Where we're heading

Everyone should be really paying attention to this, because these kinds of fights are going to start happening more frequently as we continue doing nothing about changing our planet's atmosphere. The biggest problems aren't going to come from dwindling water supplies as much as the fighting humans will do over the most important ingredient for life. According to a 2004 Pentagon analysis: "Future wars will be fought over the issue of survival rather than religion, ideology or national honor."

What's going down in Georgia right now definitely highlights the situation of what we will all be dealing with all too soon:

"Atlanta politicians, the newspaper said, "can't bring themselves to tell their greedy constituents complaining about the low flows in their toilets this week that perhaps if they didn't have six bathrooms, it might ease the situation a bit. That watering your lawn isn't as important as watering crops. Or that their greedy overbuilding has taxed their supplies of natural resources beyond their capabilities.""


It's not just Atlanta politicians - it's politicians and average citizens everywhere. There's this capitalistic mantra that worms its way into everyday consciousness: grow, Grow GROW - with anyone who tries to argue against it branded as un-American or anti-business.

Simply put - we live on a planet with finite resources: meaning that one day they will run out (like water is starting to do). Yet we have business models with unlimited growth as the book of divine inspiration. How many Starbucks does San Francisco really need? There's 81 listed on their website!

If you look at growth statistics since the 1950s, the average American house size has more than doubled; it now stands at 2,349 square feet. This is from a recent NPR report here in which they also talk about how we've become so greedy for goin' large that we're "atomizing the American family."

I mean - when are we going to start seeing recycling and sustainability as not just a concept for allowing the pursuit of happiness but something as foundational to the survival of our species. . . when we've chopped down the last tree to make a subdivision or produce that non-recycled paper cup? when we have to start having oxygen bars inside every Starbucks? How can you keep growing when your resources are going to run out? Is there anything more suicidal?

When are the citizens of this most enterprising country going to rise above Madison Avenue, Wall Street and their political backers and start to think for themselves? This tunnel-vision of growing by any and all means necessary for the adolescent goal of making more and more money is ridiculous - especially when it comes at the expense of our health, well-being, and future existence -- as evidenced by the Georgia drought.

All Knowing Eyes or Big Brother?

With Keith Olbermann probably being the most left-leaning news program on cable television, I still find him at the political center with maybe a leftist touch here and there. Aside from his jokes and inserted personal comments during interviews, he’s only reporting the obvious inconsistencies and hypocrisies of our political “leaders.”

However, has anyone else had the same creepy feeling about the intro graphic for Countdown? I can’t help but see it as the Eye of Sauron from Lord of the Rings which Wikipedia says "…is referred to as having the capability to "see all", although that must be meant as a term of fear…” and the Combine tower from the popular computer game Half Life 2 in which an alien military force has taken over.

The Countdown graphic has an “all seeing, searching” eye set high-up in a spiny tower with dark clouds above and sun rising to the right. Close-ups of the tower show numerous video screens, pipes, tubing, Olbermann’s face, and numbers.

It looks menacing, kind of scary, and brings to mind oppressive thoughts of Big Brother much more so than those of journalist integrity or freedom.

To be free or not to be free

So much hot air comes out of not only President Bush, but the Democratic and Republican members of Congress as well. Who needs oil? Just stick a few of these hypocrites in the trunk of your car bla-bla-blabbing away and zoom! off you go.

Hot air? Hypocrites? I'm speaking in reference to this never-ending stream of talk about freedom and liberty and democracy. How we're bringing it to the Middle East; how we have so much of it; how we're the standard-bearer of it all. How so full of shit it all is.

Recently, there was Burma. I talked about it and our pathetic reaction here, here, and here. This week, we've had Pakistan instantly lose what little democracy they had. And why? Of course the leader who staged a coup to get into power, General Pervez Musharraf, said that it's "because the courts were hampering his efforts against extremist groups, such as by ordering the release of suspects held without charge." That's here.

However, the timing of his abolishment of freedom and liberty came at quite an ironic time. General Musharraf "suspended the constitution on Saturday ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on whether his recent re-election as president was legal. He ousted seven independent-minded Supreme Court judges, put a stranglehold on independent media and granted sweeping powers to authorities to crush dissent."

What he did was to order the arrest of freedom, liberty, and democracy because the court system was about to rule on whether he could remain president! If his argument about protecting the country and "democracy" from extremist groups was really true, then why would you shut down newspapers, television stations, and arrest hundreds of lawyers? While that bothers me immensely, it's to be expected from a egotistical thug who gained power in a coup. What is not to be expected is the supposed "greatest nation on earth" to stand idly by in a corner sucking its thumb asking for the General to please not do that. At least American hypocrisy is great.

"Pressed on whether the US backed the anti-Musharraf demonstrators, as it had recent anti-government protests in Myanmar [Burma], Perino replied: "Let me put it this way: We certainly support the right to free speech, and freedom of expression and freedom to assemble."" So, the Bush Administration supports people assembling, expressing, and talking about how their democratic rights were taken away, but says nothing about those rights actually being taken away! How nice.

It is interesting to note that Deutsche Welle reported the other day that "since 2001, Musharraf has received nearly $11 billion from Washington and $150 million continue to flow in each month. Of this, only 10 percent goes to economic and social projects. The rest goes to the soldiers."

Who cares about SCHIP and giving poor children health care with that money - or fixing the hundreds of bridges that are structurally deficient in this country. "Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told Congress on Wednesday that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf is an "indispensable" ally in the U.S.-led war on terrorism and that "partnership with Pakistan and its people is the only option."" What has he done that has made him so "indispensable?" (Besides suspend their constitution twice, the initiation of a police state and the ending of democracy this week?) Where's Osama again?

Hypocrisy. Lies. Distortions. Saddam was our friend. We invaded Iraq to bring "democracy" to a population that was not in the streets protesting for it, yet we totally ignore two countries with citizens actually in the streets protesting and being arrested calling for democracy...

Answer to the previous quiz

Q. Who said that "These people are very unskilled in arms...with 50 men they could all be subjected and made to do all that one wished?"


A.

B.

C. Christopher Columbus

D.


It's quite a shame that we celebrate this marauder who raped, pillaged, and enslaved innocent peoples.

These are the days of our lives

According to a top news article here, 2007 has been the deadliest year for U.S. troops.

In light of that; they're old enough now to ask how dad died. I also hope that they're asking (and being told) exactly why their fathers (and mothers) are no longer alive. Here's a hint: it wasn't weapons of mass destruction (like Bush said), or bringing democracy to Iraq (after no WMD's were found), or going after al-Qaeda in Iraq (after democracy didn't work), or - well, al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded that country so - get the pattern?





Just in case you don't get the pattern, retired Army Gen. John Abizaid said that our war in the Middle East could last 50 years. "...but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home..." It's all part of a much bigger plan that has been obvious for quite awhile now. From the stated goals of the Project for a New American Century to presidential candidate Mitt Romney when he says, "For me what America should do is strengthen our military, strengthen our economy and strengthen our family structure so that we always remain the most powerful nation on earth. A world without America as the leader is a very frightening place."

How arrogant is that!? What would a German citizen or English, or Indian, or take your pick of other citizenry, think of that? That's like a kid on the playground saying he's not going to let anyone else run things - it's his way or you get pounded. Surely our founding fathers didn't have empire in mind when they created the grandest experiment in democracy saying that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."






A good part of the problem is our media. Not only that it's highly concentrated by mega-corporations, but that the people asking and discussing important questions are incompetent at best. The always on target Eric Alterman discusses that here.

Our newspapers, magazines and television programs do a horrible job of telling us what we need to know about candidates. How does Clinton's health plan differ from Obama's? Moreover, what exactly is Clinton's health plan? Oh, I hear plenty about how the Republicans are against it, how she's the front runner, how she cackles; but what are the ins and outs - the particulars - of her health care plan? Why isn't this discussed? About half-way down this article by Eric Boehlert talking about the press' reaction to a Stephen Colbert presidential run, you come across this:

"Look at the latest research findings from the campaign trail: "Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election," according to Editor & Publisher magazine. "And just one percent of stories examined the candidates' record or past public performance.""

A functioning democracy must have an engaged and informed citizenry. If we're not getting pertinent information from the media, what kind of democracy are we living in?