissez faire paradigm, just simply is “pie in the sky” thinking that it works.
Because, no matter in what way anyone would proselytize the benefits of free market capitalism, the free market capitalism system failed us. In its simplest explanation, they failed us in their inability to self-regulate themselves. Greenspan was wrong when he thought they could, and even later admitted that that assumption was wrong. They, the free market capitalist, failed to self-police the actors in the financial markets and let greed, stupidity, and fraud reign.
I don't agree that "Reagan teamed up with some great advisors to return the US to prosperity and stability which served the world well for over twenty-five years;” certainly not when he was a player in getting us into the mess we are in now. He was an enthusiastic proponent for deregulation, and “trickle down” economics, for example.
Reaganism, in particular Reagonomics, is overly hyped, in my opinion. Supply side, “trickle down,” economics do not work. It has contributed to our economic decline. Supply side thinking essentially says that creative and entrepreneurial producers will create the things that they believe the consumer needs -- and will create and exaggerate the need through advertising and promotion: the advent of technological gadgets is a good example of creating a need/desire for human non-essentials; other remarkable examples are the old standby example of Valentines Day, Mothers Day … greeting cards, and of which Christmas is the prime example. It establishes the economic base for a borrow-owe rather than a save-consume consumer inculcation based on authentic human need, after which discretionary spending can take place.
Policy Makers as well as Capitalist have failed society.
a
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
a
Today I received this email from a friend:
No words needed....
Americans following Obama:
(the picture was animated depicting Americans running into an abyss: a large and very deep, black hole)
Today I received this email from a friend:
No words needed....
Americans following Obama:
(the picture was animated depicting Americans running into an abyss: a large and very deep, black hole)
My response:
I understand your feelings, as well as others who believe that the Obama team way is the wrong way.
But, what would you do? I understand the Libertarian-Conservative-Republican view, and that of Galambos, I guess. The question I have is what would you do working within the system that is in place now. We don't have the benefit of change over time, an evolutionary process. Since the fire is ablaze, don't you think we need to combat that fire with fire?
We are in perilous times: our security, our economic future, our health care failures have put Americans at risk. It's a disaster.
We rush in with aide in response to extraordinary natural disasters: Katrina, hurricanes, floods. So, should we not put aide in place for this extraordinary economic disaster?
In all respect to other points of view, I am sorry to say, that what has been preached has failed: Capitalism and Free Market in its current paradigm has failed. That is undeniable by any reasoning.
As can be seen from the demonstrations today in London, not only in the UK but people all over the world are pissed-off at how government and the financial markets have behaved. I am pissed-off. If something is not done we will have more demonstration and anarchy, and it will occur here at home, as well. People will revolt!
Please comment with your personal view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)