Basic question?

Another problem with reform is media consolidation. With basically six conglomerations who have an interest maintaining the status quo controlling our media how can we put fourth an alternative narrative?

Reform, My Ass!

I'd like to think we can somehow take our democracy back via he current two party system but I fail to see how it could be possible. Average everyday citizens, the 99%, don't have the deep pockets it takes to influence most politicians. We now find ourselves with the finest democracy money can buy. Which is not a democracy at all. It is something more like this. As of this writing, we still have more or less freedom of speech (unless you talk about talking to so called terrorist groups and wind up in a cell at an undisclosed location as a guest of the US military, for example). There are other taboo topics where the punishment is not as obvious but still bad enough. Those who question the the on going War on Terror, invasions of other countries and bombing those we label rouge and or terrorist organizations often face ridicule, humiliation, job loss or marginalization.

The same can be said of anyone who questions capitalism or Neo-liberalism. "What are you, some kinda commie or socialist?" Try to get a job with this label. Hell, this may be worse than doing time in the American gulag. I think we still feed prisoners and let them have shelter which is more than I can say for our ever shrinking social safety net. But if you are a massive financial intuition who has paid BOTH political parties failure is not an option. Read 'em and weep; here here and here. How can average citizens compete?

Financial deregulation under former President Bill Clinton helped pave the way for mega-mergers and big banks gone wild. Did they really expect this industry to police itself? Those who say the market will weed out the dirty players may have been correct but some how they became "Too Big To Fail" and we the tax payers got stuck with the bill. Thus the cycle begins again. For an easy to understand explanation of what's driving the financial crisis check out the documentary, "The Greed Game". The super rich are building wealth on a massive scale while people in so called wealthy western countries are being stuck with "austerity". Those cashing in spend millions on our elections and rake in billions. That's a damn good ROI (Return on Investment)! Are the Republicans any better?

Republicans are all about pro business at the expense of the ever growing underclass. They confuse being a good business man with being a good political leader. Romney offers his business skills as a big qualification to be president but is a good businessman the right person to be president? I think business are two different things. Well duh! Business is all about making money. It is the whole point. Government should be about protecting liberty, providing defense (not an empire) and seeing to it every one's basic needs are being met. What happens when doing the work of good government clashes with making money? Now it seems money wins out every time, no matter the party in power. For a good objective article on Romney click here. Republicans play on people's fears to protect business interests. Government run health care is bad! The old lady on TV says "Big government stay out of my Medicare!" GROOOOAN. Death panels under your bed! They want to take away your guns! The Mexicans are taking our jobs! The list is almost endless but people buy in. Both parties do a hell of a job on selling us on war!

In the beginning George W. had me sold on the Iraq war but I started to listen to those opposed to it and woke up. "War made Easy" is a documentary which exposes the same script presidents use to sell us on war for more than fifty years now. "They are a grave threat to us.", "We must protect freedom." 'We must prevent genocide." Bla bla bla... Neither party questions the fact that a president can start a war and now has a private army in both the CIA and Contractors such as Dyncorp and Academi (formerly known as Xe, Formerly known as Backwater).

There are others who feel this way.

Stan Goff "Why I wont vote (and you shouldn't either)"

Ted Rall Blog

Chris Hedges "This is what revolution looks like"

Chalmers Johnson Read here!

I hope I'm full of shit and those who want to change the system / game from with in are right but how? If not, what are the possible alternatives? Let the dialogue begin! Keep it positive.

Reasons to Occupy...

Can our current system be reformed? I'm not so sure. Neither major political party looks out for those they were sent to serve. Rather, they look out for those who financed their campaigns. Almost from their first day in office, a new senator starts fund raising for their re-election. Yet, they will all say I'm not influenced by campaign contributors, which is a lie. How can they NOT be? So what has this best democracy money can buy system got us? Here are just four things to consider...

1. The soul crushing Earth raping system of neoliberalism that's never discussed, much less questioned, in mainstream media outlets. Businesspeople and their lapdog politicians talk about economic growth completely disregarding the facts we have limited resources and the environment is being destroyed. There's no room for even a discussion of alternatives.

2. The so called Health care debate. The recent reforms are not "socialist." In fact, they are opposite having been largely written by insurance and drug companies for the bottom line. 30 million new customers for health insurance companies courtesy of Uncle Sam will be great for the shareholders!

3. The bank bailouts cost in the TRILLIONS and counting. Meanwhile, congress argues over extending Unemployment benefits for the needy. (more on unemployment later...)

4. Ongoing wars generating disposable veterans while making defense contractors billions in profits. See here for some of the big players.

This list could go on and on. Reformers want to work within this system for positive change. I must concede the past is not without success, there has been progress on Civil Rights but where else has mass protest worked? There have been and are a few good people in politics. Time and time again the system fails to change from within. Can it be saved / reformed?

Your thoughts?

The emerging role of women in war and world conflicts

Dear reader,

The copy paste function in word does strange things sometimes. If it looks a little odd at the bottom, please forgive me.

Thanks for reading.

In war and conflict women have always been victims alongside men and children. They have been singled out for sex crimes such as rape and forced prostitution. They have also been made to be sex slaves of combatants. This rips at the heart of any given society leaving deep scars that can take generations to heal if they ever heal at all. In the last 100 years rolls women play in war and conflict has changed a great deal. In war, we are all victims. It is important to acknowledge this primary role in war and other ongoing conflicts. In popular culture we often forget about the victims and focus on the heroes, great battles and eventual outcome while unnamed hundreds of millions go unremembered. In just 100 years we have seen a dramatic change in the role women play. They have gone from being almost exclusively victims to now active participants, even in combat roles. In addition they have taken on the role of peace-maker and keeper. It is no longer only up to men to determine when and how a conflict will end. We will focus primarily on western society and also consider some of women’s roles from Russia and the Middle East as they mark some important milestones for women in war and conflict.

The role of women in society has changed dramatically in the last 100 years via the women’s liberation movement and changing needs of society. The Women's Liberation movements have given women unprecedented new opportunities in all aspects of Western Society from the right to vote to new opportunities for employment. Now women can choose almost any field to go into and under the law are now considered equal to men. In just over 100 years the changes have been dramatic. One area of great change has been women's role in war and conflict. Prior to World War I, women served limited roles in wartime such as caring for wounded. With the onset of industrialization and modern warfare, this started to change dramatically. In order to gain an understanding of what women's roles in conflict will be in the future, let's explore some highlights of their changing roles over the last 100 years. World War I is a good place to start because it set the stage for so much of what happened in the 20th-century and is considered by many to be the first “modern” war. The next major conflict, World War II, saw an even greater role for women. After the Second World War, women joining the military became a norm. But perhaps the greatest area change came with in resistance and rebel groups the world over. It was not uncommon for women to be directly involved in combat roles. Women have also become active participants in acts of terrorism, such as suicide bombings. They also act as peace-makers

During the First World War millions of men were mobilized and sent to the front lines in Europe. This left many production jobs vacant that had to be filled. For the first time the women left the home and went to work producing materials for the war effort. For many, this was an extremely liberating experience. For the first time, they had their own money and were no longer homebound. Women were not limited to the home front. Many served on or near the front lines. Their roles varied greatly. Many served as nurses caring for the wounded; others served as messengers and in military communications. A few managed to enlist in the Armed Forces (acting as men) and participate in combat. A notable exception was the Legion of Death; a Russian battalion may up almost exclusively of women. The officers and Non Commissioned Officers were men. They all took an oath to never surrender and supposedly carried poison capsules to take in the event of capture, earning them the name “Legion of death”. They fought and many were killed on the Eastern front. With Russia's withdrawal from World War I, many of the women soldiers fought on the side of the Whites during the Russian Revolution.(Eger unknown) World War I brought about many changes that last to this day.

After the war, many men wanted women to return to their prewar roles as only wives, mothers and home makers but this was not to be the case. In many countries that participated in the First World War, women soon after won the right to vote. Many women had to give up their production jobs after the war, but many continued to stay in the workforce in areas such as nursing and clerical jobs not returning to home life. Women were limited in the kinds of professions they could do and were most often paid far less than men for doing similar work. Most companies would not hire married women at all. This started to change during World War II.

In World War II women served many roles. The pattern was similar to the First World War. In The US prior to the war, women in the workforce were mostly single and paid far less than their male counterparts. With the war going on, companies lifted their ban of hiring married women and the number of workingwomen increased dramatically. According to Stephanie Coontz, in her Book The Way We never Were, the female labor force increased by 50% between 1940 and 1945. The US government greatly supported women workers. They set up free day care for many children, including those working various shifts. (Coontz 1992). Although they did the same work, they were still paid less (a trend that still continues to this day). Despite their contributions, many politicians and academics after the war criticized women leaving home for the work place. They still believed the woman's place was in the home and with the family. Women not only served as production workers at home but they also performed various roles in the military during the war.

Women were given expanded roles in the military from the previous war. They were no longer limited to just administrative, nursing and clerical duties. Each branch of the military set up women only groups, such as the army’s WACs. Women served in almost every aspect of the war effort except combat. They performed such roles as military police, pilots and spies. They also served as entertainers for male troops via the USO (United Service Organization). (National Women's History Museum 2007) After the war’s conclusion, many men thought women had no business being in the military and as a result, they did not get the same recognition or benefits their male counterparts received. Other cultures around the world see a greater role for women during wartime, including combat.

The Russians during World War II had female pilots who not only saw combat against the Germans on the Eastern Front but became fighter aces, meaning they had shot down at least five enemy air craft. The Russians had been using female flight instructors as trainers for some time. As their losses mounted and it became harder and harder to find male replacements women pilots were sent into combat. One was such pilot was Lilya Litvyak. She had a white lily painted on the side of her aircraft and her German adversaries referred to her as “The White Rose”. Lilia shot down 11 German Aircraft and a weather balloon in less than one year. She got the attention of the Germans and on August 1, 1943 eight Messerschmitt 109’s attacked and downed her aircraft killing her in the process. She was only 22 years old (Soviet Women Pilots n.d.). The role of women in war and conflict has expanded greatly.

Since the Second World War having women in the military is now commonplace. However, they are generally excluded from direct combat, at least in the west. Women now participate in almost every function of the military including leadership roles. It is not just in conventional militaries women's participation is growing. Women have been active participants in resistance movements, rebel groups and terrorist organizations the world over for at least the last 50 years. Women played an active role in the Cuban Revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power. The famous revolutionary Che Guevara, recognized early on the value women could add to resistance movements. Women could participate in traditional roles such as caregivers and also take on non-traditional roles such as fighters. In the Cuban Revolution, women also acted as spies and lookouts. Women were over all well treated within the insurgency having equal rights to their male counter parts. In some other parts of the world women took on an even deadlier role, the role of a suicide bomber.

Suicide bombers and been around for very long time, dating back as far as the 11th century. During the 20th-century America’s introduction the suicide bombing was the kamikaze pilots of Japan. They inflicted serious losses on the US military at a relatively low cost to the Empire of Japan. In the US, they were thought of as fanatics. Suicide bombing would later take on a different form. During the 1980’s Middle Eastern terrorist organizations would start the modern use of suicide bombers, including women. A “thinking bomb’ is an extremely dangerous weapon and very difficult to defend against. Unfortunately, it is also inexpensive. Different terrorist organizations have a seemingly endless pool of volunteers to recruit from and by including women the pool of potential volunteers has only grown dramatically. Recruiting is done in much the same manner for both males and females. Terrorist organizations look for people with little to nothing to lose and promise them “hero” status, rich reward in the next life and in some cases financial benefit for their families. The example of Wafa Idris (Bruner 2005) seems to follow this pattern. She had been married but unable to have children and her husband got a divorce. Living with her mother and void of hope she carried out an attack on January, 27, 2002 killing an elderly man and wounding 150 others in a Jerusalem shopping street. There is a question of that was her intention because prior to that point women had been only used for transporting explosives and there was no martyr video to follow. The explosives were also in a backpack and not on a belt further rising suspicions carrying out an attack was not her intention. Nonetheless, a Palestinian terrorist group al –Aqsa claimed responsibility for the attack and she was given “hero” status becoming known as a “Bride of Palestine”, a title bestowed later on more female suicide bombers. Wafa Idris also became a recruiting tool not only for other women who would follow her example but for men as well. The message being “if a woman can do it, why can’t you, young man?” The use of female suicide bombers is by no means over or limited to the Middle East.

On March 29, 2010 two female suicide bombers struck the Moscow subway system killing 38 people. There is not much background on the perpetrators yet, but from what is known, the story sounds all too similar to many such attacks in the Middle East. According to one story released by the AP Report: 2nd Moscow suicide bomber was teacher) one possible suspect was a young teacher recently widowed. Her husband had been an Islamic militant. The other suspect was only 17 years old and also a widow. (Berry 2010) According to a quote from Doku Umarov a rebel leader in Chechnya from a separate article in the UK Guardian more acts of terror can be expected. (Moscow metro bombs kill dozens)

“In February the Chechen rebel leader Doku Umarov warned in an interview on a rebel-affiliated website that "the zone of military operations will be extended to the territory of Russia … the war is coming to their cities". (Luke Tran 2010) There is no reason to believe female suicide bombers will not be used in carrying out these types of attacks. Taking on the role of suicide bomber does not necessarily greater equality for women living in these societies but some think so. Women participating in suicide bombings can viewed as either an indicator of greater equality or a further degradation of women. Women are now able to fight much like men and have a more equal status to their male counterparts. They are now given the same “hero” status as male suicide bombers. For example, female Palestinian suicide bombers are called “Brides of Palestine.” Another way to view women suicide bombers is they are far less valuable and so are more disposable. Men can serve as better fighters and should not be “wasted” on suicide missions. Women can better serve by staying at home and having children, lots of children. They will grow up to become fighters.

Not all roles played by women in war and conflicts are centered on participating in violence or being the victim. A vital role many

women play is that of peacemaker. Aung San Suu Kyi and her peaceful struggle for Burmese Democracy is well known example.

The role of peacemaker does not have to only be played by a head of state or even a famous person. One such person was Marla

Ruzika. She protested the war in Afghanistan but that was not enough. She went to Kabul shortly after the fall of the Taliban and

began doing work on the war’s impact on civilians. Using what she learned, she successfully lobbied the US Military and USAID

to give local civilians more aid. Ms. Ruzika also lobbied the US Congress through Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to provide

medical, vocational and other types of assistance for both Afghan and later Iraqi civilians impacted by war. Tragically, she also

became a victim of war. She was killed in Baghdad in a suicide bomb attack in 2005. The Non Governmental Organization she

founded, CIVIC (Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict). It is dedicated to helping civilians in wars all over the world (Civic

2009).

Women have accomplished much in the last 100 years, achieving greater equality than ever before. How they participate in conflicts and wars around the globe reflect this change. There is no question they have a greater impact than ever before and their influence over what goes on will only increase with time. As of this writing, women are still nowhere near as active participants as their male counterparts but this is changing steadily. As women continue to struggle for equal rights, hopefully this will spill over into other areas of inequality and reduce conflict.

References

Berry, Lynn (2010) “Report: 2nd Moscow suicide bomber was teacher” retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100404/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_violence

Bruner, C. (2005) Female Suicide Bombers – Male Suicide Bombing? Looking for Gender in Reporting the Suicide Bombings of the Israeli – Palestinian Conflict. Global Society, Vol. 19 No. 1. 29-48

Coontz, Stephanie (1992) The Way we Never Were American Families and the Nostalgia Trap New York, NY Basic Books

Civic (2009) retrieved from http://www.civicworldwide.org/index.php

Eger, Christopher (n.d.) “Russian Women's Legion of Death The Organization and Record of the Women’s Battalions 1917” retrieved from http://modern-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/russian_womens_legion_of_death

Harding, Luke Tran, Mark (2010) “Moscow metro bombs kill dozens” retrieved from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/29/moscow-metro-bombs-explosions-terror

National Women's History Museum (2007) “Partners in Winning The War: American Women in World War II” retrieved from http://www.nwhm.org/Partners/exhibitentrance.html

Soviet Women Pilots in the Great Patriotic War (n.d) retrieved from http://mysite.pratt.edu/~rsilva/sovwomen.htm

Learning to occupy... Time is a Wasting!

I'm back, been working on a few book ideas that have been floating around the last few years.

What are we seeing with the Occupy events springing up around the country? I went to one close by here in Greensboro to check it out. It was late afternoon an there were few people there. I do plan to go back because I like the feel of it and agree there are a lot of problems in the world that will require major structural changes to resolve. It is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. I find them both to be the problem and not a part of any solution. My older lefty friends say we HAVE to vote for Obama! Heaven forbid one of those lunatic Republicans get in there. (More on them soon) No, we have to delegitimize the entire system. Stop participating! Pay off (or not) and get rid of the credit cards. Banks make money on every transaction! Don't finance shit you do not have to have. Renting wheels, please... Turn off the TV. Cut the fantasy already.

Let's cut through the BS.

Incomes of Top 1% Increased 275% Between 1979-2007

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand this is NOT a good trend. Soon, we too will join most third world countries wit a tiny group of super rich and masses of poor.

Exxon 10.7 Billion dollars 1qtr 2011 profits.

Need I say more. It speaks for itself.

Real unemployment VS Corporate Profits

Trickle down my big black ass! And I'm a white dude.

Health care? Our "For profit" system is killing us literally. But don't take my word for it click here. Someone between jobs gets seriously sick and goes to the hospital and then looses their home. Why are we not asking why can occur? No, we don't ask such uncomfortable here. Instead, we pass "reform" that gives insurance companies 30+ million more customers. Now you tell me, who runs this country? To those who cheered during one of the recent debates when the Blitzer shill asked if the uninsured should be allowed to die, I think you are a disgrace to your party, country and religion. This is not a football game. Real flesh and blood people are dying and you... cheer.

Now the cops are cracking down on Occupy Wall Street all over the country. Free Speech, yeah sure... Who runs this country?

And pleas stop listening to idiots on TV talking about OWS. Here's a bold idea, read about it yourself from the source. If you think as I think, if you feel as I feel Get involved.

Other projects are calling....

BE BACK IN A FEW MONTHS!

Thanks to all who have read so far...

Government as Business

Government is not a business and attempts to run government as a business, I think are misguided. The goal of business is to make money PERIOD. Sure, there may be a few rules that work for both but they are in no way the same thing. Ideally, in a free society, the number one role of government is to protect our freedoms. Government should provide a good national defense (not a damn empire thank you). It should also protect our weakest and most at risk citizens, those who cannot take care of themselves. This is a true measure of a great society. Instead of saying, "Government is the problem, not the solution" (Ronnie Raygun), we should realize that ALL of us ARE the government. Thus we take responsibility for our problems. This entails a few things that are completely lacking today. Informed citizens (not mindless consumers) who know they can bring about real change and reform. A functional education system that creates informed citizens is now all but non-existent. A true free press that is unafraid to point out shortcomings, corruption and conflicts of interest. We now only have a handful of powerful conglomerations that parrot the party line without asking uncomfortable questions.

In fact, we now have the business model applied to government. The recent Debit Ceiling deal is proof. Who gives a shit if some needy people are tossed under the bus? We got a deficit problem! It has to be fixed NOW! Rich corporations buy with pennies the circus in Washington and make millions in tax cuts and deregulation. They use the infotainment (used to be news) industry to remind us this is the only way (and oh by the way you are free). The most important thing in business is making money and not protecting rights, taking care of the weak or making informed citizens. Look at what we got now.

We have essentially a one party state, the conservative party. There are two wings the center right, known as the Democrats and the far right, the Republicans. This makes up our so-called choice. The system does not allow for any other party to get a foothold in Washington. There is a slight exception in the Tea Party. These guys and gals are to the right of Genghis Khan. So the choice is center right, far right and extreme right. The left is all but dead in this country leaving control of the political dialogue firmly in control of conservatives who think the free market / business model is the answer to every problem.

Here we are with massive deficits (have we already forgot the bank bailouts and ongoing wars?). The economy is still in the tank and if there is any change, it is for the worse. All the jobs we shipped over seas (thank you both parties) are not ever coming back. Those over 50 cannot find work now. The safety nets are being dismantled along with our middle class. Meanwhile... those at the top are doing far better than just ten years ago, profits are up and no new taxes!

Musical Chairs on the Titanic II

The tighter one tries to hold on to something, the more it slips away. The wealthiest among us will try to hold on to power and status as our oil dependent economy slows and morphs into a post oil economy. How bat things will get, I think it is a question of how fast we move into an economy without oil as the life-blood. The slower, the more painful it will be. There will be more and more wars fought over scarcity and it is not totally impossible we will again see the use of nuclear weapons by some set of fools who thing they can “win.” Safe clean water will also become an ever-scarcer resource. So will food. Hang on! Looks like the road ahead may be a bit bumpy. Thinking about masses of desperate hungry poor people and an ever shrinking group of elites trying to cling to their lifestyle at any cost is not all of that pleasant. I believe we are seeing the beginnings of this now and it looks like it will only grow worse. Worldwide, there is already the so-called bottom billion. It may need to be changed in time to the bottom two billion. It looks like the fun is also starting here in the USA as well.

With the recession / depression (what ever you want to call it) showing no signs of ending desperation will soon start to set in here in the USA as well. The unemployment money has so far been just enough to hold things together but it is ending for more and more people each week. All the Federal unemployment extensions end at the end of the year (give or take a week or two). Given the current batch of lunatics in Washington DC, I'm not looking for any renewals this time. They have no interest in addressing the real problem of no demand equals no jobs. Mind you the people that fund the circus also known as campaign season are doing quite well. But I think this is temporary. More and more people will stop playing the game either by choice or by becoming destitute.

As more and more people stop playing the game, the current system will grind to a halt. With no jobs, there will be less and less to pay the big finance companies on mortgages, credit cards and other schemes. People may soon start to realize that this is indeed a one party state and the meaninglessness of Democrat or Republican. When this happens, they will opt out of the political game as well. What would happen if only 10% or 11% of us voted? Who could claim a mandate? But the winning tool would try. It looks like we are going to have to pass through a pretty dark time. Blogs, like this one, that ask important and uncomfortable questions may disappear. The freedom rhetoric we are so fond of on race day will still be there but people like me who ask why are there terrorists in the first place, will be silenced. Somehow, asking why there are terrorists will become support for terrorists. But this too will pass with time. Lying leaders don’t last long. Adolph and Pol Pot now know this. What comes next may be pretty cool if you can live without some of the toys (made into necessities). Okay so the entry is still pretty dark.

If we deplete all of the oil much faster than current estimates much of the bad stuff mentioned will still happen but people will figure out how to live on their own much quicker. Instead of depending on lunatics in places like Washington DC, distant finance companies and long distance truckers, they will learn how to be truly independent. Local relations will become the only relations that matter. Imagine getting to know your neighbors! We will have to get to know our close neighbors and trade skills like building, security and food production. Today, this seems like living on another planet but civilizations rise and fall. The Incas, Aztecs, Romans and Egyptians all found out. But but our civilization is so much more advanced you may be thinking but plain old human shortcomings are still with us. Our arrogance in thinking our American way of doing things is the best and only way. Our pride in our powerful military that we think of as undefeatable that drains the treasury and indeed loses wars from time to time. We may want to re-think “military solution.” Our greed that drives us to take resources from others and says to hell with you, we have a lifestyle to up-keep. Our ignorance is bliss attitude that ignores the views (and basic rights) of other peoples as well as science. Global warming could give two shits if you think it is real or not. There is no way around this simple fact our civilization cannot last. What else happens to the arrogant, the proud, the greedy and the ignorant? They collapse! The greatest technology in the world is no match for basic human failings.

I do not buy into end times or similar non-sense. The changes from an oil based economy to what ever is next is not world ending. People will do what they do best and that is adapt and adjust. We don’t need 200 cable TV channels, imported food and the latest gizmos from slave labor factories in China to live well. We really do not have to have cars. I think we will be getting back to basics. All we need for a good life are the basics, food, shelter, clothes, love and to be useful.

Or I’m full of shit… Let me know.

Further reading...

Musical Chairs on the Titanic Part II up soon!

Nothing is shocking…

It seems we have crossed into a dangerous zone of complacency where nothing really shocks us anymore, except dumbass things. Casey Anthony, phone tapping and tell all books about celebrities are great cause for concern meanwhile… climate change, unending wars and a whole host of other issues go on and on unresolved with no resolution in sight. Let’s face it people, we’ve forgot how to raise hell about things that really matter. Gone are the sit-ins, marches, and demonstrations (okay there have been a few notable exceptions). Bye-bye Casey Anthony and hello Amy Winehouse! Her life was indeed tragic and she was a great talent but the media will ride this story for all they can squeeze out of it. Here are just a few things I think could use some real coverage.

Generations of our fellow human beings living in a massive garbage dump. Why is this still going on?

If you think the on going war in Iraq is over, guess again!

The ever-increasing wealth divid here in the USA.

The militarization of our southern border.

The human costs of the Mexican Drug War.

The number of wars has increased under President Obama. Iraq, Afghanistan, plus Yemen, Libya and Somalia. Sure a few of those may go back to George W. but remind me again why Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize? Good article.

I think Stan may be right voting for either party is legitimizing a lot of really bad shit. I may indeed pass next November 4^th.

Musical Chairs on the Titanic

You know if the peak oil crowd is right and we have passed or will pass in the near future peak oil production, the debit ceiling hysteria, blathering about Casey Anthony and similar nonsense that passes for news these days will soon be seen for the idiocy it really is. If you are unfamiliar with peak oil it is the notion that as some point we will have used more than half the oil the Earth can supply, the easy half. There’s no getting around it, the world we know runs on oil. As oil gets harder and more expensive to produce, what will happen? There is hope in “Green” energy but a good question to ask is can it possibly replace oil fast enough if at all? Here’s the problem as I see it. Can we maintain our rock and roll lifestyle here in the west (based on the notion of limitless economic growth) and expect it to simply go on forever? Keep in mind some other nations want to emulate us in living as if there is no tomorrow and it is cost free.

A part of the problem is that this is a slowly unfolding disaster taking decades, not days. We have a problem wrapping our head around large long-term problems and coping with them in a sane manner. In my book, the global warming deniers fall into this category. We muddy the waters with politics and do nothing all while watching polar icecaps melt and global temperature rise. We have become adept at bullshitting ourselves. It may NOT end with “they all lived happily ever after.” So… if the story has a different looking ending than the typical fairy tale, what would it be?

Civilizations like people that make the up go through life spans. When they fall, it is often not very pretty but life goes on. The Roman Empire did not last forever but had a nice long run. Once it fell, the so-called dark ages set in. Life became much more difficult but the wheels of time kept on rolling. The same is true of some of the great Indian civilizations in Central and South America. Now, we are nearing the collapse of the Great American Empire. Don’t worry, no doomsday predictions here, I’ll leave that to the religious whackos. So what will follow? We may be in for some major changes as we deplete our natural resources. Let’s consider class, culture and a little economics.

Looking at it as I often do through a class perspective, life could get very weird very fast. Today’s powerful are no different than the powerful who came before. People have done some crazy shit to maintain “control”. Pol Pot, Hitler and Idi Amin are just a few recent classic examples of the lengths people will to maintain power over others. Check out Gaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria as of this writing. There are less stark examples like white southerners resisting the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s. Some resorted to extreme violence to keep the status quo. Large corporations are subtler but behave similarly. Any threat to the bottom line is met with fierce resistance, such as regulation. Slow violence comes to mind. As poisons seep into the environment causing cancer rates to soar in places like Louisiana here in the United States and the tar sands area of Alberta, Canada; they deny any correlation and buy off the politicians to keep the status quo. Keep in mind we are busy mastering the dark arts of violent population control in places like Baghdad. Sooner or later, people will stop believing the propaganda from Washington via the media about the American Dream and our better days still being ahead of us. Less subtle means of control learned elsewhere can be brought home. As the economy contracts the powerful will likely act as they always do and the slow violence may soon morph into direct violence. We’ve seen this already on a relatively small scale in post Katrina New Orleans. Private security personnel protecting assets of the wealthy who are undeterred from shooting first and asking questions later on if at all. As long as there are television and radio look for the propaganda apparatus to go into hyper-drive. State sponsored killings of citizens will become a “…necessary response to terrorists, looters, hooligans, gangs and other deviants who are a threat to our way of life.”

Consider Baghdad as a nee model for your hometown. At the top, there’s the Green Zone. This is the most secure area in the city and also happens to be where the people who run things live. In the Green Zone there is plenty to eat, good medical care and a steady supply of electricity. The rest of the city is known as the Red Zone or no go zone. This is a land full of walls, check points, and general uneasiness. Medical care is sporadic to non-existent as well as electricity. The power here is in the hands of gangs and warlords. Be very careful what you say on that cell phone, landline and Internet. There are ears everywhere and if they hear the wrong thing, you could wind up in detention or the morgue. Satisfying basic needs like safety and security are on an hour-to-hour basis. Remember, Iraq is now a democratic society! To think or say otherwise are dangerous.

Sure I’ve lost my marbles you may be thinking if you have read this far! Also ask yourself how long is it before the predators now flying the US Mexican border area (and some of our larger cities) are armed? The illusion of freedom we all cherish so much now will continue in the form of elections void of real choices and dissenters quietly extinguished via marginalization and other means. But there is good news! If we do find ourselves living in such a society in the not so distant future, keep in mind it cannot last. If we cannot find an alternative way to power our industrial civilization what will a post-industrial society look like? If we can manage to get through the transition period without nuking the planet or completely poisoning the environment, perhaps life will be not so bad.

Part II will be up shortly. It gets better and not quite so damn dark!

For further reading check out the following:

http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/

The Distance... Matters.

I don't know about you but I'm a huge fan of the late great George Carlin. He did a bit one time that was not only funny as hell but key in understanding conflict. It has to do with distance. In a nut shell, "The guy on TV is a REAL A-S--S-H-O-L-E!! but the person next to you in line is a real asshole. The further one is away from the conflict and all the consequences, the easier it is to decide to keep it going. There has to be a name for this in the study of conflict but it escapes me now. I thinks this applies across the spectrum of conflict from very small (Family, office, church) all the way up to warring nation states. I've seen it in small companies where the guy that runs the business does not like getting his hands dirty assigns the unpleasant task of firing someone to a subordinate. I can hear the thought process now, "Why should I take the risk of a going postal reaction when I have an underling who can?" Moving up in size and complexity the idea still works.

One large corporation buys another and thousands are laid off, the CEO's are most likely not directly affected. There is no downward lifestyle change. This makes the sale easy. This is Capitalism after all, so it is up to the workers to fend for themselves. The state can pick up the tab in unemployment, food stamps, and other social services. So it goes with outsourcing. There are many places labor is pennies on the dollar compared to here in the USA. It's true companies who stay here with our more expensive labor face the prospect of being put out of business by the competition. Once again, those at the top are by and large unaffected. The needs of the employees and the needs of the company are in conflict. It is easy for those in leadership positions to choose the needs of the company over the needs of the employees. As things are now structured, it is their job to do so. They are legally bound to maximize profits for share holders. Other needs like job security, are secondary. Why are things structured this way and who benefits? Ahhh, there's the class / rich vs. poor frame again!

I think open war works in much the same way. It is easier for Presidents Bush and Obama to continue the so called war on terror / occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, attacks on Libya (not really hostilities mind you), Yemen, Somalia and god only knows where else knowing they or their families will never be affected. Will either man's daughters ever see combat? Perhaps not totally impossible but highly doubtful. I don't mean to say neither Bush or Obama has a soul or a conscience, I think both do but lacking a really personal stake makes the decision to keep the wars going easier. If leaders had to truly lead from the front how different would it be? If they had to personally clean up some "collateral damage" how would they change their thinking?

While thinking on this idea of distance in conflict I could not help but wonder about some of the most evil leaders in recent history. Did Hitler ever picnic at Auswitch Concentration Camp to see first hand how the "Final Solution" was going? If he did, I never herd of it. Did Pol Pot ever make an official visit to Tou Sleng? I've never her of it if he did. I could go on and on but I think you got the point.

I think recognizing the idea of Distance is important. I wish more decision makers were aware of it. It is easy to read in a dry DOD report, Secret police document or see on our highly edited nightly news but there is no substitute for direct experience of Collateral damage.

Corporations, Transition of Power

We are changing how we organize our societies not just here in the United States but all over the world. Until recent times governments held power and gave people’s lives purpose and direction. In recent decades this has started to change dramatically. The power is being passed on from governments to large multinational corporations with no loyalty to any one nation or group. These companies influence every aspect of our lives, from the way we are informed and entertained, the medical care we will receive, our educational systems, our rights as citizens and even when we go to war. This issue is world wide and no nation goes unaffected. However, the leading nation in the global economy is the United States so attention will be focused on the USA and the impact our actions have on the rest of the world. We have become far more informed about the services and products we buy than about how our government works and interacts with the rest of the world. We forget in the mean time what it means to be informed citizens about the world around us and how our government is working, and more importantly who it is working for. As we change from a society based on citizens to one based on consumers, we steadily lose control over our lives, rights and our humanity. To see how this shift is happening, first we will look at what a corporation is and where it comes from. Second, how the television has fundamentally changed society from a nation of citizens to one of consumers. Third, how our very lives are effected by the health care industry and lastly how our government has been all but taken over by the influence of corporate donors.

A corporation is not a good or evil entity but a group of people running a business to make money. Making a profit for its share holders and protecting the liability of those it employees are the only reasons for its existence. Corporations here in the US have many of the same rights as a “person”. They can buy property, sue and be sued in court, have assets and sign contracts. In the 19th century a corporation was set up to accomplish a goal such as railroad or bridge building and there was a time limit on the life of the corporation. Things started to change when in 1886 the Supreme Court in Santa Clara County Vs. Pacific Railroad the Chief Justice at the time Morrison R. Waite stated before any decision was reached, that the entire court believed that juristic person had the same legal rights as a real person under the 14th amendment to The Constitution (1. The Corporation). This was used in later legal decisions as corporations gained power. Corporations are not here to make the earth better, ensure equality, defend people’s rights, help those less fortunate or champion democracy or any other form of government. They can do these things as long as it does not get in the way of making as much money as possible for their investors. In order to make a good profit companies may do the opposite of these things if it is in their financial interest to do so. In the first half of the last century the power of corporations steadily grew and so did their influence in both state and federal government. One invention popularized in the mid twentieth century helped economies to explode leading to the multi national giants we know today. That invention was the television.

A big part of this fundamental change in society, citizens becoming consumers, has to be the near universal use of television. Television is an extremely powerful force and can be used to educate, inform, inspire change and or control and influence a population. Only five large companies; Time Warner Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany and Viacom (formerly CBS) control almost all of the news watched in the United States. All of these companies have one thing in common. Their first responsibility is to make money for their share holders and this influences what passes for news in the United States. Rather than inform the public about important issues the news companies find out what the public wants to see and gives it to them. Take for example the missing person case all over the news at the time of this writing, the Stacy Peterson case. The story is a familiar one in mass media often repeated. A woman or a child goes missing (often they are white) and the media picks up on the story and if it is sensational enough the story will get national attention. To put this in perspective, as of December 31, 2006 the FBI had over 110,000 records of missing persons in their NCIC database. (2. FBI) The story of Stacy Peterson is tragic, a much younger woman married to a much older man who has lost other wives under mysterious circumstances and has now gone missing. News talk shows try to beat each other with digging up new details to boost ratings. In the light of a new detail about the tragedy often they will change at the last minute what they were going to cover for that episode. There is an opportunity cost here. For this sad story to make it to the national news something has to not get coverage. It is not just one network covering this but all of them. They are covering stories that have a direct impact on the public’s lives less while they are using airtime and resources covering a largely local interest story about woman among thousands who has gone missing. Another way large media corporations influence the news watched by the viewing public is through the notion of being “fair and balanced”. To avoid the appearance of favoring one side over another, ideas that are not equal are given equal time. Global Warming is the prefect example. In the scientific community, Global Warming is a fact that is not up for debate (the only thing being questioned is how fast the Earth is warming) but almost any story on a network news channel in the US will usually give airtime to someone saying Global Warming is still an unproven theory. This is done not to get all the facts but to protect the news outlet’s bottom line. They do not want to upset sponsors like energy companies or viewers who believe it is about politics and not real climate change. It is not just the news, television takes us away from each other and molds us into individual consumers no longer a part of a wider community.

Television not only gives us a limited view of the world through the news it also gives us a narrow view of ourselves as consumers. For every hour of TV there are around 15 minutes of commercials. In 2006 according to Nielsen Media Research the average household had a TV on about eight hours a day or around 120 minutes of commercials a day! It is marketing on a massive scale and commercials are aimed at each viewer as an individual. Commercials are directed at you as an individual saying you need this or that to make your life better or more recently and sinisterly, you deserve this or that i.e. you are more special than others. (3. Kaufman) In television shows themselves there is advertising as well. This can be overt like FedEx in “Castaway” the movie or more subtle such as what kind of car a character drives. The effect of this marketing and information controlling tool has had on us cannot be understated. It is interesting to note what has happened to savings accounts in America during the TV age over the past 30 years. Savings has all but disappeared only to be replaced by soaring debit. It is easy to figure out who benefits, banks, card companies and industries such as automobile makers and as we have already seen drug companies. Meanwhile, we as citizens have less financial freedom owing on everything from houses to cars to credit cards to even rented furniture! The ads beamed into our households make it seem so easy, for just a small monthly payment you can have fill in the blank... We see what success looks like and we want it for ourselves. In the realm of television success is portrayed only in a material sense. There are shows that only take us through homes of the so called rich and famous reminding us we are not there. This benefits corporations by installing in us a false need of products we feel we have to have in order to get by. It is the notion of today’s luxury becoming tomorrow’s necessity. Through the medium of television large companies tell us how we should live, what success is and for most people it reminds them we are not there yet. We all should spend more money to get there. They also reinforce stereo types and teach us who and what to fear. Fear is a great motivator and is used in the sale of all kinds of products from home security systems to so called germ killing cleaners. Through the medium of television corporations greatly influence how we live, view ourselves and the world at large. Corporations through television have another great area of influence our health care system.

Another major area where it can be clearly shown how much more corporations influence and control our lives is healthcare. Government regulations, regarding healthcare, have only weakened in the last twenty or so years. With millions and millions of dollars dumped into both political parties. In the US the pharmaceutical, insurance and other medical related companies have had their way in regards to laws passed and regulation of the industry as a whole. Any effort at real change is shown on television to be “socialized medicine” or government run healthcare. It is designed to put fear in people. The companies have virtually paid government to do what they want. A clear example is in the 1990’s pharmaceutical companies were allowed to advertise prescription drugs directly to the public. This had not been allowed before, leaving such decisions up to doctors. Now, after seeing a drug advertised someone can go to their doctor and ask about it. As a result, demand has skyrocketed. Another stunning example of corporate influence is the prescription purchasing of the government. Instead of running the program and negotiating drug prices for the whole medicare program, the federal government turned it over to private companies. Each plan then had to buy drugs separately at a much higher price. It is a clear case of the overwhelming influence of money in our political system. Government no longer has the interest of its own citizens at heart but rather business interests. Real power does not come from government but those who have bought it.

The two most politically powerful industries in the world are energy and defense. They are unrivaled in their ability to influence and control governments. It is likely both the 1991 Gulf War and the current war in Iraq are about energy. In 1991 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he posed a very serious threat to the most oil rich nation in the world, Saudi Arabia. The entire world reacted with speed behind the United States through the UN. In only six days the US had troops and air power in Saudi Arabia to defend a possible Iraqi invasion. Saddam was not allowed to keep Kuwait. The UN passed a resolution for Kuwait to be liberated by military force and with a coalition of 35 nations, Saddam’s forces were thrown out. Although greatly weakened by the disastrous war Saddam Hussein was allowed to stay in power. The threat to the world’s oil supply was alleviated and there was no reason at the time to invade Iraq. That was also not a part of the UN resolution. The war may have ended on paper on February 28, 1991 but continued on in the form of air raids, sanctions and no fly zones until the start of the second Gulf War in March 2003. Many thought Saddam Hussein would have fallen victim to his own people or military after such a staggering defeat. President Bush senior even called upon the people of Iraq to take matters into their own hands but stood by and did nothing as Saddam put down the revolt in a massacre of more than 50,000 Shiites in southern Iraq. There were plenty of forces in the region to stop Saddam’s brutal crack down. Unfortunately for those who decided to take matters into their own hands, the main objective of the war had been achieved. (4. MSN Encarta) Protection of the world’s oil supply was the main goal. Many in Washington thought leaving Saddam in power had been a mistake and under the next president Bush got their chance to remove him. But before that could happen a trigger event was needed.

On September 11, 2001 just 19 men plunged the United States into a perpetual state of war. They used four large jet airliners is suicide attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and an unsuccessful attack somewhere in Washington (the last aircraft failed in it’s attack crashing into a Pennsylvania field after the passengers tried to regain control of the aircraft). In the attacks 2,974 people lost their lives. It was quickly realized these attacks were carried out by the Al Qaeda terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden. There are many conspiracy theories about possible US Government involvement but none credible. However, it is worth noting Richard Clarke who at the time was the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection and Counter Terrorism (1998-2001) has this to say about the White House in the run up to the attacks;

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know." (5. 60 Minutes March 21st 2004)

This does not mean there was a government connection to the attack but it does bring into question why were the warnings received through various US intelligence agencies ignored? By itself it proves very little but when one considers high ranking government officials like then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld almost immediately start using the attacks as a reason to strike Iraq one can easily wonder what was known by whom and when they knew it. At best Secretary Rumsfeld and others who thought like him in the administration saw it as an opportunity to attack Iraq. Immediately in the intelligence community work was started on proving a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. After such a tragic event the media largely failed to do its job of questioning the government’s version of events. Right after the attacks only 3% thought Saddam Hussein had any connection and by March 2003, that number was 45%. (6. Fieldmann). At the time of the attacks, Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were operating out of Afghanistan with the tacit approval of the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan. It a matter of months, they were over thrown and Al Qaeda suffered many causalities during the US invasion of Afghanistan but the core leadership of Al Qaeda including bin Laden escaped into neighboring Pakistan where it is likely they remain to this day.

The events of September 11th breathed new life into the arms, security and technology industries. Since September 11th their profits have soared. Lockheed Martin Stock went from under $20 a share in 2000 to more than $70 a share in 2002 (7. NASDAQ). Afghanistan proved to be a lower priority than taking over Iraq and her oil fields while establishing a large permanent US military presence in the Middle East.

The justifications President George W. Bush gave for invading Iraq in 2003 both turned out to be false. First, there was a link between Saddam’s Iraq and bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. No such link was ever proven and even the President had to retract this claim. The two men could not be further opposites. Saddam is a strict secular leader while bin Laden is a religious zealot who bases all his actions on in his interpretation of the Koran. Saddam never attacked the United States even after his disastrous defeat in the first Gulf War. He may have ordered an assignation on the first President Bush when he visited Kuwait in April 1993. Other than that, Saddam seemed preoccupied with trying to consolidate his power while his people suffered on sanctions left in place by the UN. The United States maintained a low intensity air war on Iraq for years. This combined with sanctions further weakened the country. The second justification for the war was alleged weapons of mass destruction program that supposedly posed a risk to not only the region but the United States itself. On many occasions the President used the image of a mushroom cloud over an American city to scare an already nervous population into supporting the invasion. Once again the media failed to do its job and question what was being told. The media, driven more by ratings and selling air time than getting the facts out reported just what the White House wanted them to. Covering protesters and others who questioned what was going on got poor ratings among a population eager to avenge September 11. After the invasion and occupation no evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program (including nuclear weapons) was found. Most had been destroyed by Iraq under UN supervision. What was found proved to be manufactured before the first Gulf War.

Everyone criticized US intelligence agencies for getting it wrong. In hindsight no one knew what Saddam had or did not have. There were no people on the ground in Iraq to validate what was being seen by satellites or fed to intelligence agencies by defectors with an obvious interest in seeing a change of government in Iraq. It can be argued the Bush Administration hand picked intelligence to fit the facts into an already drawn conclusion. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and the only way to secure the region was an invasion. Now after both justifications for going to war have been proven wrong, we blame our intelligence agencies. It is easy and no one seems interested in questioning it. In this scenario it is a terrible case of complete incompetence which few if any have been held accountable for starting a costly and completely unnecessary war. However, if this is looked at from a who benefits most point of view a very different picture emerges.

The Iron Triangle is the revolving door from corporate executives, to legislators to lobbyists. This is the current power structure in Washington DC today. One person can serve in the US legislature, and later on work in the corporate world and after two years return to lobby those he used to serve with for his or her industry. A great example can be found in Lockheed Martin Corporation. In November 2002 Bruce Jackson, then Director of Strategic Planning for Lockheed Martin was summoned to the White House by then Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley where he was told the US was going to war with Iraq. Mr. Jackson was then asked to set up a committee on NATO to help work out a rationale. At the same time he worked for Lockheed, he also helped craft the foreign policy of the Republican Party. A war with Iraq would mean billions in contracts for his company. Before President Bush took office Lockheed Martin stock was trading around $16 a share by June of 2002 it had jumped to $71.(8. Cummings) As of this writing it is at $110 (8. NASDAQ). This is only one company that has benefited tremendously from both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are many others such as Haliburton, Blackwater USA and Bechtel. All have powerful connections to government much like Lockheed Martin and have also benefited by current foreign policy. Unless something is done to break this cycle we can only expect more of the same.

Nobody can know what the future will hold. The current paradigm is unsustainable. This can be clearly seen in how our climate is changing, natural resource depletion and our weapons development. The fact that there is plenty of information available is an encouraging sign change is still possible. The only avenue of information that is still largely free and uncontrolled is the internet. For the time being it is too large for one group of companies or governments to control. WWW stands for world wide web. It may be in the future that communication can be controlled by a few large companies. The internet itself cannot change all the influence corporations have in governments worldwide, especially here in the USA. People can learn. People can create change. People can rewrite the narrative. First, we have to learn what is happening in the world around us and once again become citizens. We have to remember we are in this together, not as individuals. This will happen sooner or later. The only question is how much suffering will it take before we regain our humanity?

Works Cited

1. The Corporation 2004

A Film by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott, and Joel Bakan 2003 December 1, 2007

2. Missing Person and Unindetyfied Persons for 2006

The National Crime Information Center's (NCIC's) FBI.gov

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/missingpersons.htm December 1, 2007

3. “A Nation of morons Is television making us stupid?” by Ron Kaufman TurnOffYourTV.com December 1, 2007

4. MSN Encarta December, 6 2007

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551555_2/Persian_Gulf_War.html

5. “Ckarke’s Take on Terror, What Bush’s Ex-Advisor Says About Efforts to Stop War on Terror” 60 Minutes Website

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761551555_2/Persian_Gulf_War.html

December 9, 2007

6. “The Impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq. American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.” By Linda Fieldmann

March 14, 2003 addition

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html December 9, 2007

7. and 9 NASDAQ.com Ticker look up LMT Lockheed Martin

December 11, 2007

8. “Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” by Richard Cummings

http://www.playboy.com/magazine/features/lockheed/index.html

December 9, 2007

EYE

Labeling.

In addition to telling stories or as a part of telling stories, we also have a compulsion to label each other. The “politically correctness” crowd I believe has a point. Labels put others in boxes and with that, certain expectations or limitations. In grade school for example, what happens when a kid is labeled as “bad” or a “troublemaker” or even worse a “loser”? The label or role all too often becomes internalized and gets played out. The opposite can also hold true as well. “Honor Student” can keep expectations high. “Good student” same idea. “Student athlete” can go either way depending on how it is used. The words we use to describe others are important and it is not just in school. Let’s consider a few more labels.

“Felon” – somebody convicted of a serious crime. This is a label one can get and keep long after the jail time is done. Here in the USA, in my experience, we are pretty damn unforgiving. Getting this label can follow one to the grave. It translates into someone who is no longer trustworthy no matter how long it has been since the offence was committed or what they have done beneficial for others. This label often drives people back into the corrections system where they earn a new label, Repeat offender. The consequences are much the same and the cycle will often repeat itself. It is an extremely difficult stigma to overcome and right or wrong will likely never go away. I wish we would re-think this one. I agree with Jesus, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” I think we would do well to lighten up a little and give those who have made some poor decisions in the past a second chance. Here’s another ugly label.

“Illegals” – a person in the USA from another country (usually south of the border) without proper immigration paperwork. Somehow, without the right papers, they lack basic human rights. There are those who think they should be denied access to health care, education and protection under the law. NEWS FLASH it is only a misdemeanor to be here without documentation! They are often viewed as criminals involved in the drug trade or worse. With any large group of people, there are a small number doing bad things. People break laws but there is no such thing as an illegal human being. These people do some of the nastiest hardest work in the country often under slave-like conditions. They fear the police and have little recourse when crimes are committed against them. Solving the immigration problem will not be accomplished via labeling and stereotyping but rather clamping down on employers who routinely hire desperate people fleeing economic turmoil ad savage drug wars. We should be doing our part to help Mexico and other countries to our south end the ceaseless drug wars and build a viable economy. Here is another powerful label.

“Terrorists”- a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon. (From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist). Being labeled this is a sure way to by pass any legal protections supposedly guaranteed under the Constitution! These are the true “Bad” guys and we all know there is only one way to deal with them- death! In movies, news, popular literature these are the psychopaths willing to kill innocents, blow up buildings and target baby seals. We relish our “Good” guys whack them in the end a la Bin Laden. The problem is we seldom look beyond the label and ask why there are terrorists in the first place. WARNING- understanding is not justification for cowardly acts like crashing planes into buildings or hosing down old handicapped people with an AK-47. Rather understanding is getting less and less people seeing these acts as a way of gaining justice. Dealing with root causes like supporting despotic regimes is a better way of solving the problem than hunting down individual “Bad” guys and in the process creating even more “Bad” guys. There is one more label I’d like to consider tonight. “The Bad Attitude.”

“Bad Attitude” – a person or people in the workplace who are seen as a troublemakers. This is the kiss of death for a career. He or she does not understand what we are trying to do or ‘see the big picture.” They often ask irrelevant questions about fairness, consistency and honesty. The “Bad Attitude” label is a quick trip to the ranks of the unemployed, especially in a tanking economy. Who needs people asking uncomfortable questions when the line to take his or her job is out the door and sown the street? Too many of us steer clear of this label at any cost, even if we have to sell our souls. What we get is a world run by fewer and fewer people and a quiet dread of Monday morning.

The Politically Correctness Crowd (there I go labeling) has a point, the terms we use to describe each other are important. Labeling is a way of taking away other people’s humanity. Dehumanization and objectification of other human beings contributes to very bad things like genocide, slavery and marginalization. Take away one’s humanity and suddenly anything can be done to them. We need to pick our terms carefully.