"We challenge the culture of violence when we ourselves act in the certainty that violence is no longer acceptable, that it's tired and outdated no matter how many cling to it in the stubborn belief that it still works and that it's still valid." -- Gerard Vanderhaar
There is a pervasive "Open Carry" movement in the United States. “Open Carry” is a movement that “encourages gun owners to wear their weapons ostentatiously on their belts.” Gone unchecked, “Open Carry” will pervade our lives because Americans will accept its tenets: if the criminal knows a person has a gun they will be less likely to commit a crime in their presence, self defense, and that it is our constitutional right to bear arms. Americans believe that violence works -- that a gun is a necessary tool in the methods and means toolbox to curb crime and violence.
“Open Carry” will become a fashion statement for some, as well
In a June 16, 2008 article by Boston Globe columnist James Carroll, entitled “'Open carry' guns at our children's risk,” he stated: “What is it with Americans and guns? ‘The right to bear arms’ is the constitutional dynamo sparking an electromagnetic pulse through every corner of politics. Meanwhile, in the nation's cities, a slow-motion massacre unfolds, with gunshots mercilessly cutting down a legion of the young. Yet in legislatures, bills designed to reduce gun violence are routinely killed by the all-powerful lobbying of the National Rifle Association. Presidential candidates are universally required to worship at the altar of the Second Amendment.”
As with James Carroll, as a child, I also was obsessed with guns, for all the same reasons cited in his article, and as with he, at that time to middle age, how American that also made me.
I owned my first gun at age 14; it was a Mossberg 12 gauge shotgun with a muzzle choke. It was a birthday present from my mom and dad. I was not given any restrictions, caveats, or training. I instinctively knew how to use that shotgun. My training came from my early observation of adults and their guns, playing with toy guns and armament, the movies, and playing war games; my great grandfather had an old double-barreled 12 gauge shotgun that I played with when he was not looking. I was not discouraged to hunt. I killed my first animal at that time. My mother and father, grandmother and great grandfather viewed that as just part of life. I wish they would have had a different view.
The only benefit that experience gave me was better scores on the Army M1 carbine range than perhaps I would have normally achieved.
The fact is that guns do not benefit society. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill: “Guns make it easy for people to kill or injure someone. That's what guns are designed to do. The availability of a gun makes it more likely that impulsive feelings of anger or thoughts of suicide end in either death or serious injury.” Guns make it easier to perpetrate violence, for there is no need to get up close and personal when committing a violent act with a gun, where up close and personal is what is necessary if you were to engage in a hand-to-hand, face-to-face confrontation.
Weapons do not make one safer; they only give one a false sense of security, and “Open Carry” will probably make one a target when he or she would not be otherwise. The psychological need to carrying a gun, to one extent or another, comes into being as a result of fear, from an enculturate and unquenchable obsession with guns and weaponry, machismo, and, at some level, xenophobia: “a xenophobic person is aware of the fear, and therefore has to believe at some level that the target is in fact a foreigner”.
The institution of Capital Punishment does not curb or prevent someone from killing another person; neither will owning a gun, or a law permitting “Open Carry” or “Conceal Carry,” reduce violence.
The United States Supreme Court, declaring that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms, has disserved America. “This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.” New York Times Editorial, June 27, 2008
I have evolved into a human being who now views how things today could be so very different if only the parents and grandparents of my youth had the opposing view that guns are nothing but an insidious affliction, a horrific disease, and a ubiquitous menace to society. Sadly, that archaic conception of our forefathers has not changed. America is in love with guns, violence, and war.
“Open Carry” is a metaphor for much of what Americans should not be, as much as it is a metaphor for who we are.
Let’s provide leadership by providing a better example for our children, which will lead us to a better America.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Thoughts and reflections of Memorial Day 2008
During my formative years growing up in Pembroke, I was imbued with a culture of nationalism, patriotism and militarism. My enculturation taught me that I should support “my country right or wrong,” an enculturation where patriotism meant blind devotion to the United States of America, and I was instilled with the notion that “If we didn’t have a military we would not have a country!” It was a culture of unquestionable Christian devotion, and an unquestionable devotion to the “Red, White, and Blue.” It was a time when every young man was expected to serve in the armed forces of the United States of America either by enlistment or draft. It was a time when every school day began with a prayer and a pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. It was a time when I thought that my government would never be deceitful and that to be a politician was an honorable profession.
In those days, every Memorial Day was a major celebration. There was a parade to every cemetery in town, rain or shine, where the flag was placed at every gravesite of those who served our country in war, and where at every cemetery taps was played. It was a day of war legends, myths, and stories/anecdotes, and of war hero idolatry.
Memorial Day is a day that we honor our war heroes. It is a day of honoring those who gave all they had to give; but it is also more so a day when we glorify war, and when we celebrate our nationalism, patriotism and militarism via exploitation of our heroes.
Memorial Day, Monday, May 26, 2008 was a gorgeous sunny day. It was a day mirroring the day, almost a year ago, when Matthew Bean was interred. On May 19, 2007 Matty gave all he had to give to Iraq during a door-to-door search for three captured U.S. soldiers in the Sunni Triangle region of Iraq.
Matty is a true hero because his performance fits the very essence of the word hero. Matthew Bean gave all he had with courage, nobility of purpose as he understood it to be, and sacrificed his life for it.
Matthew as well as many other men and women also have given all they had, as well.
We should not forget on this Memorial Day that many others gave not their lives but they did give all of their futures. Men and women disfigured/disabled mentally/physically for the rest of their lives.
I am no longer that naïve child who grew up in Pembroke. When I was a child, I spoke, thought, and understood as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things. I have put away the childishness, the uncritical thinking of “my country right or wrong,” blind devotion to the United States of America, and I have completely rejected the notion “If we didn’t have a military we would not have a country!” Life has taught me that to be a politician is not always an honorable calling.
Let’s not let the politicians and the Trumans, Kennedys, Bushes, Cheneys, or Wolfowitzes of our country hoodwink Americans, and particularly young people like Matthew, into thinking that a Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq serves some nobility of purpose, as I did when I was a child, ever again.
Just look at the picture of Matthew Bean, because for most of us that picture is all we have, and tell me with all honesty: is Iraq worth the life of this young man? Do not just look at this man as the object value of a handsome young man who so happened to have lost his life, after all lives are lost in war, without profoundly understanding what his family and we have lost in our community and country as a result of his death. Think of the lost contribution that Matthew could have made to make this a better country. Whatever the outcome in Iraq it will not make us a better country. It is not what has been; but what could have been if only America had chosen a different course of action. Matthew’s grave is a metaphorical marker for what could have been as well as what could be; that is the reality of Memorial Day.
In those days, every Memorial Day was a major celebration. There was a parade to every cemetery in town, rain or shine, where the flag was placed at every gravesite of those who served our country in war, and where at every cemetery taps was played. It was a day of war legends, myths, and stories/anecdotes, and of war hero idolatry.
Memorial Day is a day that we honor our war heroes. It is a day of honoring those who gave all they had to give; but it is also more so a day when we glorify war, and when we celebrate our nationalism, patriotism and militarism via exploitation of our heroes.
Memorial Day, Monday, May 26, 2008 was a gorgeous sunny day. It was a day mirroring the day, almost a year ago, when Matthew Bean was interred. On May 19, 2007 Matty gave all he had to give to Iraq during a door-to-door search for three captured U.S. soldiers in the Sunni Triangle region of Iraq.
Matty is a true hero because his performance fits the very essence of the word hero. Matthew Bean gave all he had with courage, nobility of purpose as he understood it to be, and sacrificed his life for it.
Matthew as well as many other men and women also have given all they had, as well.
We should not forget on this Memorial Day that many others gave not their lives but they did give all of their futures. Men and women disfigured/disabled mentally/physically for the rest of their lives.
I am no longer that naïve child who grew up in Pembroke. When I was a child, I spoke, thought, and understood as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things. I have put away the childishness, the uncritical thinking of “my country right or wrong,” blind devotion to the United States of America, and I have completely rejected the notion “If we didn’t have a military we would not have a country!” Life has taught me that to be a politician is not always an honorable calling.
Let’s not let the politicians and the Trumans, Kennedys, Bushes, Cheneys, or Wolfowitzes of our country hoodwink Americans, and particularly young people like Matthew, into thinking that a Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq serves some nobility of purpose, as I did when I was a child, ever again.
Just look at the picture of Matthew Bean, because for most of us that picture is all we have, and tell me with all honesty: is Iraq worth the life of this young man? Do not just look at this man as the object value of a handsome young man who so happened to have lost his life, after all lives are lost in war, without profoundly understanding what his family and we have lost in our community and country as a result of his death. Think of the lost contribution that Matthew could have made to make this a better country. Whatever the outcome in Iraq it will not make us a better country. It is not what has been; but what could have been if only America had chosen a different course of action. Matthew’s grave is a metaphorical marker for what could have been as well as what could be; that is the reality of Memorial Day.
Monday, May 19, 2008
McCain's and Bush's false reasoning
The position that John McCain and the Bush Administration have taken in which negotiation is analogous to appeasement only reveals their ignorance. Their positions are archaic. They say the positions they take are a result of experience.
The notion that negotiation is analogous to appeasement is simply false reasoning.
The process of negotiation begins with opening avenues of communication. In its most basic meaning, the word communication means the creation of understanding.
Communication then becomes negotiation when there is a need for an agreement or a resolution. Negotiation means an interaction of influences. “Such interactions, for example, include the process of resolving 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.
On the other hand, appeasement is the granting of concessions, often at the expense of principle.
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.
Conflict resolution does not begin with negotiation. This is principally where McCain and Bush 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. The things we value such as a car, an automobile, a television, a cell phone, or a computer are the result of accumulative knowledge -- opening up avenues of communication leads to the accumulative knowledge necessary for negotiation and the application of diplomacy. Moreover, this is an infinite process. There is not an end to this process – it’s ongoing.
John McCain and George W. Bush are not capable of new thinking. They are stuck in past history. They have not evolved. They are harnessed with the warrior mentality.
A viable peaceful existence will only come to fruition through the process of effective and authentic communication, negotiation, and diplomacy.
The notion that negotiation is analogous to appeasement is simply false reasoning.
The process of negotiation begins with opening avenues of communication. In its most basic meaning, the word communication means the creation of understanding.
Communication then becomes negotiation when there is a need for an agreement or a resolution. Negotiation means an interaction of influences. “Such interactions, for example, include the process of resolving 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.
On the other hand, appeasement is the granting of concessions, often at the expense of principle.
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.
Conflict resolution does not begin with negotiation. This is principally where McCain and Bush 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. The things we value such as a car, an automobile, a television, a cell phone, or a computer are the result of accumulative knowledge -- opening up avenues of communication leads to the accumulative knowledge necessary for negotiation and the application of diplomacy. Moreover, this is an infinite process. There is not an end to this process – it’s ongoing.
John McCain and George W. Bush are not capable of new thinking. They are stuck in past history. They have not evolved. They are harnessed with the warrior mentality.
A viable peaceful existence will only come to fruition through the process of effective and authentic communication, negotiation, and diplomacy.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Some War Dead Were Cremated at Facility Handling Pets
Regardless of what is said, the United States of America and its citizenry, because of their complicity, are completely insensitive to the sanctity of life: “We Torture” and “We Kill.” Instead of being outraged, as Americans we allow both without batting an eye.
America’s leadership is so unconcerned about the men and women they send into harm’s way that situations like what is described in the article, “Some War Dead Were Cremated at Facility Handling Pets,” happens.
Of course, we give obfuscatory reasoning as to why we kill and torture/we always have the perfect apology. Of course there are reasons here, and we do have an apology, also, but the fact remains it should have never happened.
Regardless of reason and no matter how rational it may sound, to me, it's completely unacceptable.
In light of all that has happened, including, but certainly not limited to, our torture policy, treatment of returning wounded veterans, the wars in and of themselves, Katrina ... and now this new revelation, Americans still question that we may have lost our moral authority -- REALLY?
America’s leadership is so unconcerned about the men and women they send into harm’s way that situations like what is described in the article, “Some War Dead Were Cremated at Facility Handling Pets,” happens.
Of course, we give obfuscatory reasoning as to why we kill and torture/we always have the perfect apology. Of course there are reasons here, and we do have an apology, also, but the fact remains it should have never happened.
Regardless of reason and no matter how rational it may sound, to me, it's completely unacceptable.
In light of all that has happened, including, but certainly not limited to, our torture policy, treatment of returning wounded veterans, the wars in and of themselves, Katrina ... and now this new revelation, Americans still question that we may have lost our moral authority -- REALLY?
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Decriminalizing drugs
Monday, April 21, 2008 4:00 AM
Commentary: Drugs in America
Thanks, Sharon Harris makes some very good points in her speech. My concern would be the increased number of drug addicts driving under the influence. Other than that, I agree with her position.
I have long thought about this drug problem in America and it seems to me one answer would be a Greenback Cashless Society.
I would suggest introducing 1, 5, and 10 dollar gold coins for small purchases such as bread, milk, cigarettes and gratuity tips. All others purchases would be made electronically, by Debit or Credit card.
All forgery would cease and it would save billions of dollars making paper money. This would put drug growers and drug dealers out of business.
There would be an increase in credit card and identity theft. However, a few changes in banking regulation would make tracing much easier.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don:
Decriminalizing drugs should not have the effect of increasing drug usage, addiction, or an increase of driving under the influence. It will not lessen the desire of those who now rely on drugs for recreation or for those who are addicted to them, either. Decriminalizing drugs will bring about a new way of thinking about drugs: drug users are not criminals; the evil doers who exploit addictions are criminals. Decriminalizing drugs will take the criminal element out of the disease of addiction; although I am sure there will be somewhat of a black market for them.
The real problem is addiction, and that is a medical problem. That is where our focus should be, just as with alcohol, tobacco, gambling, eating and so many other ways in which humans become obsessive.
There are two problems I have with the evolution to a cashless society.
1. The potential for a greater loss of privacy, security, and freedom is a real probability.
Homeland Security has issued guidelines for a national ID known as the Real ID Act that will create a single database that marries the DMV with the Department of Homeland Security. The Real ID Act is in process for inception in May of 2008 (“The Real ID Act, slipped into an emergency federal funding bill without hearings, originally required states to begin issuing the ID documents by May 2008”). I see a future that will marry the DMV, the DHS, and the personal history of Americans -- medical, financial that would include credit history, or anything else the government might want to know about us -- into one single tool for their use: a Federal ID Card.
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Tim Sparapani, said that “the bill increases government access to data on Americans and amplifies the risk of identity theft, without providing significant security benefits.”
With the promotion of a cashless society, an increase use of credit cards only plays into the hands of our government who sees a need to reduce our freedoms in order to control us. There eventually will be one card designed to be used to acquire credit and driving licensure; that same one card would include health insurance data, medical data, and everything and anything that the government, employers, creditors, and others feel they need to know about any American.
We should be concerned, especially with the enlightenment of our government’s willingness to circumvent our laws with federal wire taps, the issuance of national security letters, circumvent the writ of Habeas Corpus, and the willingness to use torture to acquire information. The saddest part is that neither Americans nor Congress have been able to curtail these unacceptable policies. In an unacceptable number of cases America’s leadership and Americans don’t see anything sinister or unmoral in these policies.
2. There is no cost associated with fiat money, except in some indirect, not out of pocket ways. One works for the dollar and spends the dollar in whatever way one feels it is appropriate, and if they keep the dollar under the mattress it will generate no cost to them. Credit and debit card usage is associated with fees, and credit cards charge usury interest rates (although legal some of these interest rates would be considered illegal 30 years ago). It would put unacceptable burdens on the poor, or those who don’t have the where-with-all to manage the disciplinary commitment that credit or debit cards demand.
A cashless society would additionally contribute to our national debtor status and to our problems with overextended credit. As it is now, the amount of debt generated is used as a basis for printing additional fiat dollars and generating loans. Debt is used as a tool by the Fed and government to manipulate our economy. Debt is used by government and others to coerce in order to control Americans and the poor are to be kept poor for the same reasons. Today it is practically impossible to live without generating debt; in some cases the good old American dollar is not acceptable. Just look at the problems Americans have today living within this paradigm of credit. A cashless society would simply foster even greater very severe societal ills. Our whole economy is fueled by waste and destruction, consumption and handouts; not investment. War is the capitalist cash cow because war is about waste, destruction, and consumption.
A cashless society would only contribute to our economic quagmire.
I don’t know the comparative cost of printing money versus plastic cards, but I do know that plastic is a derivative of oil, and we all know how that has inflated.
Commentary: Drugs in America
Thanks, Sharon Harris makes some very good points in her speech. My concern would be the increased number of drug addicts driving under the influence. Other than that, I agree with her position.
I have long thought about this drug problem in America and it seems to me one answer would be a Greenback Cashless Society.
I would suggest introducing 1, 5, and 10 dollar gold coins for small purchases such as bread, milk, cigarettes and gratuity tips. All others purchases would be made electronically, by Debit or Credit card.
All forgery would cease and it would save billions of dollars making paper money. This would put drug growers and drug dealers out of business.
There would be an increase in credit card and identity theft. However, a few changes in banking regulation would make tracing much easier.
What are your thoughts on this matter?
Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don:
Decriminalizing drugs should not have the effect of increasing drug usage, addiction, or an increase of driving under the influence. It will not lessen the desire of those who now rely on drugs for recreation or for those who are addicted to them, either. Decriminalizing drugs will bring about a new way of thinking about drugs: drug users are not criminals; the evil doers who exploit addictions are criminals. Decriminalizing drugs will take the criminal element out of the disease of addiction; although I am sure there will be somewhat of a black market for them.
The real problem is addiction, and that is a medical problem. That is where our focus should be, just as with alcohol, tobacco, gambling, eating and so many other ways in which humans become obsessive.
There are two problems I have with the evolution to a cashless society.
1. The potential for a greater loss of privacy, security, and freedom is a real probability.
Homeland Security has issued guidelines for a national ID known as the Real ID Act that will create a single database that marries the DMV with the Department of Homeland Security. The Real ID Act is in process for inception in May of 2008 (“The Real ID Act, slipped into an emergency federal funding bill without hearings, originally required states to begin issuing the ID documents by May 2008”). I see a future that will marry the DMV, the DHS, and the personal history of Americans -- medical, financial that would include credit history, or anything else the government might want to know about us -- into one single tool for their use: a Federal ID Card.
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Tim Sparapani, said that “the bill increases government access to data on Americans and amplifies the risk of identity theft, without providing significant security benefits.”
With the promotion of a cashless society, an increase use of credit cards only plays into the hands of our government who sees a need to reduce our freedoms in order to control us. There eventually will be one card designed to be used to acquire credit and driving licensure; that same one card would include health insurance data, medical data, and everything and anything that the government, employers, creditors, and others feel they need to know about any American.
We should be concerned, especially with the enlightenment of our government’s willingness to circumvent our laws with federal wire taps, the issuance of national security letters, circumvent the writ of Habeas Corpus, and the willingness to use torture to acquire information. The saddest part is that neither Americans nor Congress have been able to curtail these unacceptable policies. In an unacceptable number of cases America’s leadership and Americans don’t see anything sinister or unmoral in these policies.
2. There is no cost associated with fiat money, except in some indirect, not out of pocket ways. One works for the dollar and spends the dollar in whatever way one feels it is appropriate, and if they keep the dollar under the mattress it will generate no cost to them. Credit and debit card usage is associated with fees, and credit cards charge usury interest rates (although legal some of these interest rates would be considered illegal 30 years ago). It would put unacceptable burdens on the poor, or those who don’t have the where-with-all to manage the disciplinary commitment that credit or debit cards demand.
A cashless society would additionally contribute to our national debtor status and to our problems with overextended credit. As it is now, the amount of debt generated is used as a basis for printing additional fiat dollars and generating loans. Debt is used as a tool by the Fed and government to manipulate our economy. Debt is used by government and others to coerce in order to control Americans and the poor are to be kept poor for the same reasons. Today it is practically impossible to live without generating debt; in some cases the good old American dollar is not acceptable. Just look at the problems Americans have today living within this paradigm of credit. A cashless society would simply foster even greater very severe societal ills. Our whole economy is fueled by waste and destruction, consumption and handouts; not investment. War is the capitalist cash cow because war is about waste, destruction, and consumption.
A cashless society would only contribute to our economic quagmire.
I don’t know the comparative cost of printing money versus plastic cards, but I do know that plastic is a derivative of oil, and we all know how that has inflated.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
A choice of candidate
It seems to me that there are not significant differences in views between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They are socialist; they both see war as a necessary ingredient of foreign policy. My perception is that the differences between the two boil down to differences in means and methods, style, gender, and rhetoric.
Hillary has a significant political history where Obama does not. Therefore, Hillary carries a lot of political baggage where Obama carries less. However to acquire the change that I expect, a president would need to start without political baggage – he/she would need a clean slate. I don’t know if that is possible.
John McCain is a militarist and warrior. There will be no significant change if he is elected president. Despite all the controversy over just how conservative he is, he is, nevertheless, a Republican and conservative, and we will have more of so-called “compassionate conservatism” if he is elected.
They all seem to have addressed and have a handle on the issues that concern Americans most. The ways and means of getting there are different, and America’s vote for president will obviously come down to whether America’s collective ideology is conservative, liberal or somewhere in-between, not so much as to whether they are Republican or Democrat.
All of the candidates use the word change in their political mantra, but it has not one bit of authentic meaning.
None of the candidates will be willing to explore the radical, thinking outside-of-the-box kind of change that needs to take place. No American is willing to support the necessary risk that embraces all change.
A herculean task needs to be undertaken: a change in the American mindset. Changes in our attitude and ways of thinking about God, religion, morality, and what it means to be human and our purpose in life. New ways of thinking in areas such as economics, education, foreign relations, war, government, health care, globalization, energy, environment, justice, and our constitution.
We have had the same fundamental problems since the founding of the United States; we have the same problems now, and will continue to have the same plethora and hodgepodge of problems for years to come as long as we continue on our nation’s current path.
Effective and long lasting change is in nature evolutionary and cannot be effectively implemented with coercion. So, I am not looking for extraordinary change -- revolution or anarchy -- just new ways of thinking that will lead to change in the areas mentioned leading to a culture of peace. After all is said and done, world peace is the ultimate.
That being said, we will have historic, pivotal, and evolutionary change, an indication that America is embracing new ways of thinking, if either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton become President of the United States.
I understand why your choice of Hillary Clinton for President.
For me: I just don’t know.
In my view, if we only had a Hillary or Obama expressing the views of Ron Paul, I would have a candidate that for whom I would seriously consider giving my vote. Ron Paul was on the right track; however, he could not articulate those views in such a way that would excite the electorate – libertarians need to have someone who would bring gravitas to their views and thread them to current issues. Ron Paul did not frame the libertarian view in a way that was comprehensive; he seemed to continue with clichés such as “printing money out of thin air.” Ron Paul would not be a good president and provide effective leadership precisely because he lacked the charisma and presentation skills of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Libertarianism is a philosophy and achieving it is going to be a process. It would be contradictory to the philosophy if it were to be accomplished in any other way.
Hillary has a significant political history where Obama does not. Therefore, Hillary carries a lot of political baggage where Obama carries less. However to acquire the change that I expect, a president would need to start without political baggage – he/she would need a clean slate. I don’t know if that is possible.
John McCain is a militarist and warrior. There will be no significant change if he is elected president. Despite all the controversy over just how conservative he is, he is, nevertheless, a Republican and conservative, and we will have more of so-called “compassionate conservatism” if he is elected.
They all seem to have addressed and have a handle on the issues that concern Americans most. The ways and means of getting there are different, and America’s vote for president will obviously come down to whether America’s collective ideology is conservative, liberal or somewhere in-between, not so much as to whether they are Republican or Democrat.
All of the candidates use the word change in their political mantra, but it has not one bit of authentic meaning.
None of the candidates will be willing to explore the radical, thinking outside-of-the-box kind of change that needs to take place. No American is willing to support the necessary risk that embraces all change.
A herculean task needs to be undertaken: a change in the American mindset. Changes in our attitude and ways of thinking about God, religion, morality, and what it means to be human and our purpose in life. New ways of thinking in areas such as economics, education, foreign relations, war, government, health care, globalization, energy, environment, justice, and our constitution.
We have had the same fundamental problems since the founding of the United States; we have the same problems now, and will continue to have the same plethora and hodgepodge of problems for years to come as long as we continue on our nation’s current path.
Effective and long lasting change is in nature evolutionary and cannot be effectively implemented with coercion. So, I am not looking for extraordinary change -- revolution or anarchy -- just new ways of thinking that will lead to change in the areas mentioned leading to a culture of peace. After all is said and done, world peace is the ultimate.
That being said, we will have historic, pivotal, and evolutionary change, an indication that America is embracing new ways of thinking, if either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton become President of the United States.
I understand why your choice of Hillary Clinton for President.
For me: I just don’t know.
In my view, if we only had a Hillary or Obama expressing the views of Ron Paul, I would have a candidate that for whom I would seriously consider giving my vote. Ron Paul was on the right track; however, he could not articulate those views in such a way that would excite the electorate – libertarians need to have someone who would bring gravitas to their views and thread them to current issues. Ron Paul did not frame the libertarian view in a way that was comprehensive; he seemed to continue with clichés such as “printing money out of thin air.” Ron Paul would not be a good president and provide effective leadership precisely because he lacked the charisma and presentation skills of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Libertarianism is a philosophy and achieving it is going to be a process. It would be contradictory to the philosophy if it were to be accomplished in any other way.
The Casualties of War
“We've all heard that great definition of insanity: Insanity is keeping on doing the same thing and expecting different results. That's what we've been doing. Throwing more money and more lives at the problem and expecting things to get better. They won't until we end this insanity.” Sharon Harris
The Casualties of War is a very comprehensive article written by Sharon Harris on the War on Drugs.
I highly recommend its reading.
This is not only true of the War on Drugs, but as an aside, it is also true of the Iraq War – it’s a very good, simple argument as to why we should get out of Iraq.
The Casualties of War is a very comprehensive article written by Sharon Harris on the War on Drugs.
I highly recommend its reading.
This is not only true of the War on Drugs, but as an aside, it is also true of the Iraq War – it’s a very good, simple argument as to why we should get out of Iraq.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Body of War
We wage war in the name of Jesus Christ/Muhammad/God.
Christians support war because the bible says there will always be war. They believe that God is on their side, just as people of the Muslim faith believe God is on theirs. All religions believe that God is on their side and only on their side.
We unconsciously wage war because we associate God with our patriotism, our nationalism, and our militarism.
We wage war because we ignorantly believe in the lies put forth by our government, and in our current quagmire because we have believed in the untruths of our god fearing, jingoistic, born again Christian, President George W. Bush.
Americans become infuriated when people like Reverend Wright use “God Damn” in their rhetoric of abhorrence to America’s hypocrisy. It’s not the substance of what is said, but rather the audacity to use “God Damn” in the rhetoric. Well … “God Damn” America and George Bush for what he has done to people like Tomas Young. There are many of them, American as well as others.
In the words of Phil Donahue, Body of War:
To all the main-streamers in the press who supported the invasion of Iraq, to the pundits who continue to talk tough while other people's kids die, to all the merry warriors who recruited Jesus to assist them in this massive foreign policy blunder -
I have a soldier for you.
Before the next President swaggers to the cameras challenging the enemy to "Bring it on," before the next Congress votes another War Resolution, my hope is that all these heavy breathing, lap top bombers take a moment to meet the First Cavalry's Honorably Discharged United States Army Specialist - Tomas Young.
Christians support war because the bible says there will always be war. They believe that God is on their side, just as people of the Muslim faith believe God is on theirs. All religions believe that God is on their side and only on their side.
We unconsciously wage war because we associate God with our patriotism, our nationalism, and our militarism.
We wage war because we ignorantly believe in the lies put forth by our government, and in our current quagmire because we have believed in the untruths of our god fearing, jingoistic, born again Christian, President George W. Bush.
Americans become infuriated when people like Reverend Wright use “God Damn” in their rhetoric of abhorrence to America’s hypocrisy. It’s not the substance of what is said, but rather the audacity to use “God Damn” in the rhetoric. Well … “God Damn” America and George Bush for what he has done to people like Tomas Young. There are many of them, American as well as others.
In the words of Phil Donahue, Body of War:
To all the main-streamers in the press who supported the invasion of Iraq, to the pundits who continue to talk tough while other people's kids die, to all the merry warriors who recruited Jesus to assist them in this massive foreign policy blunder -
I have a soldier for you.
Before the next President swaggers to the cameras challenging the enemy to "Bring it on," before the next Congress votes another War Resolution, my hope is that all these heavy breathing, lap top bombers take a moment to meet the First Cavalry's Honorably Discharged United States Army Specialist - Tomas Young.
Friday, February 29, 2008
My 9/11 Speech
I received a request from a friend who asked with tongue-in-cheek and a touch of sarcasm for me to “… write down your speech to the nation, the day after 9 /11, 2001.”
This is the speech I would have given:
Good evening.
Today, America came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts.
These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos, retreat, and to break the spirit of America.
Japanese General Yamamoto said that the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 “awoke a sleeping giant." The terrorist responsible for this attack, and all terrorist, are herein “put on notice” that the attack of September 11th, 2001 awoke that same sleeping giant.
In regard to terror, America has been too complacent. These same murderous acts have extensively plagued other nations for a long time. However, in the United States, other than homegrown terrorism and the first World Trade Center bombing of 1993, we have had little experience with terrorism. We have been complacent because these acts happened somewhere else, and not on our homeland. Instead of complacency, we should have been uniting with other nations to combat terrorism against anyone, and anywhere terrorism occurs.
I apologize to the people of America for their governments failure to proactively respond to these events. Every Administration of the last century has failed in this regard to protect the American people from terrorist. From herein and hereout I don’t intend to let this happen on my watch.
We must engage in the patient work of coalition building, consensus building, and conceding the rights of the other nations in order to effectively combat terrorism. We cannot be intransigent. We have to, each nation, take responsibility individually and collectively for the welfare of our international community.
Our strength and our resolve lies in the condition of the American Spirit, which is united and strong. We will move forward as America always has to take steps to protect America and its people.
Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded with the very best of America – the “Spirit of America” as displayed by the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring of strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could.
Immediately following the first attack, we implemented our government's emergency response plans. Our emergency teams are working in New York City and Washington, D.C. to help with local rescue efforts.
We first need to get help to those who have been injured, to those whose lives have been shattered, and to take every precaution to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further attacks.
The functions of our government continue without interruption. Federal agencies in Washington, which had to be evacuated today, are reopening for essential personnel tonight, and will be open for business tomorrow. Our financial institutions remain strong, and the American economy will be open for business, as well.
The search is underway for those who are behind these reprehensible, evil acts. I have directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities, as well as a request for the full resources of the intelligence and law enforcement communities of other nations and INTERPOL, to find those responsible and to bring them to justice within the boundaries of American and International Law. America will collaborate with the United Nations, uniting with them and in utilizing their Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to further our efforts.
And on behalf of the American people, I thank the many world leaders who have overwhelmingly called to offer their condolences and assistance. I ask them to unite with America in combating this evil.
America will join with all those who want peace and security in the world. We must stand together in combating terrorism. I will keep America informed of our progress. I will report to the American people those who are responsible for this despicable and immoral act, and the actions we are taking to bring them to justice.
Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children who have been traumatized, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened.
John F. Kennedy said on June 10th, 1963 “The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough -- more than enough -- of war and hate and oppression.”
“We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we must labor on--not towards a strategy of annihilation but towards a strategy of peace.”
We must now take dramatic but appropriate action to increase our security – decisive, viable actions that will not put America or its people in harms way.
In the words of Martin Luther King: “We shall overcome!”
Thank you.
Good night and God bless America.
This is the speech I would have given:
Good evening.
Today, America came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts.
These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos, retreat, and to break the spirit of America.
Japanese General Yamamoto said that the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 “awoke a sleeping giant." The terrorist responsible for this attack, and all terrorist, are herein “put on notice” that the attack of September 11th, 2001 awoke that same sleeping giant.
In regard to terror, America has been too complacent. These same murderous acts have extensively plagued other nations for a long time. However, in the United States, other than homegrown terrorism and the first World Trade Center bombing of 1993, we have had little experience with terrorism. We have been complacent because these acts happened somewhere else, and not on our homeland. Instead of complacency, we should have been uniting with other nations to combat terrorism against anyone, and anywhere terrorism occurs.
I apologize to the people of America for their governments failure to proactively respond to these events. Every Administration of the last century has failed in this regard to protect the American people from terrorist. From herein and hereout I don’t intend to let this happen on my watch.
We must engage in the patient work of coalition building, consensus building, and conceding the rights of the other nations in order to effectively combat terrorism. We cannot be intransigent. We have to, each nation, take responsibility individually and collectively for the welfare of our international community.
Our strength and our resolve lies in the condition of the American Spirit, which is united and strong. We will move forward as America always has to take steps to protect America and its people.
Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded with the very best of America – the “Spirit of America” as displayed by the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring of strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could.
Immediately following the first attack, we implemented our government's emergency response plans. Our emergency teams are working in New York City and Washington, D.C. to help with local rescue efforts.
We first need to get help to those who have been injured, to those whose lives have been shattered, and to take every precaution to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further attacks.
The functions of our government continue without interruption. Federal agencies in Washington, which had to be evacuated today, are reopening for essential personnel tonight, and will be open for business tomorrow. Our financial institutions remain strong, and the American economy will be open for business, as well.
The search is underway for those who are behind these reprehensible, evil acts. I have directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities, as well as a request for the full resources of the intelligence and law enforcement communities of other nations and INTERPOL, to find those responsible and to bring them to justice within the boundaries of American and International Law. America will collaborate with the United Nations, uniting with them and in utilizing their Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy to further our efforts.
And on behalf of the American people, I thank the many world leaders who have overwhelmingly called to offer their condolences and assistance. I ask them to unite with America in combating this evil.
America will join with all those who want peace and security in the world. We must stand together in combating terrorism. I will keep America informed of our progress. I will report to the American people those who are responsible for this despicable and immoral act, and the actions we are taking to bring them to justice.
Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children who have been traumatized, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened.
John F. Kennedy said on June 10th, 1963 “The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough -- more than enough -- of war and hate and oppression.”
“We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we must labor on--not towards a strategy of annihilation but towards a strategy of peace.”
We must now take dramatic but appropriate action to increase our security – decisive, viable actions that will not put America or its people in harms way.
In the words of Martin Luther King: “We shall overcome!”
Thank you.
Good night and God bless America.
"What would you have done?"
A friend asked me to respond to these questions: “What would you have done if you were George Washington when the Brits were trying to take over?” – “What would you have done in 1812, when 1000 U.S. merchant ships were seized? After 10 years of hoping it would stop.” – “What would you have said in your radio address the day after Dec 7th 1941, when Pearl Harbor was bombed?”
When American Pioneers traveled to explore the west, they could not have done it without knowledge – the accumulated knowledge that had evolved to that time and place. When American astronauts traveled to the moon, it could have not been done without the accumulated knowledge that had evolved to that time and place. To put a spacecraft in orbit, populate it, perform spacewalks, and do all the things we do in space, could not have been done without the accumulated knowledge that had evolved to that time and place. Further exploration with missions into the cosmos cannot be done without an accumulation of knowledge that will have evolved to that future time and place.
And, we will not be able to end war and establish authentic peace without an accumulation of knowledge that will have evolved in our ever evolving time and place -- our forever evolving here and now.
Gaining knowledge is a process. There is no end to that process. It is a process as in Hegel’s dialectic: that of a notion, the formation of a thesis, antithesis, and sublation eventually forming a synthesis, and then the process starts all over again with the new accumulated knowledge, which continues to evolve over time.
The end game is complete knowledge -- the knowledge necessary to achieve “The Theory of Everything.” Of course, we will never in reality achieve it, but we will get closer and closer and closer,” without achieving fruition.
These situations of conflict do not just happen. Simplistically, they do not happen overnight into something you were not aware of the day before. The time frame of these events before a confrontation that from which a nation cannot then ignore evolve over years.
With a passion for peace and not conflict, I believe every conflict can be circumvented.
The process of peaceful confrontation through negotiation is a lengthy, ongoing process. As with dialectic it is an evolving process. In peaceful negotiation, the process always has the probability of a win-win peaceful conclusion. There is always a give and take, but if conducted with probity it can be a win for everyone involved. Of course, both sides of the process must diplomatically manage it. In the process, one must understand the give and take nature of the process.
War is the result of belligerent reaction, because it has immediacy as a result of failure to act proactively.
In war, a nation might lose and they gain nothing, but lose so much: blood and treasure as well as standing, as America has lost with the world in respect to Iraq.
So, my bottom-line response is that in the zeitgeist of the latter part of the 18th century, in the zeitgeist of the first part of the 19th century, and in the zeitgeist of the middle of the 20th century without the benefit of contemporary accumulated knowledge, and my own evolution, as a citizen and not a seer, I may not have responded any differently than another American living in those eras.
As a leader, I would hope I would have felt significantly disappointed, because a war is the result of failure. But, then, of course, I would not have the accumulated knowledge to understand that I had failed.
The causes of the American Revolutionary War or the American War of Independence (1775–1783) contain a series of events dating prior to the French Indian War beginning in 1754 up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence from England in 1776.
During more than 22 years, there were many significant opportunities for negotiation, but none were taken.
The War of 1812 was a failed attempt by the USA to seize Canada while Britain was engaged fighting Napoleon in Europe. It seems to me, as with Iraq that it was a war of choice. It certainly could have been avoided.
The fruition of World War II was a result of a series of events over time prior to World War I. If you look at the history of these two catastrophic events and the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Lusitania you would acknowledge they could have been proactively prevented. The root cause of World War II was World War I.
Perhaps the accumulated knowledge to prevent the sequence of events that took place in the causation of these wars just simply had not evolved to an extent where that knowledge was available.
So, if I were George Washington, James Madison or Franklin Delano Roosevelt with contemporary accumulated knowledge and within the scope of my evolution, I would have had as much passion to find ways to circumvent war as they had in their zeitgeist to be belligerent and which consequently lead them to war. These wars had all of the potentiality to have been avoided.
The evidence of what I am talking about is implicit in the way your questions were framed. The questions in and of themselves pose themselves for a reactionary response. The answer I have given is one of proaction.
So, if I had my way and was successful with all of these events there would be nothing for me to do, nor would I have a radio address to give. The events would not have happened, because I have a passion for peace, and I would have acted proactively over the years to prevent them from happening.
When American Pioneers traveled to explore the west, they could not have done it without knowledge – the accumulated knowledge that had evolved to that time and place. When American astronauts traveled to the moon, it could have not been done without the accumulated knowledge that had evolved to that time and place. To put a spacecraft in orbit, populate it, perform spacewalks, and do all the things we do in space, could not have been done without the accumulated knowledge that had evolved to that time and place. Further exploration with missions into the cosmos cannot be done without an accumulation of knowledge that will have evolved to that future time and place.
And, we will not be able to end war and establish authentic peace without an accumulation of knowledge that will have evolved in our ever evolving time and place -- our forever evolving here and now.
Gaining knowledge is a process. There is no end to that process. It is a process as in Hegel’s dialectic: that of a notion, the formation of a thesis, antithesis, and sublation eventually forming a synthesis, and then the process starts all over again with the new accumulated knowledge, which continues to evolve over time.
The end game is complete knowledge -- the knowledge necessary to achieve “The Theory of Everything.” Of course, we will never in reality achieve it, but we will get closer and closer and closer,” without achieving fruition.
These situations of conflict do not just happen. Simplistically, they do not happen overnight into something you were not aware of the day before. The time frame of these events before a confrontation that from which a nation cannot then ignore evolve over years.
With a passion for peace and not conflict, I believe every conflict can be circumvented.
The process of peaceful confrontation through negotiation is a lengthy, ongoing process. As with dialectic it is an evolving process. In peaceful negotiation, the process always has the probability of a win-win peaceful conclusion. There is always a give and take, but if conducted with probity it can be a win for everyone involved. Of course, both sides of the process must diplomatically manage it. In the process, one must understand the give and take nature of the process.
War is the result of belligerent reaction, because it has immediacy as a result of failure to act proactively.
In war, a nation might lose and they gain nothing, but lose so much: blood and treasure as well as standing, as America has lost with the world in respect to Iraq.
So, my bottom-line response is that in the zeitgeist of the latter part of the 18th century, in the zeitgeist of the first part of the 19th century, and in the zeitgeist of the middle of the 20th century without the benefit of contemporary accumulated knowledge, and my own evolution, as a citizen and not a seer, I may not have responded any differently than another American living in those eras.
As a leader, I would hope I would have felt significantly disappointed, because a war is the result of failure. But, then, of course, I would not have the accumulated knowledge to understand that I had failed.
The causes of the American Revolutionary War or the American War of Independence (1775–1783) contain a series of events dating prior to the French Indian War beginning in 1754 up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence from England in 1776.
During more than 22 years, there were many significant opportunities for negotiation, but none were taken.
The War of 1812 was a failed attempt by the USA to seize Canada while Britain was engaged fighting Napoleon in Europe. It seems to me, as with Iraq that it was a war of choice. It certainly could have been avoided.
The fruition of World War II was a result of a series of events over time prior to World War I. If you look at the history of these two catastrophic events and the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the Lusitania you would acknowledge they could have been proactively prevented. The root cause of World War II was World War I.
Perhaps the accumulated knowledge to prevent the sequence of events that took place in the causation of these wars just simply had not evolved to an extent where that knowledge was available.
So, if I were George Washington, James Madison or Franklin Delano Roosevelt with contemporary accumulated knowledge and within the scope of my evolution, I would have had as much passion to find ways to circumvent war as they had in their zeitgeist to be belligerent and which consequently lead them to war. These wars had all of the potentiality to have been avoided.
The evidence of what I am talking about is implicit in the way your questions were framed. The questions in and of themselves pose themselves for a reactionary response. The answer I have given is one of proaction.
So, if I had my way and was successful with all of these events there would be nothing for me to do, nor would I have a radio address to give. The events would not have happened, because I have a passion for peace, and I would have acted proactively over the years to prevent them from happening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)