Working harder for someone else's money

It's no longer, "We're not going to fail our children."

But rather, we're blindly failing them! And blindly failing with them.

Useless people raise useless children. Let me elaborate on that. I am frustrated with the trends in our society; we have evolved a culture to the point where the jobs we do - or at least the salaries we get paid - are more often in support of derivative profits than realized goods and services.

And don't forget to factor in the relative quality of the goods being produced.

It has happened for generations, and certainly it has been worse as well as better in the past, but there has always been a pattern among empires and imperialist states where the toils of workers aren't focused on actually making life better for all.

Sure, openly sanctioned slavery is a thing of the past, but the idea that we pay workers less abroad for doing the same jobs domestically is a fundamental injustice that still persists. It's so ingrained in the minds of everybody, that we don't think about this injustice and how it is the symptom of a deeply rooted problem.

Economic policies often keep small under-developed nations strangled. How do we justify paying them less for the same jobs? Seriously, if we can't work out a way to immediately establish balance in welfare disparity, I can understand that. (not really) But we should at least be working towards that goal, and it's easy enough to start by paying the same salaries across the globe.

Create the money if you need to. I've seen it done before. And if you don't want to pay the same for foreign services, then hire domestically. It sounds like a good start, and seems reasonable, but I'm sure it's flawed somewhere under Keynesian theory.

Our children grow up in worlds where everything is the product of this demented reality where money reigns supreme.

We allow the effects as a "necessary evil". Every kid questions at some point in their young tv watching career, why do there have to be commercials?

Well, "They're a necessary evil, my child."

Everything is based on consumerism, for better or worse. Even living in a house. Inhabitants of modern houses don't think about the problem that they use more resources than they produce, at an equilibrium rate that can't be sustained. This goes against the well-stated yogic mantra: don't take anything that isn't free, and always give back more than you take.

In a sense, I suppose we are giving more than we take, especially true for manual laborers. Unfortunately a large chunk of the proceeds of our toil is paid out to that fabled 1%, and likely you won't see it again.

The bottom line is, we need to work harder for the well-being of humanity and the ecosystem in which Homo sapiens exists.

"The highest yogic ideal concerning money is to neither grasp for money or to reject it. Rather, we aim at a degree of equanimity, to manage our minds and our lives whether we have a little or a lot of money."
A Yogic Perspective on Money

King 40 Years Ago

All my respect to the King. Why say anything, when somebody else has already said it so much better? This speech is extremely relevent today as we face new battles on many old frontiers.

Thank you Marty.

Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence
By Rev. Martin Luther King
Clergy and Laity Concerned

Tuesday 04 April 1967

Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 40 years ago, on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City.

I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join with you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statement of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war.


Read the full address here:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011805F.shtml

Censoring Technology

Are robot armies being constructed here on earth, and if they are, why aren't we reading about them in the mainstream news? With the success of movies like Terminator II and countless other military robot fantasy stories, I would say the general public is very interested in this type of information - as they should be. It's likely to start having much more impact in the near future.

Ever purchased anything from Samsung? Perhaps you're aware they make CD players and cell phones, or maybe you've read about their solar power research. What about machine-gun killing drones? There's a disturbing video online located here. Using robots to defuse bombs is one thing, but there's no denying what these robots will be used for - killing.

Can you imagine such drones being powered by the Samsungs solar power cells? It's the ultimate "plug and play" technology that militaries are looking for. No infrastructure (electric or water lines) required and great for desert deployment.

This is just the beginning. I've seen much much more, and I've spoken with many scientists developing military technologies for what they rationalize as being life saving technologies. Technically, it is debatable (take 1 life to save 2), but realistically killing robots could mark the fastest rise of the global death rate in the history of all killing instruments - and at the very least rival the gun and the bomb.

Can we hope the scientists will have a change of heart? No, absolutely not. They are tools, often times ignorant of repercussions because they misinterpret the motivations for the very weapons they are building. "This atomic bomb, should you invent it, will only be used for deterrence."

Others who understand the repercussions are too disillusioned to care. They think only about their paycheck and enjoying their life as much as possible before the world goes to hell in a hand basket. If not them, someone else, and to a large extent that's very true. There is no one secret scientist with the secret knowledge to develop killing machines. They are a dime a dozen, and are on the rise.

A former colleague of mine was a fierce opponent of Bush, torture, and many other things wrong with US politics (ignoring the capitalsim issue of course). He wore birkenstocks, rode a bike to work, had over 50 years of wisdom, and worked on smart clusterbombs. The idea is that traditional cluster bombs fall from the sky and indiscriminately detonate when they hit the ground (and the bomblets that don't detonate will blow up children for years to come). This colleague was working on a visual radar detection system small enough to place in each individual bomblet that would trigger the bomblet to blow up conditioning on if it located it's target or not. With this technology, these bombs can be used without the fear of detonating close friendly targets, which is especially problematic because cluster bombs are chaotic in the nature they fall to the ground, and can be blown off course by wind.

If his goal his reached, a friendly force can wait in close proximity to an enemy encampment, give the GPS coordinates to a cluster bomb carrying drone flying over head, and wait for the smarter bombs to judiciously take out all buildings and people while preserving the roads for friendly forces to travel through. Brilliant!

Should my former colleague be held responsible? Why not? If the technology he works on makes illegal wars more efficient, he's just as guilty of killing as Donald Rumsfeld. If we can't hold scientists responsible, and we won't punish politicians for illegal wars using these technologies, how can we hope to stop it?

If these technologies are really that scary, why does it seem like we're more interested in Mark Foley's sex life and the latest neighborhood dog show? Because Rupert Murdoch says so. Sure, We may be given the freedom of speech in this country, but it's an illusion to think the public will sort out what's important. Corporations and government programs like the FCC will do that for you, and they will do it without breaking the law. As the internet becomes more commercialized and censored, it will happen here too.

Why wasn't the shutdown of a national military research facility at one of the most prestigious science and engineering schools in the country covered in mainstream national news? On March 2nd, demonstrators affiliated with the Pittsburgh Organizing Group successfully barricaded the entrance to a nationally funded Carnegie Mellon University facility for an entire day.

What little public coverage the story received distorted the focus by emphasizing all employees were safe and able to carry on their work from their homes. The goal wasn't to stop employees from working on robots for a day, but to raise public awareness of a very bad thing that would receive no coverage otherwise.

As corporate media conglomerates grow from gargantuan to colossal, more brains will be numbed as ignored truths are relegated to obscure blogs on the internet that nobody really cares about.

Justice Now!

When I ask friends and family (excluding Hans of course) about our nation's recent political blunders in Iraq, the two replies I hear most often:

1) It's complicated.

And,

2) Everybody knows politicians are corrupt.

To address the first comment, is the world really that complicated? This explanation is little more than a tactic to divert attention. We live in a democracy, and if we are to select our representatives, shouldn't we be well informed of "complicated" situations when we vote so that "representatives" can represent our views, or am I not understanding the word "representative"? Or perhaps my country had adopted a style of democracy unfamiliar to me.

"Complex" is a relative term, so instead of saying "it is complex for people to comprehend" (Donald Rumsfeld) wouldn't it make more sense to inform the public, so that we can elect representitives more capable of handling these "complex" matters? It's the ultimate paradox (if you believe these issues really are too complex to understand, which they're not).

Sovereignty BY THE PEOPLE is paramount in a democracy, by definition. How can we rule ourselves if we don't have the facts? There is no room for opinions such as that provided by Katherine Graham, former editor of the Washington Post, when she states the following:

"There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets, and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."

I contend that democracy corrupts when a government takes "legitimate" steps to keep secrets. It seems the government has their own definition of the word "legitimate".

Now, let's look at the second response, the idea that many people believe politicians are corrupt, have been corrupt, and will be corrupt. My mom, although not afraid to disagree with my beliefs (especially when I claim Castro is a less affective dictator than Bush, but I digress...) she is the first to admit she smelled corruption from day 1 of the current US occupation in Iraq.

Now, if only I had a dollar for every time I heard "politics" and "corruption" in the same sentence, then maybe I could fund a campaign to do something about it.

The popular belief that national politics are corrupt held by at least half the population begs the questions: Why not do something about it?

If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their friends are suspected of altering intelligence reports to justify the invasion of Iraq, as reported by a government sponsored minority report (download pdf report), shouldn't there be a trial? Thanks to Mrs Woods, my first American Government teacher in 6th grade, I've realized for a long time that an important underlying principle promoting the efficacy our nation's government is the balance of all three governmental branches. I have come to understand that if any branch is not kept in check by the others, powers can be abused.

For the same reason that public dissent is a sign of a healthy democracy, prosecuting the accused regardless of citizen status is also healthy (because all citizens in a democracy are created equal, again by definition). The beauty of a system of checks and balances, is that everything should balance out in the end. If those suspected are found not guilty, then the verdict will reign supreme.

Aha, but there is one final question. What to say to those clamoring "If you prosecute Bush, then you'll need to prosecute his entire staff, the congress, the senate, every politician in every other country, etc. Then who will be left"? I have a simple answer. Prosecute them all. In general, if there is evidence tying a suspect to a crime, let the facts dictate the verdict. If suspects are not guilty, have faith that our justice system will sort it out. That's what it's for. That's why we are all innocent until proven guilty - terrorist suspects included.

Do something about the reality you know as corrupt politics. For the reasons stated above, I strongly support the prosecution of the current Bush regime, and you should too. If noone is held accountable for mistakes that have been made (and I think we can all agree that mistakes were made), how can we hope to deter similar mistakes in the future? With wishful thinking? I don't think so.

I Find the Defendent ...

Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, contends that Donald Rumsfield, former US Secretary of Defense, should stand trial for "willful killing" which she points out is a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions."

Cohn reports that the Center for Constitutional Rights, the National Lawyers Guild, and other organizations will unite on November 14th to request the prosecution of Rumsfeld and other top Bush officials for war crimes.

Article Here.

The chickens have come home to roost indeed.

Class System

We brought them the class system. :(

Read about why Thanksgiving is a national day of mourning for American Indians: http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Nov2006/munro1106.html

I'll have more to read about the class system soon hopefully... :)

Nuclear Abolition

Telling a country to suspend her nuclear enrichment program is like telling a mischievous child to get her hand out of the cookie jar. She knows exactly what she's doing, and she'll do it when your back is turned if need be.

This much is understood. Iran WILL continue their nuclear enrichment program, and Iran WILL (at least in my opinion as long as US and Israel has them) pursue nukes. Quite simply, the center of the Muslim world is looking for any answer as they struggle to find a way to coexist with the western world in the 21st century. In response to Iran's intent to develop peaceful nuclear technologies, the US is seeking UN support for economic sanctions against Iran.

Not to single out Iran, North Korea has also been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and have admitted to developing nuclear weapons in defiance of a 1994 U.S.-North Korean nuclear agreement. In response to North Korea's recent nuclear tests on October 9, 2006, the UN recently passed a resolution punishing North Korea with sanctions, a resolution strongly supported by the US.

If we have been paying attention to the current Iraq war, we should be asking ourselves: What are economic sanctions good for? If we were going to go invade a country anyway, and blow up all their resources, why did we even bother with the sanctions? An estimated 500,000 children deaths under the age of 5 have been attributed to 8 years of economic sanctions during the Clinton regime. Sick individuals might point out that the economic sanctions worked by preventing Iraq from developing WMD. First of all, the sanctions were never in place to prevent the development of WMD, but rather to remove already existent WMD that never existed. Second of all, and unless you're Madeleine Albright, answer me this: At the cost of half a million lives? Is this really the way nuclear nonproliferation should work?

I have a better idea. I have a problem with even 1 nuclear weapon on this planet. Yes, I'm serious, so hear me out. Nukes are not a solution to any problem. I challenge you to give me a good example where even 1 nuclear weapon is necessary.

Until we find a way to rid the world of WMD permanently, those without nukes will want them as those with nukes continue to hold the world (or at least their non-allies) at nuclear gunpoint. This is the first concept learned in Bullying 101. If you don't understand it, think about. *jeopardy theme sounding* If you still don't understand the problem with me having nukes, and you not having them, close this website. It is imperative that we understand this critical point before we can learn how to fix it.

While US has reduced their arsenal of nuclear weapons since the cold war, they have made no concessions about holding the world's largest supply (or close to it, if not always more than Russia) of active nuclear warheads for the past 50 years. They currently have an estimated 10,000 nuclear weapons. Additionally, the number of bombs awaiting dismantlement has monotonically decreased since 1993, bringing the overly ridiculous total down from around 25,000 to the still ridiculous total of 10,000 warheads.

As of February 2004 instead of dismantling nuclear warheads, the US has shifted operations to "modifying warheads to extend their service life".

The conclusion is clear: the US is not making a serious commitment to reduce and ultimately eliminate their nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, as long as the US is enhancing nuclear capabilities, the "dark side" will only gain more motivation to develop their nuclear technologies. As long as somebody has them, the probability that nuclear weapons are used again (by any side) goes up.

I now return to my previous thought; nuclear abolition. No, not nuclear weapons abolition, but nuclear technology abolition.

What does nuclear technology provide us? More energy for less cost? The keyword here being "cost". Nuclear waste stays radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Currently scientists across the globe are warning of an impending danger if we continue to pollute our skies. Let's not make another mistake by burying radioactive waste in the ground for those 50 years later to clean up.

Even if you claim nuclear waste can be stored safely for hundreds of thousands of years until the radioactivity wears off, is a little compromise not worth the lives of thousands, or I should say millions, as the United States and other nuclear forces continue to impose economic sanctions and drop bombs on the premise of eradicating nuclear weapons?

According to wikipedia, nuclear power provides 20% of the total energy in the US and 15.7% of the total energy in the world. If we pool together our 21st century expertise, shouldn't we be able to find a replacement for this 15.7% contribution? Even better, why not just cut our usage down 15.7% with little compromise. The best part is most 3rd world countries won't even need to do anything because they currently lack nuclear power anyway. Of course Japan and France might have more trouble finding a way to replace nuclear energy, which contributes up to 80% of their total usage, but I see this as a challenge rather than an excuse.

Why not abolish nuclear power? It's just a thought. I'm not 100% sure it's the right thought, but to me it seems little to sacrifice to settle one of the largest problems in the world: Terrorists with WMD.

What is your alternative?