The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week quoted "NATO intelligence sources" who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. This "all options are open" line has been President George W Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months.The American public (that's you and me) have got to rise up before this war-hungry lunatic and his merry men start World War III. If Dubya has his way, he might actually usher in Armageddon -- which might be his ultimate plan anyway.
But the respected German weekly Der Spiegel notes "What is new here is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year."
Saturday, December 31, 2005
For this reason alone, I have never been a fan of New Year's Eve. It celebrates nothing specific. It doesn't come at the end/beginning of a season. It has nary a thing to do with moon phases. There is nothing significant about the transition from December 31 to January 1. It's just an arbitrary dot on the map of human-created time.
I'm always amazed at the number of people who gather in Times Square (or wherever), waiting anxiously for the ball to drop or the clock to count down. When it does, they whoop, yell, cry, kiss, hug, set off fireworks and, a good many people, use it as an excuse to get drunk. And for what? One day becomes the next day.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
It’s bad enough that we may write something somewhere that we later regret, but, due to the ability by some commenting services (Haloscan comes to mind), the ability now exists for the authors of blog sites to edit the comments left on their blog. In other words, it is now possible for ethically-challenged people to have the ability to put “words in your mouth” that will be recorded for perpetuity.
Let’s say you visit a blog and, through the comments section, you get into a fiery political debate. If the blog host is an unscrupulous person and they use Haloscan (I’m sure there are many other such services as well), they could easily discredit you by editing a comment to read, “I love Hitler. He handled the Jews just right” and they could block YOU from making any changes.
Of course, this comment will be picked up by weblogs.com, technorati and lots of other services too. Regardless of the fact you never wrote these words, they will forever be attached to your name. You may receive angry emails denouncing “your” statement. Who knows? You might lose your current job or not be selected for a future job because someone found “your” statement on the internet.
The worse part of all this is how do you prove that your words were reedited without your consent? It’s like trying to prove a voting tally is incorrect where there is no paper trail. You can post all manner of statements all over the net disavowing the statement, but the statement itself will still be there.
I have no problem whatsoever with blog hosts having the ability to delete comments they feel are inappropriate. However, I have a serious problem with blog hosts who have the ability to “put words in my mouth”.
You can rest assured your words are safe on The Rambling Taoist. I have consciously chosen not to use Blogspot’s “Moderate Comments” feature and I almost never delete anyone’s comments either.
You alone are responsible for your own words here.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
As I've discussed here before, facts seem to irritate that blog's author to know end. Not only does it irritate her, but she has a penchant for removing fact-based comments from her posts.
Yesterday she slipped up somewhat by allowing me to post a comment. (She forgot that I had moved from Oregon to Washington and this meant she needed to change the IP address to be blocked.) In her entry of December 22, "A Merry Christmas -- Spy vs Spy", one paragraph states,
I have to admit I do a little of my own spying - like checking if people leaving hate comments on my blog are really that same person as someone else. I haven't had hate comments for many months - not since I exposed this jerk from Portland. He was coming in with the exact same IP address as others (with similar hate styles) yet claimed it wasn't him. So I banned his IP and BINGO - suddenly about 3 identities no longer posted.Here was my response
You wrote: "I have to admit I do a little of my own spying - like checking if people leaving hate comments on my blog are really that same person as someone else. I haven't had hate comments for many months - not since I exposed this jerk from Portland. He was coming in with the exact same IP address as others (with similar hate styles) yet claimed it wasn't him. So I banned his IP and BINGO - suddenly about 3 identities no longer posted."Next came her rebuttal (which she edited and then reposted after my subsequent response to try to weasel out of an obvious lie):
So, how many of us "jerks" have you banned? I know that I'm on your doggie "no no" list. However, since the person you refer to in this entry hails from Portland and until last month I hailed from SALEM, it's obvious you're talking about someone other than yours truly.
BTW, there is, of course, one OTHER explanation why 3 so-called identities quit posting. Since you have elected to screen comments left here, you could have just as easily deleted particular comments from different people so it would APPEAR that it all originated from the same source. Sort of like the Bush cabal.
Just you Trey. Portland? Well that's where you told everone on your site or comments or somewhere in that region - until you moved. Just another lie from Trey I guess.I then posted a follow up comment which explained that I have never lived in Portland nor have I ever claimed to live in Portland. Even further, whether or not I had made this claim was wholly immaterial because my IP header, which she "claims" was the basis for the block, would have indicated what city I was actually in.
No - the IP addresses matched exactly of all your identities. You posted your slams early in the am sometimes and the system log file showed when you entered and left - and you were the only one that left the comments.
This whining liberal scum tried to hard to slam me he even started a blog with a similiar name as mine - now closed because no one except 1 or 2 of his no-brain socialist wimps visited it.
You continue to lie - a common trait of socialist liberals - you just prove every point I ever post. Ah.. now to put your new IP on the ban list...
Then I challenged any interested party to perform a Google Search using the search terms of "Trey Smith Oregon" to see if they could find any indications whatsoever that a) I had ever claimed to live in Portland or b) I had ever lived in Portland.
Since both JustaDog and I KNOW that such a search would have yielded no such information, she did the only thing a person not interested in factual information could do. She deleted the comment and banned my current IP address from future comments.
Consequently, we now know that the campaign of lies and distortions, in this particular instance, is not originating from the "socialist liberal", but from the "patriotic" conservative.
George Bush must be proud!
Below are some brief snippets. I strongly urge you to go to "U.S. Constitutional Abuses" to read the entire article. It offers keen insights and great analysis.
There are three critical "intelligence" events that have occurred undermining civil liberties and Constitutional protections: Bush's authorization of warrantless wire taps on U.S. citizens, the FBI's use of National Security Letters to avoid warrants, and the Pentagon collecting data on U.S. citizens and "dissident" groups. While these are three different agencies, the intent is clear and should be stated boldly. We are defined as enemies of the state...
All of these various activities are at the instigation of the Bush Administration. Everything is lumped under "national security" and the "war on terrorism." They show not respect for U.S. laws or the Constitution, and no respect for international laws and agreements. From a policy of preemptive war, to the use of nuclear weapons, to the Geneva Convention, to international bans on torture, the Bush cabal feels that they need to operate with total "freedom" and secrecy to "protect us." Well, I am not feeling "protected," I am feeling abused...
Some may be willing to trade freedom, and the protections from the abuses of government, for "safety." However, it is clear from every report, that such activities are not making us safer. The Bush "Plan America" is leaving us looking much more like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, than the "land of the free, home of the brave" United States. The oft repeated refrain from the White House in legitimating the ongoing war in Iraq is: "We are fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them here." But what is now clear, is that "we" - the citizens of the United States - are "them" - potential terrorists.
But, over the past 2 days, the annonymous author (who only identifies herself as JustaDog) has shown she does have a heart, albiet an extremely small one. She has chosen to offer her sage financial advice to help those buried under credit card debt.
Here's her formula:
- Run up a credit card debt (not including a mortgage or car purchase) of about $80,000.
- Locate a friend who will give you a job that pays $10,000 net per month.
- Work at the job for 6 months and use your $60,000 in net wages to reduce your credit card debt by 75%.
- Quit the job and use money from somewhere else (?) to pay off the balance.
What Justadog has unwittingly admitted to is the formula that has made many a transnational corporation rich -- a subsidy. While she had the financial freedom to throw her wages into her egregious debt, SOMEBODY else was paying for all the necessities of life. Yes, either a spouse, partner, parent, child or rich pal was covering her rent/mortgage, utilities, food, insurance, clothing, travel (she's said on her blog that she loves to travel) and medical expenses.
Unfortunately, most consumers don't have this kind of luxury. Most consumers in debt must not only pay off said debt BUT also concurrently pay for the necessities of life. This is why it's difficult for people in the working and middle classes -- obviously Justadog is in neither of these classes -- to dig out from under debt.
This situation offers a quintessential example of how a rich person fails to understand the obvious head start they enjoy over the average person. Those who lick the silver spoon fail to comprehend what it's like for those without eating untensils. As Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, it's hard to pull one's self up by the bootstraps if said person has no boots.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Over the past week, the overall volume of mail has only lessened slightly, but the percentage of spam has increased greatly. I shouldn't be surprised. According to The Register,
MX Logic, an antispam vendor, now estimates that 75 per cent of all email is spam, while in same article Postini Inc. jacks that number up to 88 per cent of all email. Think about that: only about 1 in 10 emails is legitimate.Oh, wonderful.
The European Rabbit is not native to the Australian continent. According to Wikipedia,
Rabbits were originally introduced to Australia by the First Fleet in 1788, but the current major infestation appears to be the result of 24 wild rabbits released by Thomas Austin on his property "Barwon Downs" (near Winchelsea, Victoria) in 1859 for hunting purposes. Many other farms released their rabbits into the wild after Austin.Here we have a classic example of unintended consequences. A landowner decides he'd like to hunt rabbit. So, without giving any regard to the effects on the ecosystem, he sets in a motion a chain of events still ravaging Australia today.
Within ten years of the 1859 introduction, the original 24 rabbits had multiplied so much that 2 million a year could be shot or trapped without having any noticeable effect on the population size. Rabbits reached the New South Wales border in 1870. The Premier of New South Wales, Sir Henry Parkes offered a £25,000 reward to anyone who could come up with a solution to the rabbit infestation.English ivy makes for lovely ground cover. It's a very popular plant amongst gardeners in North America. Unfortunately, english ivy is not native to this continent. The United States National Arboretum cautions
The effect on the ecology of Australia was devastating. One eighth of all mammalian species in Australia are now extinct (rabbits are the most significant known factor), and the loss of plant species is unknown even at this time.
In the Pacific Northwest, English ivy invades the forest floors. Its evergreen leaves smother other native forest plants by denying them light.Like english ivy, asian carp is another invasive species that has caused great harm in the U.S. Some of the carp were released into U.S. waters by our own government and others escaped from aquaculture facilities.
All four of the Asian carps that are established in the United States spread quickly after introduction, became very abundant, and hurt native fishes either by damaging habitats or by consuming vast amounts of food. Common and grass carps destroy habitat and reduce water quality for native fishes by uprooting or consuming aquatic vegetation.Dioxin is one of the world's most toxic family of chemicals. As explained by ActionPA,
Bighead and silver carps are large filter-feeders that compete with larval fishes, paddlefish, bigmouth buffalo, and freshwater mollusks (clams). In addition, boaters have been injured by silver carp because they commonly jump out of the water and into or over boats in response to outboard motors. Black carp, which consume almost exclusively mussels and snails, may further threaten our already imperiled native freshwater mussels should they become established.
Dioxin is a general term that describes a group of hundreds of chemicals that are highly persistent in the environment. The most toxic compound is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD. The toxicity of other dioxins and chemicals like PCBs that act like dioxin are measured in relation to TCDD. Dioxin is formed as an unintentional by-product of many industrial processes involving chlorine such as waste incineration, chemical and pesticide manufacturing and pulp and paper bleaching. Dioxin was the primary toxic component of Agent Orange, was found at Love Canal in Niagara Falls, NY and was the basis for evacuations at Times Beach, MO and Seveso, Italy.As indicated above, no one set out to create dioxin. As scientists and inventors set out to develop new materials and processes to further the lot of society, they created material and processes that begat not only increased production but increased hazards. By the time the hazards were uncovered, the economics of the new materials and processes had become entrenched and now, despite the fact the hazards have been clearly identified, it is very difficult to convince the economic powerbrokers to move away from the very things producing the identified hazards.
Dioxin is formed by burning chlorine-based chemical compounds with hydrocarbons. The major source of dioxin in the environment comes from waste-burning incinerators of various sorts and also from backyard burn-barrels. Dioxin pollution is also affiliated with paper mills which use chlorine bleaching in their process and with the production of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) plastics and with the production of certain chlorinated chemicals (like many pesticides).
To satisfy the thirst of millions of residents plus meet the needs of the agricultural sector, the Oglalla Aquifer is being drawn down at non-sustainable rates. As reported last year by the Environmental News Service
There are some areas on the High Plains where water is being withdrawn from the Oglala aquifer at rates greater than the aquifer is being replenished. In these areas, the aquifer will not be able to sustain withdrawals at current rates in future decades, new research by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has determined.
Underlying portions of eight states, including Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas, the massive High Plains aquifer, also called the Oglala aquifer, spans 173,000 square miles and provides irrigation and drinking water for one of the major agricultural regions in the world.
But USGS scientists have found a six percent decrease in the volume of water stored in the aquifer from the time groundwater pumping began in the 1940s to the year 2000.
Monday, December 26, 2005
From the perspective of many Taoists, one of the worst legacies of the Christian belief system is the idea of humankind's separation from nature. When the Old Testament urged the “chosen people” to hold dominion over the earth, this directive initiated human actions set toward raping and pillaging the planet. Even today, as scientists sound the clarion call, corporate giants continue to pollute and destroy the womb of creation and sustenance like there's no tomorrow -- One day we will find that this is a self-fulfilling prophesy!
It is the Christian concept of dualism (i.e., being separated from anyone or anything else) that has led us down this road toward ecological and, hence, societal catastrophe. Dualism has spawned the hegemonic truth of individual and/or national isolationism. It's as if far too many Christians do not understand the simple lesson Lao Tzu learned eons ago – Far from being separate, everything that makes up our universe inextricably is connected.
Once we genuinely recognize this connection, then we come intuitively to understand that every action causes a ripple effect that is felt in some degree throughout the cosmos.
This is not true because I believe it. It is also not true because some ancient Taoist sage wrote it down. No, it’s true because we can see this truth at work every day in nature and, incidentally, in the conduct of human interaction.
The natural world is always changing and reacting as a result of everything that goes on. If one locale receives more rain than usual for an extended period of time, it sets in motion a chain of occurrences.
Certain species flourish, while others suffer mightily and some may face extinction. Some species may migrate to a different locale altogether. Rivers carve out new channels. The overall climate may become altered. All these changes and far more occur as a reaction to the excess amount of precipitation.
In this same vein, human beings – who are part of this connected cosmos we call reality – impact the world by the decisions and actions we take. Because none of us has the vision nor wisdom to understand the totality of our reality, every act that we undertake spurs a chain of events we typically refuse to acknowledge. In common parlance, this is referred to as the law of unintended consequences.
While it is certainly true that it would be next to impossible to completely rid our world of these unintended consequences, we could greatly reduce the propensity for such by simply acknowledging the connection between ourselves and everything else. If I acknowledge that my decisions will impact my brethren AND future generations, then I will be more careful and cautious.
According to the Alternative Press Review, the military is monitoring a military support group Vaughn set up on the internet. Not only are they monitoring it, but they have threatened the families of military personnel who post to the site. So much for freedom of speech!
Letter From A Military "Mom": Domestic Spying & Incident of Intimidation of Military Families
Written by: Robin Vaughan
I am sending this letter to you in hope of finding a source to hear my concerns. It is something that has bothered me since the occurrence, and I know it is not something that should have happened, and I worry for my family's safety as I step out to speak about this.
During my son's deployment to Iraq, February 2004-February 2005: I created a small group website on MSN, for families and friends of our soldiers' deployed unit. It was a membership only site, and we were a tight group of mostly "Moms", from all over the United States, just trying to make it through each day. The support and help we gave one another is a singular experience of grace, I will never forget.
During the first few months of our site, the Army decided to call every single family on the site, informing them, that the site was not to be used by any of the families. The Department of Defense called families in the middle of the night to notify them to not use the web site. Most of the families were near tears, thinking they were getting "THE" call telling them their child or loved one had been killed or injured.
The information received via the phone call was to inform the families that the base did not condone the site, nor [did] the Army, and that it was not to be used; the gist was, families were not allowed to use the site, or they could get into "trouble". Some members reported their soldier calling from Iraq, telling them to be careful about using the site as the Army was monitoring it.
As Web Mistress of the site, I needed to respond and qualify this information, as well as to educate this commanding officer as to the rights and liberties of a private web site; which I did. I was told I would have to let a commanding officer on the site to monitor the messages; I did allow this, but I also informed the officer that this was a courtesy, as there is no such law, or right of the military to monitor, shut down or exclude our web site.
I believe we received this order, and treatment for a couple of reasons.
Occasionally we would voice our concerns publicly over what our government was failing to do to help our soldiers, or we would share or argue political opinion as well. The second reason may be: the armed services all have a group of their own family type support (FRG); as we were not local to the base our soldiers deployed from, the site was a means to provide that support, as best as we could.
The support group at our base, tried to force the site to be given over to them, which I refused. At this time I was told, I might want to be careful, as the government was monitoring the site as well. Soldiers in our unit, while in Iraq, were telling their parents to stay off of the site, or to be very careful of what they wrote. This came from a rear detachment officer in charge, and members on the site.
I reminded the Army I am a private citizen, not on base, with a private site making no claims to have any affiliation with any branch of service, but clearly stating we were families and friends of our unit in support of one another. We were treated to power by intimidation. It isn't hard to make that work, when you have someone's child in a war zone.
We were a group of 77 families from all over the country, at the time of the call. Every single family was phoned and told not to use the site; and I believe some 150 other families were phoned as well, as it was an official order from a commanding officer.
I have waited to speak of this situation until my son was home safe and sound, and also after his transfer to another base. Yes, I was afraid of repercussions that could have harmed him, one way or another. I called my local senator's office, 4 months ago, following up every 10 days to 2 weeks, and still have no answers or support.
I admit I am not comfortable writing this, as required to, as I am still concerned for my son and the other soldiers and families involved on the site. We didn't endanger them by means of displaying their photos with their names, giving up information about their location and actions. We were very careful to not breach Intel protocol, learning Ops protocol, as well as respecting and complying with it. We simply were at times, vocal about our displeasure with our president and government for how our military was being treated, or how the presidential election was being handled.
There are literally hundreds of military family, private support groups on the Internet. I truly believe we were singled out because of my refusal to hand the site over to the local F.R.G., as well as [my] outspoken political beliefs.
It's simply amazing that my son and others risk their lives for "Freedom" in Iraq, when his own mother's civil liberties are threatened, and families are intimidated into silence, by the very same Army he is serving. I am hoping after reading this you may direct me as to where I can at least have this concern heard. Basically, are the following common practice, and legal?
**The Armed services can order families from communicating in a private forum?
**The Armed services can threaten private citizensÂ first amendment rights?
I want to make sure this is not happening to other service member's families. We live in a hell everyday during the deployment of our loved ones; we don't need the added bullying or stripping away our means of helping one another.
Any idea or direction you can point me in would be greatly appreciated. Also, this problem can be corroborated by other families if need be.
Why did it take so long for me to step forward?
Originally I contacted my Senators office, with no reply for six months, and have also spoken with the A.C.L.U; (with little hope of action due to the length of time that has passed) but until now was not willing to come forward in a public way. It took until September for my son to be safely stationed at another base, and other family's service members to either be out of the service all together, or be transferred as well.
We were afraid for their safety, our own, our relationships with them and their future in the service, all of these things could have been affected, and we couldn't chance one more problem or pressure being added to the already heavy load the families and soldiers live with. The intimidation worked. Is this just something silly I should let go?
It doesn't seems trivial to me, but I am learning unless it happens to someone personally, no one seems to care.
Thank you, for your time
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Republican principles advocate limited government intrusion into the lives of the American people. Republican candidates campaign on the ideas of restraining Big Brother. Republicans have been given a majority in the U.S. Congress because the American people want some control over the massive power of the federal government.So, would someone explain to me why the size of the federal government has mushroomed under the Bush Administration AND Big Brother's reach seems to be getting deeper and deeper?
The only explanation that I can discern is that conservatives aren't necessarily opposed to Big Brother at all. In fact, they love Big Brother provided that government is intruding on American life, not safeguarding the public from corporate might.
From the Macon Daily*Please note that the three newspapers quoted are in RED states. Neither Barron's nor Military.com could be accused of being members of the liberal media.
For the past five years, many of us have been asking what happened to the sane Republicans, to the conservatives who believe in the rule of law, smaller government, fiscal responsibility?
In their zeal at having finally obtained absolute power--the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, and arguably, the Judiciary--many seemed to throw the traditional tenets of American conservatism out the window.
It seems that their love affair with George W. Bush might just be ending.
Our forefathers created a system of government built on checks and balances that they envisioned would protect a free people from abuses of their privacy, their property and their liberty at the hands of anyone, especially anyone in public office.
They never intended for an imperial presidency to rise above the legislative and judicial branches of government, for they had their fill of kings and emperors who ruled with absolute power in the Old World. They knew that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
They wanted none of this, and wrote a Constitution and Bill of Rights to enshrine the protections they knew were needed to keep Americans free and democracy healthy.
They crafted a system of government rooted in the principle that citizens have rights and presidents violate those rights at their own peril.
From the Falls Church (VA) News-Press
The nation is at one of its most precarious junctures ever at this very time.
If it fails to call the president to account for his admission of a widespread disregard for the rule of law, involving in principle and fact the most invasive violation of the public’s civil liberties possible by any government, then a critical moment will have passed. A precedent will be set that will forevermore forfeit the public’s right to privacy, to live free of Big Brother.
If Congress and the American people are so weak kneed in this case that they will not bring this outlaw president to justice by impeachment, it will have failed to protect the most basic of the nation’s freedoms, and no one of us will ever again be confident that we’re not being spied upon, and subject to the whims of whomever may be looking or listening in.
In other words, there is no choice but to impeach President Bush.
From the Denver Post
Who needs the Patriot Act? Not President Run Amok.
The president has now admitted to secretly authorizing what amounts to an end-run around the law that is meant, specifically and determinedly, to keep intelligence agencies from snooping on Americans at home.
In asking the super-secret National Security Agency to monitor - without any court oversight whatsoever - the international phone calls and e-mails of hundreds of Americans, President Bush has gone far beyond what even the Patriot Act allows. So why make a fuss over the Senate's refusal to extend it? Even if lawmakers passed it, Bush would ignore it.
From Barron's Magazine
Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved.
Surely the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary eventually will point out what a stretch this is. The most important presidential responsibility under Article II is that he must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That includes following the requirements of laws that limit executive power. There's not much fidelity in an executive who debates and lobbies Congress to shape a law to his liking and then goes beyond its writ.
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
Here's an excerpt:
"America's right-wing echo chamber has been having a field day with the CPT kidnappings -- sneering, implicitly or directly, that the peace activists had it coming and were, at best, foolhardy idiots for wandering into a situation where they had no business to be. But they had every business being there. In the blizzard of kidnappings and both criminal and war-related violence plaguing Iraq, the lives of four Westerners are of no great consequence; but even with the massive scale of Iraq's violence, people die one at a time, and lives are saved that way, too. In the three years it has been in Iraq, CPT has saved countless lives through its work.
For citizens of a country like Canada, Britain, or the U.S. to renounce their comfortable lives and willingly walk unarmed into such a setting, fully knowing that by their very citizenship they are prime targets for deadly violence, takes more courage than is ever demonstrated by most soldiers, who usually are cocooned on their bases, surrounded by all the weaponry and protection in the world. Such a commitment takes not recklessness or foolhardiness but a deep and abiding belief in the sanctity of all life and a willingness to work to save the lives of others, even as one's own life is endangered.
These are exactly the traits that we celebrate soldiers for -- the willingness to risk everything for a higher ideal and, ultimately, peace. It's a sad commentary on our martial society that when people take such risks but kill (and kill innocents) for the sake of peace, they're considered heroes. When a few lonely, brave souls work toward the same objectives without the use of force, they are widely ignored, derided, and considered fools."
While I certainly agree that a soldier can perform heroic acts, such acts take on a greater significance when performed by someone who willfully chooses to disdain violence.
The natural human response to pain and threat -- as witnessed in children on any playground -- is to respond in kind. Somebody calls you a name and so you call them two names in return. Somebody pushes you in the back and you retaliate by pushing AND punching them twice as hard.
Pacifists choose, through intestinal fortitude, to not return a tit for a tat. To live in such a manner requires great insight, strength AND courage. As noted in my previous entry, this is the way Jesus, Gandhi, King and many others chose to live their lives.
Such people should be saluted, not denigrated. They represent the conscience of humanity.
The most surprising aspect of our failure is that success is within our own power. It's not that we CAN'T live peaceably and respectfully, but that we choose not to. We, as individuals and as nations, have chosen to wage war and to treat others in negative and destructive ways.
For example, today each of us could decide that there will be no war, now or in the future. If called upon to fight by our political leaders, we can simply refuse. Really, if a bunch of leaders throughout the world decided to have a war and no one signed up to fight it, the war would never take place.
I know that many people will argue that there are bad people in the world (i.e., criminals, sexual predators, terrorists) and that to refuse to wage war would then open up the planet to domination by such people.
My response is that there's a chasm of difference between aggressively waging war and defending one's family or country against the aggression of others. Malcolm X made this point as does Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching. It's one thing to defend one's self to defuse an attack (redirecting the force of the attacker to neutralize him) and quite another to escalate the violence into an ongoing conflict.
So, one could accurately support genuine defense as a method for dealing with physical aggression. In time, as more and more aggressors found that their own violent power was turned back onto itself, aggression itself would die away and we would be that much closer to the ideal of peace on earth.
Of course, there is a second method for dealing with aggression, one chosen by Jesus of Nazareth, Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. When each was attacked by the people of their day, each chose to turn the other cheek. Each chose an act of ultimate bravery -- looking injury and death square in the face and consciously choosing not to strike back.
These three figures (and countless others) intuitively understood that aggression cannot defeat a peaceful spirit. A person's freedom can be withheld. Their name can be vilified. They can be mocked and spit upon. Their bodies can be desecrated and destroyed. But none of these things is stronger than the spirit of love, goodwill and peace.
Today we each have a choice to make. It's a personal choice wholly independent of anyone or anything else. We can decide that we will be brokers of peace. Yes, we can each decide that in OUR individual worlds there WILL be peace on earth and goodwill toward all.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
"This is SUPPOSED to be the season of goodwill and peace," the Jewish carpenter remarked, "but, it's hard to see much of that going around with all the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq." He added that recent efforts by the U.S. Congress to reduce benefits to the poor and the passage of several state initiatives to ban gay marriage certainly violated the substance of goodwill.
For his part, the jolly elf said he'd taken a cue from current US President George Bush. "A lot of the children throughout the world have been extra good this year," noted Kringle, "but, their leaders have not." Since Mr. Bush has instituted the "you're either with us or against us" policy, Kringle said he felt that he had to judge society based on overall policies, not individual merit.
Both of these important leaders said they hoped things would turn around in 2006, but neither was willing to hold his breath. "The way the world is going," Jesus lamented, "we may end up scrapping the Christmas season altogether."
Asked what each planned to do this week instead of the usual, both were at a loss for words. Jesus said he'd probably go home and spend some time with his dog. Kringle and his wife plan to go to Antarctica for a little R & R.
"I believe that a lot of people misunderstand the labels of “liberal” or “conservative.”...My understanding of a conservative is one who is cautious about change. Not that he or she is opposed to change, but cautious. Perhaps the old saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” could be the motto of a conservative...Conversely, my view of a liberal is one who is not cautious about change. That person may want to change things just to be changing things. In many ways change is good, but to just want to change to be changing can, in my estimation, be dangerous." (Go here to read the entirety of his essay.)Well, I can certainly tell you that I don't agree with his definitions at all. Here is a portion of my response to him in the comments section.
"My defintions are as follows: Conservatives seem to favor laws and policies that benefit the few at the expense of the many and the planet. In the conservative world view, everything boils down to the profit motive. If a particular law or policy maximizes short-term profits (even at the expense of long-term profits), conservatives favor it.Quite a bit of difference, don't you think?
To the right of conservatives are the fundamentalists. They favor everything the conservatives do BUT they try to couch all laws and policies into religious terms. If any person doesn't happen to believe precisely as they do, then such people become person non grata.
Liberals accept the same base system that the conservatives do, but want to have the edges smoothed a bit. They support a broader picture which takes both short and long-term profits into account, plus they favor some remedial efforts to be made for the poor and the planet. Liberals tend to not back wholesale changes because many secretly hope they will one day join the top 10% and they will then profit from conservative efforts.
To the left of the liberals (my vantage point) are the humanists, Greens, Socialists and anarchists. We think the whole system stinks and should be thrown out. Most folks in this category do not favor a system that creates inequalities and destruction of our environment as a matter of course. In general, we favor community rights over individual rights, long-term stewardship over short-term profits, and the genuine respect for diversity over laws and policies that breed bigotry and mistrust."
How do YOU define the terms conservative and liberal? Please visit the Ambercrombie View and make your perspective known.
Friday, December 23, 2005
MSNBC is conducting a poll entitled, "Live Vote: Do Bush’s actions justify impeachment?" As of 9:00 a.m. PST, 85% of over 128,000 voters say YES with only a meager 13% saying NO! Scientific or not, that's pretty damn amazing.
Monday, December 19, 2005
I'm happy to report that it has not and is not snowing in Grays Harbor County. In fact, it's a balmy 50 degrees with light rain. I'm sure that one day the tables will be turned -- snowing here but not down there. But not today!
"ISC plans to ask state legislators to pledge $166 million in bonds to pay for almost half of the proposed $345 million track. The money to repay the bonds would come from new sales taxes on items ISC says race fans would buy. In addition, ISC wants to use a ticket tax to pay for about 4 percent of the track costs."The article goes on to underscore that many state officials are wary of the projected economic impact of the speedway and are less than confident that the projected tax revenue would retire the bond.
From my standpoint, speaking as a former sports nut, I really don't care how large or small the projected economic impact is on the surrounding area. I don't care how many fans the developer thinks they can attract to a potential two major races per year. None of this should matter.
If ISC thinks this is a viable location AND they are able meet the various state and local building requirements, then they should build the facility WITH THEIR OWN MONEY. They will own the speedway and they are the ones who will earn the profits (or losses). Why should the taxpaying public subsidize their for-profit scheme?
The ONLY way I would support the expenditure of ANY public dollars is if the Green Bay Packers model was followed. This NFL football team is owned by the people of the City of Green Bay. Since the people own the team, it makes since to use their money -- taxpayer dollars -- to help support it.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
More often than not, adult behavior has a greater impact on developing minds than what adults say to children. The parent who screams at his/her children for abusing drugs, while concurrently self-medicating themselves through drugs and/or alcohol, generally has a great problem having their message heard (due to the obvious double-standard).
In this same vein, today's youth are learning about America's system of democracy from a president who is openly skirting and/or defying U.S. law. I fear the central message being imparted is that as long as you are in charge or on top, you can do what you damn well want. If the law isn't on your side, break it. If you run afoul of general ethics, screw 'em.
Of course, we can't lay the complete blame on our current [P]resident. He didn't invent this system. Corporate America has been playing this same tune for generations.
Mr. Bush needs to be held accountable as do countless multinational corporations. If not, we are setting the stage for a ruthless and lawless future as today's children grow into tomorrow's ethically-challenged leaders.
I don't know how many hearty souls braved the cold weather, but we filled about 2 city blocks with people standing up for peace. We even had the opportunity to meet some area Greens, including one from Grays Harbor County! (See photo taken by Bob Ziegler.)
Now we know that we won't have to organize Grays Harbor County by ourselves!
Friday, December 16, 2005
The ACLU of Washington site indicates that there's a chapter in this county, but neither of the two emails I've sent have netted a response. The Washington Green Party contact for Aberdeen has a disconnected phone number and a bouncing email address (though I have made contact with the state office in Seattle). I have found no indications that there are any environmental, peace, and/or social justice organizations here.
In fact, the only two groups that might be considered a tad progressive are the Grays Harbor Habitat for Humanity and the Grays Harbor Audubon Society.
So, I guess my wife & I are going to have to create some of these local organizations from scratch. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just means committing to a lot more work. It's almost always easier to join a going concern than it is to create and organize one.
Every community needs a radical left presence. We're here, so we will be THAT presence in Grays Harbor County.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
In discussing the Watergate fiasco (PRIOR to Nixon's resignation from the presidency), Frye/Nixon explained that he was indeed responsible for the imbroglio BUT it was not his fault. You see, Frye/Nixon reasoned that people who accept responsibility keep their jobs; people who are to blame lose theirs.
And so it is with Dubya. The way he looks at it is that it's his overall responsibility because he's the Commander-in-Chief, but it's not HIS fault. No, the fault is placed with those who provided him with bad intelligence.
Of course, the one bug in the ointment is that the intelligence, for the most part, was dead on target. He simply ignored what he didn't like and blew out of proportion what he did like.
In the end, like the real Nixon, Bush is both responsible AND at fault.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
It seems that some young entrepreneur from Oregon hatched a plan to build a swanky new beach community out of the wilderness of the central Washington coast. While I’m certain this gentleman and his partners will earn oodles and oodles of bucks from their investment, there are a few aspects of this new venture that rub me the wrong way.
For starters, what is actually meant by the word, authentic? They are constructing a community where no community existed. They are building houses and roads where mighty trees once stood. The authentic area is a rugged forest, not a planned and laid out resort community. In addition, a truly authentic town in this locale would be an indian village of the Quinault.
From my perspective, it would have been far more truthful to state that they are “creating a beach town” modeled after other such communities.
The next aspect that rubbed me wrong is their description of the various houses for sale in this future community. While they certainly aren’t shy about extolling the opportunities to purchase near palaces, they also state that small cottages are available. Sort of gives one the impression that homes are available for individuals and families of varying financial standing.
Well, don’t fall for such illusions. Initially, the price range for homes in authentic Seabrook went from $400,000 - $650,000! In their most recent newsletter, the bottom figure has now increased to over $500,000!!
Obviously, this will not be an authentic community after all. Authentic communities have rich people, poor people and those folks in between. I don’t know about you, but I know of few people of limited to modest means who can afford a $500,000 home.
But what really gets me about the advertising glitz for Seabrook is the scant mention of normal weather conditions on the central Washington coast. The photos on the website show blue skies (maybe a few lazy puffs of clouds) and tranquil waters. Such pictures are the exception, not the authentic norm.
The site informs potential buyers that the weather in Seabrook is very similar to that of the central Oregon coast. This statement is only true if you view the word “similar” in extremely broad terms.
The area platted out for Seabrook (near Pacific Beach) gets a lot of rain. I don’t mean a lot as in 40 or 50 or 60 inches per year. According to The Weather Channel, this swath of the Washington coast averages over 112” of rain per annum. Folks, that’s a heck of a lot of water (about 0.30” per day).
Compare this figure to that of Newport, Oregon (the largest town on the central Oregon Coast). While Seabrook will average about 112” of precipitation per year, Newport averages 69.57” per year. That’s a difference of approximately 43” per year or, put another way, Seabrook receives an average of 62% more rainfall than Newport. (Maybe they mean the rain in the two locales has a similar wetness.)
Take a look at this breakdown for comparison. The first figure represents the average for Seabrook and the second figure represents the average for Newport.
January: 16.37” vs. 10.25” (about 60% greater)
April: 8.29” vs. 4.87” (about 70% greater)
July: 1.94” vs. 1.04” (about 85% greater)
October: 9.32” vs. 5.12” (about 82” greater)
For potential buyers who presently live within a few hours of Seabrook, the rainfall totals won’t come as a shock at all. They are well aware of what they’re getting into. What I worry about is those folks who hail from areas outside of the Great Northwest, like Southern California. Many such people wouldn’t be able to fathom 112” of anything per year!
Can you imagine plunking down $700,000 for a spatial home only to find out your next door neighbor is some guy named Noah and he’s building an ark in his back yard? Wouldn’t that tick you off somewhat?
Salem's program, run in conjunction with Marion County, is a fairly good one. Co-mingled recycling is picked up curbside and the number of items eligible is laudable. You can put batteries, paint, plastic containers, newsprint, mixed paper, greyboard, cardboard, aluminum, tin cans, motor oil and several other items out at the curb for bi-weekly pick-up. If you have items that don't fall onto the curbside list, you are still afforded the opportunity to dispose of most anything else at 3 transfer stations positioned around town.
While Aberdeen does have a curbside recycling program, it pales in comparison to Salem's or even Olympia's (a mere 50 miles to the east). While the Salem program provides a huge recycling receptacle for each customer's use, Aberdeen provides 3 little bins. The blue bin is for glass. The light grey bin is for tin cans and aluminum foil. The beige bin is for newspapers.
Aberdeen also allows each customer to place at the curb two paper sacks filled with mixed paper and corrugated cardboard. Milk jugs can be recycled too, but each family must tote them to the transer station themselves.
That's it (except for some provisions for hazardous waste)! What strikes me as rather odd is that while milk jugs are eligible to be recycled, no other types of plastic bottle are. Thus, yogurt cups, drink bottles, shampoo containers go into the trash with lots of greyboard. And all this gets transported to the landfill.
I guess I should be thankful that Aberdeen recycles at all!
Monday, December 12, 2005
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists,
"In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, the Bush administration and Congress are struggling to pay for the needed but costly rebuilding efforts along America's Gulf Coast. Meanwhile, ExxonMobil recently announced a record breaking $9.9 billion in quarterly profits. Despite that success, Congress recently gave the oil and gas industry, including ExxonMobil, $10.7 billion in tax breaks."In light of all the changes to the way this nation administer's public welfare assistance, this payout seems grossly unfair. Would anyone like to justify it?
Sunday, December 11, 2005
We were pleasantly surprised to find that Aberdeen has a health food store. Unfortunately, The Market Place doesn’t have the kind of selection we had hoped for. They don’t sell organic produce, they don’t have a deli or juice bar and their selection of soy milk is very limited.
One of the owners explained the reasoning for these shortcomings. For starters, Grays Harbor County (which relies heavily on the timber industry) is a very conservative place. Alternative health consciousness has not reached a critical mass here. This means that certain services like a juice bar are not yet economically viable.
While the lack of consciousness certainly plays an important role, the more important reason is the unfair competitive advantage that Big Boxes and chain stores play. All the major grocery stores in the area have an organics section, albeit VERY small ones – I’ve already checked each one out (except for Walmart which I REFUSE to step foot in)!
Because of their sheer economic size, the chains can often dictate to suppliers a very low wholesale purchase price, the kind of price that a small locally-owned company can’t come close to. Consequently, if a big chain store and a local mom-and-pop outfit sell the same item, you can be sure that the retail price will be far less at the chain store.
Of course, this means that the average consumer (the working poor and, often, the middle class too) will feel it a family financial necessity to shop where the price is the lowest. This is one of the chief mechanisms that [inter]national corporate chains drive locally-owned firms out of business.
Companies like Bitar’s – La Vogue Department Store in downtown Hoquiam. This family-run operation has been a fixture in Hoquiam for 95 years. Sadly, the owner told me, he has little confidence it will be around 95 years or even 30 years from now. In fact, he lamented the plight of most of the local businesses that have remained in the town’s once-vibrant downtown core.
From his perspective, the problem is easy to identify – strip malls, shopping centers and Big Box stores. They funnel citizens away from the center of town to the edges. As residents spend less and less time in the city center, they correspondingly spend less and less time supporting local businesses.
This owner asked the same questions scores of local business people in small towns ask across this nation: How do we revitalize our downtown core?
It’s not impossible to do, but, it will continue to be a difficult project as long as area residents lay out the red carpet for the Walmart’s of the world. Every time a new Big Box takes up residence in one town or another, we can be certain that a number of small, family-run local businesses will shutter their doors forever. And, too often, this is the very catalyst for destroying a small town’s central business district.
There is a slight glimmer of hope. Across the nation people are starting to wake up. They’re beginning to realize what is being lost through the Big Box revolution and some are starting to fight back. Walmart is finding that many communities are no longer welcoming them with open arms.
That, in and of itself, is reason to be hopeful.
But a funny thing happened on the way -- My wife & I decided that since we were preparing to move [to Forks, WA], we would go ahead and move anyway with the only difference being our final destination. So, we up and decided to throw caution to the wind and we just completed a move to Aberdeen, WA.
Mind you, we don't know a soul in Aberdeen. We don't have any family here. We don't have new jobs lined up. No, we simply sold our house in Salem and found a nice house to rent in Aberdeen while we look for a house in the area to buy. In essence, we decided to do a little rambling.
Moving, particularly when one is older (more unneeded accumulation), is a time-consuming process. It leaves one little time nor energy to write. It's causes a sort of physical writer's block.
Hopefully, now that we're settling in, I can finally get back to daily writing.
Thursday, December 1, 2005
There are those that would argue that the art of fishing is fine, but the man is hungry and should be fed now. Worry about the present situation and let someone else endeavor to offer instruction on the methods of proper fishing.
Then there are those who would decry such a strategy. Look to the future, they say. Stave off future problems by teaching the man a skill for survival.
For me, both solutions are good ones. Instead of juxtaposing them against each other (either/or), they lend themselves well to a two-step strategy. Since the man is hungry right now, give him the damn fish (and maybe a bottle of wine to go with it). If he's open to the idea, share the meal with him.
Once he's fed, THEN teach him how to fish.
Studies have shown that school children who come to class hungry are less apt to learn. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why. Hunger has a way of impeding the learning process.
The underlying lesson here is that the short-term and long-term are equally important. Neglect one and we short change the other. From a Taoist perspective, this could well be termed trying to achieve balance.