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