Happy War Day!

Another Veterans Day has come and gone and for those of us who oppose the war machine it's hard not to notice the almost religious observance most people give to this unholy holiday. I do believe that we should take some time to consider those who have been subjected to the military meat grinder, but not with unquestioning loyalty to the mentality of war and not with callous disregard for crimes against humanity. Just as there is a peoples' history of the United States that tells the awful truth that can change the way we feel about our national birthday, there is also a peoples' history of war that dissolves the illusion created and celebrated each Veterans Day. Most peoples' experience of war is literally channeled through a few news outlets and generally in the terms of those politicians who make war, we rarely hear the other side of the story when those ultra-patriotic moments arise and the call to arms is heard across the land. Would we so willingly march into the meat grinder if we could hear testimonials from hamburger land?

For those on the top, those who plan and execute wars, it serves them well to paint the image of a "universal soldier" in the minds of the people. They want us to have an heroic icon, an empty shell that any eligible American can step into and become. This generic American hero has an equally generic and fabricated American glory story, of killing dozens of enemy units to rescue wounded soldiers from behind enemy lines. Onto this patriotic icon can be projected any suggestive image, mood, or subliminal advertisement for the military industrial complex. This perfect soldier may suffer from a wound, may even die in battle, but never suffers from severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and never comes home to commit spousal abuse or random acts of violence in his community. This hero can even be a heroine, but she doesn't experience sexual harassment, or even rape by her male superiors. Any color of the rainbow can be projected onto this multi-cultural soldier, and maybe soon even those who fly the full rainbow flag, but they never experience the harsh face of discrimination among their fellow heroes and heroines.

This is the perfect imaginary Hero we celebrate on Veterans Day, we don't want all of those real people to confuse the simplicity of the day with their factual accounts of war and the mental wounds that so deeply scar all who experience war first hand, real war veterans. We want those veterans to stand up at the Veterans Hall to be honored, we want them to sit quietly on the Veterans Day parade float like giant cake decorations, but we don't want them to open their mouths and tell us what they saw, what they did. We want them to support their country, support their leaders, support their fellow soldiers, support war in general, and if they just sit their quietly and accept our praises we don't have to find out what they think. We don't want to ask them if they would do it all again because they might say "No way!", they might caution young men and women against enlisting in the military the same way a bad review of a product can make us put our credit cards back in our wallets.

If we allowed real veterans to tell us their stories of war and of coming home from war on Veterans day, it might become the opposite of what it is today: a commercial for the military industrial complex and perhaps the ultimate tool for military recruiters. The great thing about honoring the sacrifices of hypothetical veterans is that there is nothing further called for, nothing else to do but go on with business as usual. Imagine if we were challenged to honor the true voices coming from the veteran community, calling for real changes in the way they are treated before, during, and after war. Imagine if the many veterans peace groups had a platform on that day to discuss the illegality of the missions they have been given, to demand that those war criminals who played so carelessly with their lives be brought to justice. Imagine the nation actually listening to tales of the drafted young men who did not believe in war, especially the war in Vietnam, and many of those who evaded their enlistment and ended up serving in Vietnam anyway, never to return.

Veterans Day is like so many other hallmark holidays where we accept the most superficial definitions of some of lifes' deepest mysteries; as Christmas is to spirituality, as Valentines Day is to love, as Independence Day is to freedom. Many of us experience Veterans Day like a single on Valentines Day, a Jew on Christmas, or an immigrant on the 4th of July; we just cant take part in something we don't believe in. The reality of war is that good people who experience it wish that they never did, and those who like it and would do it all over again may not be such good people. We farm and arm some of the most dangerous elements of human behavior in our youth, seeking out those who can kill with little regard for their targets. Boot camp is more psychological than physical, it is a process of refining the sociopathic potential in its' subjects to respond to trigger words like "enemy" to direct their callous killing instinct. This process in itself is a crime, if you must brainwash young people to do your bidding perhaps it's not worth doing at all.

As for those veterans whose silence is deafening, those who could not undo the brainwashing and took their own lives as a result, these are perhaps the only stories we should tell on Veterans Day. Let us observe this day by educating and informing our youth so that they might be armed with facts in this military recruiting war for their very souls. Teach young boys that fear and hatred are not forms of courage but cowardice, that fighting the urge to fight is the only fight worth winning. There may be some things out there worth fighting for, but they will never come from on high. On the contrary, the only things worth fighting are those self proclaimed super powers who visit death and destruction on so many innocent souls, the Pentagon, and the war industry that booms and busts our collective soul. Bravery will not lead you to pick up a weapon, only fear leads to violence, and hatred is just the fear of admitting fear. Security IS insecurity, the two words are interchangeable, and if we realize this en mass, we can no longer follow the leader who obsesses about security.

Any leader worth following knows that pursuing security makes you look about as noble as a dog chasing his own tail.

This post is dedicated to my father John C. Wood, a drafted Vietnam Veteran who suffers from PTSD, exposure to Agent Orange and other dangerous chemicals. Just another story you won't hear on Veterans Day.

Globalize Democracy!

There are some on the right and far right who believe that the UN should be abolished, they see it as a threat to Americas power. They create a straw man by debating the notion that the UN should be a blueprint for a world government annexing and subordinating the US to outside influences, but who on the left is suggesting this? The ambassador to the UN under George W. Bush, John Bolton was extremely hostile towards the UN and his appointment there was a clear message, you could say that John Bolton was the Bush administrations' middle finger pointed at the rest of the world. In a famous video clip from 1994 he vehemently stated "There is no United Nations. There is an international community, that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States, when it suits our interests, and when we can get others to go along." Revealing his level of vitriol, he went on to say "The United States makes the UN work when it wants it to work, and that is exactly the way it should be because the ONLY question, the only question to the United States is what's in our best interest. And if you don't like that, I'm sorry but that is the facts."

John Boltons' statements were raw and unrefined partly due to the fact that he was speaking at a convention in the 90's and couldn't foresee becoming a YouTube sensation a decade later. He exposes the shocking truth about the United States' manipulation of the UN, that it's nothing more than the toothless tiger that we allow it to be. It's fascinating that John Bolton would not only admit that the United Nations was led by the United States, but he says it as a criticism of the UN as if they want to be puppets of politicians in Washington DC. The right wing should embrace the current model of the UN as a world government, it's completely under the hegemonic control of the US government, and therefore those wealthy and corporate interests who control the US government. The UN is intended to be a democratic system among nations on a global stage, but like our representative democracy this system is ultimately flawed. First, the UN acts as a firewall between actual people and international law/global policy. We the people have no vote on these fundamental policies gone global. Second, the Security Council and it's five permanent members is a "country club" within the the UN that rules over the general assembly and effectively controls the organization.

The UN is flawed in the same way that democracy in the US is flawed, it's completely vulnerable to manipulation by wealthy and powerful, entrenched interests. It is essentially globalized representative government, which is a false form of democracy. Direct democracy is true democracy and there's no reason why we can't have a true democracy on a global scale. We can actually vote for policy, not for people, through ballot measures, initiatives, and propositions. We do it on the city, county, and state levels, why not the national level? And why not global? When we vote we have ballots that combine our local, state, and national elections into one, we could just as easily have an international level to vote on issues of a global scale. If we believe in democracy why do we limit it so? Is it possible that those who seek to cap democracy at some level are those who oppose it's potential? Why not make one person one vote extend to everyone on the planet?

Our system of nations keeps us compartmentalized in chambers, making it difficult for us to compare and contrast our standards of living or quality of democracy. As a result, Americans can demand for themselves freedoms, rights, privileges, that they don't necessarily think other nationalities deserve. When the subjects of torture or immigration are discussed there seem to be many who are appalled that we might give other nationalities the "rights" we enjoy as American citizens, like the "right" to a fair trial, or the "right" to not be tortured. How can we draw a line on any level that allows some people to be tortured, but not other people? The territory we're born in shouldn't matter any more than the color of our skin, we once debated whether black people should have the same rights as white people. We as American citizens somehow have more "rights" than non-American citizens, in a similar way that our white forefathers had more "rights" than their black slaves.

That we openly discuss our need as Americans to have more rights than most other people is simply astonishing. Rights are nothing without equality, if after the 400 year legacy of slavery in North America we can somehow limit that ideal to Americans, we have ultimately failed the greater struggle. Democracy should be the one thing a government can't govern, limit, micro-manage, and ultimately subvert. We the people are deciding nothing of any import in our elections when we vote for one corporate sponsored candidate or another. And we're not allowed to sound off on global policies that matter now (and in the future) more than ever. With a direct democracy gone global we can finally see what democracy looks like, independent, autonomous regions under the umbrella of democratic, international (or global) law. The powers that be (represented well by John Bolton) do not want to see this world of global democracy, they now have enormous power and one person one vote would be a massive downgrade for them.

Until democracy and equality are complete they are mere concepts not yet in practice.

Direct Democracy Now!

Never satisfied with our so-called democracy I'm a tireless advocate of direct democracy, it's the only true democracy and no person should settle for anything less. We all agree with the base premise of democracy, that we all have equal power over our governments with our votes. When we vote for another person to "represent" us in our nations' capitol, we are relinquishing our democratic power to another who simply promises to do good and commit no crime. Unlike laws governing false advertising for commercial products, these individuals make promises they know they never have to keep. But it's a leap in logic to accept that anyone would represent everyone, or everyone of their constituents. In our current system our "representatives" actually represent the more powerful interests and corporate donors with very rare exceptions. The banks, corporations, and other wealthy individuals and organizations have turned the tables on representative democracy, they simply use it as a tool for subverting democracy.

So here we are the day after the 2010 midterm elections, a multi billion dollar game of musical chairs. There's scarcely a single candidate, proposition, initiative, or ballot measure, that was not decided by corporate money. Many politicians who actually did fight for their constituents went down this round and the corporate money is what took them out. And those who won in spite of the corporate money against them were forced to raise their own contributions at an exhausting rate to try and keep up with the bottomless well of money going to mostly republicans and now tea-baggers. This was arguably the most expensive election in world history with a number of wealthy individuals trying to buy their own seats of power with their private wealth, and those people still received corporate money in the millions of dollars.

Politics is always about money, when politicians are not raising funds to keep themselves in power they're the ones who hold the nations purse strings. They really don't have power at all without our tax dollars, all they can do is direct money here and there, fund and defund. They don't do a very good job of directing funds and we the people (whose money they're spending) suffer as a result. When so many things like healthcare and education languish due to lack of funds, how can we justify spending billions upon billions of dollars to decide who gets to go to Washington? There is nothing in the basic premise of democracy that suggests that politicians are required for democracy to function, and in modern times it makes even less sense. The concept of politicians is based in the class system of ancient Rome, it made sense when aristocracy wasn't such a bad word. The idea that the wealthy land owners naturally had more rights to power is entrenched in our own democracy with the wealthy house of senators and it's subordinate house of common representatives.

Propositions, initiatives, and ballot measures are a form of direct democracy though there are some design flaws in their implementation. But it is possible to design a true democratic system that allowed for every political issue to be decided by a majority of people instead of "representatives" or "politicians." Those who debate this usually cite the time, energy, and intelligence required to process this information, often saying that the greater population is just too dumb to deal with the heavy responsibility. Some fear that we the people in an uninformed moment might make a collective wrong turn, as if politicians are somehow safe drivers of our government and never steer us wrong. If we can train teenagers to drive on our freeways despite their IQ, we can train those same young people to read a ballot and check a box. Most ballot measures are no more confusing than reading a menu at a Chinese restaurant, which for some may seem overwhelming I guess.

We now live in an age where our technology has made massive treasure troves of information available at the touch of a button. Information is not always true and accurate but our currently budding generations are natural born researchers who already have trusted news sources and know how to cross reference and do basic fact checking. Todays teens are on track to be the most informed twenty-somethings our planet has ever known, and they're ready to rewrite the old programs and upgrade the old hardware. We've been running democracy 1.0 for way too long and the bug issues have slowed our processors to a snails' pace. We want democracy 2.0 asap, if we don't fix these bugs the entire planetary ecosystem will collapse and we will have a hard time explaining to our grandchildren why. The sad truth is that there are democracy scammers out there and they have already ruined everything, they want democracy to fail just like the spammers want your computer to fail, or secretly be enslaved to a master computer.

I look forward to the day when I vote and see no names on the ballot. I want the tough choices to be mine, not a politicians. If I don't feel compelled to vote on an issue I simply won't vote for that issue and let others decide it. But it's futile to vote for a person who may or may not make decisions I agree with, do things I think should be done, and not do the things I want to stop, like war. I also long for an end to the Federal government and nationalism as we know it, I want local autonomy in every nook and cranny of the planet. Democracy is destined to destroy any semblance of empire if it's allowed to do it's thing. But in our current electoral system democracy is stalled, stymied, and sabotaged by the corporate clowns who own it. They have the tables totally slanted in their direction and still they are not satisfied, they are working to make democracy weaker every day, we must be ready for a real fight if we are to ever have true democracy on Earth. Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death." I say Give me direct democracy or kill me quickly.

Democracy for Sale!

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group."

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Money matters, in politics maybe more than anywhere else in our system. The people who know this best are the politicians, and perhaps their largest campaign contributors. Why would Corporations spend four billion dollars this election season if they didn't expect anything in return? In fact, after the Citizens United case was decided in the supreme court (giving corporations the "right" to spend unlimited money to manipulate our electoral system), there's little stopping them from simply buying the results they most desire. Corporations receive more money and power back from every donation dollar that goes out, they are experts on getting returns on their investments. They are already more powerful than any natural entity can be, and with the new laws they are bound to grow at an even more alarming rate. And this power buys elections, they can simply put a pile of money on any candidate, any proposition, they want to win. And no surprise the Republicans are getting 7 dollars for every one dollar going to Democrats.

Can anyone see the vicious cycle forming here? The more money they spend to manipulate our elections, the more money they get back from the system. The more money they make, the more money they have in their coffers to spend in our elections. Simultaneously, they are driving our economy into the ground and supporting candidates who push deregulation and privatization, so they can dismantle and buy up the commons and the defunct apparatus of the state. Everything we think of as being our government has fallen into the hands of private corporations, or soon will. They control the Pentagon, the Federal Reserve, The departments of agriculture and the interior, they write the farm bills and send them to congress for a rubber stamp. We already have privately owned fire departments who will put out your burning house for a fee, or they can just watch it burn if you can't pay. But what if the house burning down is Democracy, why would private interests want to save Democracy when their bottom line is at stake? In Ray Bradburys' classic novel Fahrenheit 451 the "Firemen" were in charge of burning books that challenged the authority of the state, letting some houses burn down for the sake of a corporations bottom line seems to be the missing link between our world and that dark dystopia.

Not only can corporations now put the necessary funds down on the heads of any candidate they'd like to win, but they can also draw up their own legislation and insert it into our proposition ballots. Earlier this year in California our local private energy Goliath PG&Evil, brought us Prop 16 designed to eliminate any potential competition springing up, especially renewables. Now less than half of one year later we are being sold Prop 23 designed to put a hold on Californias' Assembly Bill 32 which addresses global warming with new energy standards. They put the bill forward, funded it to the teeth, and then tell us if we vote against it we lose jobs. And they should know, they can fire people in the thousands so they can make sure it happens, almost like,... a threat? They could just as easily adapt or get out of the way and let others develop the renewables industry, creating more jobs, maybe more than coal, gas, oil, and nuclear combined. Luckily Prop 16 was defeated and it seems to suggest that 23 will go down in flames as well. But why not keep trying, the energy companies have plenty of money to throw at the system.

There was a recent story of a McDonalds franchise owner who sent a letter out with the weekly paychecks of his employees suggesting they may not get raises if they don't vote Republican. It was a classic case of voter intimidation in the workplace, or was it? I mean, we live in a new world, things are different now since corporations are people with the "right" to freedom of speech. If the supreme court can decide that A: corporations are people, B: Corporate persons have the right to Freedom of Speech, and C: political contributions equal speech, then would those same people tell the corporation that they don't have the right to write a letter? If funding a campaign is "Free Speech" then writing a letter to inform your employees of the potential consequences of their votes is definitely "Free Speech." The former is a giant leap for reason, the latter seems like a small step in comparison. If legally challenged, all this boss has to do is fight the case all the way up to his good friends on the supreme court, a very corporate friendly crew.

This nation, this system, this so-called democracy is heading for the ultimate wipe out. The wealthy ownership class has been executing their plan perfectly; ruin the economy so that the people are weak and desperate. When the people are poor and starving they will do anything the wealthy want for a pittance, just to have a meal and a roof over their heads the poor will do the bidding of the bosses and the landlords. As resources dwindle the wealthy will grow their private security forces to protect them, will you protect the rich if you need a steady job and they're the only ones hiring? Even as the people realize who is the source of their woes, they will have little choice but to do whatever the rich want just to get by from day to day. Those "Tea-Baggers"who now cry for their lost liberty under Obama will vote today for people who will sell them out to the highest bidder and turn around and blame it on Muslims. And will it be better if the Democrats retain their "control" over the house and senate? And if only slightly better, is that good enough?

HELL NO! When you choose between Democrats and Republicans it's like Thelma and Louise deciding whether to launch off the cliff in drive or overdrive. The only hope for change we have is a global uprising, a revolution of the people, by the people, and for the people of the world. We need to give up "ownership" and "wealth" and all of the delusions that we have in our world that lead us to believe it's all there for the taking. We belong to the world, to the land, to each other. We are spiritual creatures who have very temporary lives on this planet and we allow our minds to be so bloated with spyware and malware that we act as parasites actively and passively contributing to the demise of our host organism, in a long drawn out dance of self destruction. If democracy is to exist it will take an electoral revolution, a revolution OF the electoral system (not through it). The system is designed to prevent and sabotage true democracy, if we cannot change that we can change nothing of any significance with our votes. Stopping a tea bagger or corporate sponsored proposition here and there will not save the planet, we need to break up the party system before it's too late.

The Elephant in the Womb

I love to cook, and when I cook, I cook with garlic. Some people can't handle much garlic and for them I have great sympathy. When one such as myself expresses their love for garlic as they begin peeling cloves for cooking, it's not uncommon for the less tolerant to caution "But not too much." I don't want to call it a pet peeve but the smart ass in me just cringes when I hear that combination of words. "Too much" is too much, meaning not "just right", therefore too much is always a bad thing, so.... duhhh, of course not too much! Sometimes I say sarcasmically "Don't worry, I'll just use too much of everything else so it evens out in the end." The word "too" defines itself, it's like the word "to" with too many "o"s in it. Whenever you use the word "too" the "o"s represent the noun in the sentence: too much salt, too many cats, too many cooks in the kitchen. The exception is the phrase "too few" which is usually "not enough", and "too small, short, little" which are more commonly used, a gentle digression.

I'm not listing my pet peeves here, I wouldn't want to leak that sensitive intelligence to Al Queda. But I do have a larger point to make than to express my passion for garlic and my dispassion for those who state the obvious. We earthbound souls have an abstract ideal that can be summed up as "Just right", we don't want "Too much, too little, too few, too big, etc." It's not because we're finicky, there are valid reasons to resist "Too much, too little, too few, too big, etc." We can all agree across the board that anything can be too big, but few people agree on where the line is drawn. And maybe there is no right size, shape, composition, portion, etc. Maybe there is a spectrum in which something can be not too big and not too small but still leave room for variety and diversity. For instance one can eat too little to survive, or too much, but there is a lot of space in between and it's amazing how much of that space some people can take up.

Our modern era is a world of giants, behemoth institutions surround us in every aspect of our lives. Nations stretch on for thousands of miles spanning continents, collecting states, cities, minions. Corporations rival the size and power of governments and collect in "trade organizations" to create even larger monstrous entities capable of manipulating larger chunks of the world with relative ease. Banks monopolize the flow of currency on a larger global scale than during the British empire, and the few executives, board members, share holders, rake in profits from the debts of the masses. Mortgage rates are too high, minimum wage is too low, prescription drugs are too expensive, Jobs are too few and far between, food prices are too high, gas prices are too high, tax rates are too high, and yes, the rent is too damn high! Sometimes "too much" may leave you with a mild case of garlic breath, sometimes it's a matter of survival.

There is a large and growing consensus that corporations are bad, even "evil." And when you take that position you are setting the other side up for a slam dunk, it's faulty logic and vulnerable to a master debater. The truth is that corporations are too big, too powerful, they have too many "rights" and too much sway in our electoral and legislative processes. Those who sit at the helms of these Goliaths, and those whose paychecks bear their logos, may disagree that there is anything wrong with their size and scope. But anyone who looks at a timeline of the past century can see that there is very keen political awareness about the issues that arise when any entity grows too large, too powerful, too ominous. We have what we call "Anti-trust" laws in the US which are intended to prevent unfair trading practices and break up monopolies. About a hundred years ago the worlds first multinational corporations were emerging and they quickly became too big for their britches, Standard Oil and Bell Telephone were two of the largest and most powerful monopolies and had to be broken into smaller corporations to maintain a fair trading environment. But all of those regulations and oversights have been strategically and systematically dismantled over the past century, tweaking capitalism to be a leaner, meaner killing machine.

Oddly, corporations are all about the extremes of too much and too little, it's possible that they can create little else than inequity in our society. The first and foremost principle that separates a corporation from an unincorporated business, is the concept of "limited liability". Obviously the premise behind this is the notion that there is otherwise "too much" liability, or that there are too few assets compared to the potential liabilities. You might say that the first principle separating corporations from companies is that the corporation is owned by share holders who buy stocks in the company. But the way for this system is paved by the concept of limited liability, why not buy stocks in a company when you only stand to lose what you payed and/or gained? It's a lot like Vegas. It's not like you're going to be sued if that corporation gases the entire city of Bhopal, India, killing thousands of people. In fact, it would be more accurate to call this system "limited accountability" as most corporations can evade any real culpability for the negligent crimes they commit.

Consider this, when one entity in the world actively limits their liability, they are increasing the general liability of the system. The people who run corporations can act with effective impunity in the world, while they are not liable, the corporation becomes a greater and greater liability to the planet. Imagine if your next door neighbor robbed your neighborhood bank, but he had a "get out of jail free" card and didn't have to pay back the money or do the time for his crime. But everyone in the neighborhood lost their entire savings and now the bank is raising fees and interest rates to try to recover some of the losses. If you understand how a corporation works you would look at those who profit from that system as you would look on someone who stole your life savings, burned down your house, raped your wife and killed your mother and got off Scott free. You cannot retaliate without risking everything including your freedom. They benefit from their crimes with no effective deterrent to stop them from doing it again and again. Why would anyone with good intentions and strong integrity want to limit their liability? Unless, perhaps they have ill intentions and simply don't want to be held responsible for the pain and suffering they leave in the wake of their profiteering.

Now lets look at the other giants crowding the halls of the congresses and parliament buildings around the world. The last few centuries have seen a sharp decline in "Kingdoms" and "Empires" at least in the old design, people across the planet have soundly rejected these old patriarchal rulers who threaten our sense of individuality, liberty, and justice. Many of us like to believe that we now have a system of governments that makes sense and is more acceptable to our modern ways of life. But our current system of nations will also fall by the wayside as we slowly realize the faults of their designs, and the endless crimes committed in their names, if they don't simply implode of their own massive gravity. But some system of governing is required and I could go in to many examples of what I believe would be marked improvements. But many forms of government could work, and maybe all of them do work, but when they are too big, too vast, too expansive the system inevitably fails. Just as the Roman empire remains our greatest political example of "Too big", so is our current system of government. It's not about "Capitalism=good, communism=bad" it's about "Too big=Too bad."

Imagine if every state in the nation were it's own separate nation, or autonomous governing body. As a resident of the united states I (or any one person) =1/300,000,000, but as a resident of California I =1/30,000,000. I just grew one hundred times in size and relative power, one person one vote in a nation of 300 million is one hundred times less powerful than one person/vote in a nation of only 30 million. Now lets say that countries (or autonomous governing bodies) are only about the size of the original congressional districts which were no more or less than 33,000 people. Now I =1/33,000, that's about 1,ooo times more powerful than a vote in a nation of 30 million (California), and 10,000 times more powerful than a vote in a nation of over 300 million people! And consider the other power we have to protest our government to redress our grievances, To demonstrate in Washington DC I would have to travel about 3,000 miles! To demonstrate in my state capitol of Sacramento I would only have to drive about 200 miles, and if my government were limited in size and scope to my local city and county governments I would just have to drive to the next town. We were never intended to have corporations that were "too big too fail" but a child should be able to reason that "too big" is destined to fail by definition alone. And if corporations can be "too big" isn't it time we reconsider the legitimacy of our giant empire and the global hegemony that maintains it?

The results of the ultrasound are back and the baby is a girl, but she's an elephant. Is this the "Birth pangs of a new world order" Condoleezza Rice was telling us about?

World Wide Strike!

"The workers with their hands in their pockets have more power than the bosses"

Utah Phillips

In the united states the concept of a general strike is completely off the radar, some unions are prevented by penalty of law from striking at all. This nation has a bloody history of union busting forcing workers to continue their labor in unfair and unsafe conditions since it's very beginning. It is ironic to say the least that the nation itself is a "Union" that we are all expected to respect and serve without question. Unlike the workers unions, the union of states is really a union of bosses, of owners, of tyrants. When the bosses are faced with challenges they have called out the national guard, the army, and of course the police. Even the police have unions but they seem to exist in a vacuum having no solidarity whatsoever with the unions of working people, they exist only to protect the owners of our society, not society itself.

For those of you who are vague about the concept of a workers strike, it's time you understood that you have untapped power in your pockets. It's highly unlikely that the owner of the company you work for works there right beside you doing the tough job on the front lines. That's because they have the power of good old fashioned money, would you work if you could afford to pay someone else to work for you? Wealthy people are too smart to work, they make their money work for them, which is to say they make other people work while they spend their time enjoying their riches. They do the hard work of signing a few checks and cashing many more, oh yeah and they make some tough decisions like putting you out of work to move the factory overseas. The company just couldn't function without their wisdom and guidance, or could it?

Actually, it could. But one thing is certain, the company couldn't function without the masses of poor, hungry, desperate workers who will take the job for slave wages and work 'til their dying days. This country was built on slavery, the vast majority of wealth in the united states is ill gotten in its' origin and the thieves will never give up the goods. But slavery was only en vogue for about the first century, then it completely ceased to exist in any form whatsoever. Just kidding, slavery is alive and well in the united states of america, but not without being re-jiggered and re-branded to look more like freedom. That's right, you're free to work for any oppressive corporation you choose, until they outsource your job to people with less collective bargaining power. Hey, you're even free to own your own business, you too can sell your soul to the bank for a business loan that will hardly cover your tax burden.

But america is special, we have rights, we have votes, we have power! Which would all be great if our bosses didn't have more rights, more political power through campaign contributions, and a hotline to Capital Hill with an army of lobbyists. If this country was ever truly free (and it wasn't) it is now so totally slanted in the direction of the rich and powerful that it forever leaves the workers out in the cold. We have entered a new era of robber barons who control the direction of the country (and the world) and never intend to give it up. Unfortunately, they're also never satisfied, they can throw everyone out of their homes and out of their jobs and skim all of the profit from all of the resources and labor and they will not be done. They laugh and count their money monopoly while the workers willingly walk away from their jobs and into the streets to search for work that isn't there to find.

Why do we give up every time there is a challenge to our simple ways of life? Why do we give in when they want to take away from the few "benefits" and perks of our labor? Why do union bosses keep folding and never pull the ultimate weapon, the general strike? A general strike is when the majority of workers (if not all) simply stop working and go into the streets to demand fair and safe working conditions, benefits, wages, etc. They may even be content with their working conditions but they want to oppose the agenda of their government in an effective way, and there is no more effective way than to stop the profit system in its' tracks. As I write this the people of France are taking part in a general strike shutting down most factories and all oil refineries so that there is no fuel for cars, busses, trains, and planes, all because the president is planning to change the retirement age from 60 to 62. In the US the retirement age is 65.

It's no wonder we're taught to hate France, if we followed their example we might have universal health care, a higher minimum wage, 6 weeks of paid vacation a year, affordable housing, etc. Not that France is perfect, but it is far more true to democracy which, when allowed to fully flower inevitably leads to a system that takes care of its' people. We in the states have a system that takes care of its' rich at the expense of its' greater population, a crushing, lifelong burden for 90% of the people. This in itself is proof that american democracy is false democracy, no people would so consistently vote themselves out of work and out of their homes, no matter how effective the propaganda campaign waged against them. But in our collective fear and ignorance we simply go along with the status quo which has never resembled democracy no matter how much we are told that it is.

Demands must be made, a date must be chosen, and people must STOP!

Revolution Party!

As someone who has never agreed with representative democracy and always seen the need for revolutionary change to make democracy a reality, voter apathy has had a significant meaning to me. Political campaigners see voter apathy as a rich field for them to farm, just as Christians have for ages looked among the "lost souls" for new recruits. There is no single reason that one decides not to participate in American democracy, but there may be a binding element among the variety of people who opt out of this flawed system. In fact, it's quite possible that I represent the majority of this group in my belief that the system of voting for representatives, especially with our current party politics, is completely defunct. I believe it is not apathy that keeps people from going to the polls, but a passionate belief that a representative, partisan democracy is not democracy at all.

I have gone from not voting, to voting with my heart, to voting with my head, to voting for hope and change, and nothing has changed in the ways I've hoped for. When we vote we are simply voting for someone who always turns the ship of state to the right, or someone who sometimes turns left, nobody seems to have a compass and no one can turn this ship of fools around completely. We seem somehow surprised when the ship wrecks on the rocks and we're all washed up on the deserted island that once had great resources, clean air and water, and fish. While we rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic the rich are filling up the lifeboats and quietly sailing away with all that they can carry. The wealthy have never been true patriots, they don't care which country they extract their wealth from, as long as they don't have to share it with the people they stole it from they're happy.

Voter turn out in presidential election years has hovered near 50% for decades, is it possible that this means that nearly 50% of the American population is ready for real change? Many countries have compulsory voting in which the entire population of eligible voters are required to vote in elections, some enforce this with fines some do not. Some people believe that voting should be a right but not a duty compelled by our governments. But what if non-voting was actually counted like votes, what if a vote for "None of the above" was a vote for revolution, or at least drastic reforms? What if we had a Revolution Party in our party system, in which all non-votes counted as votes for the Revolution Party? Imagine, it would be the largest political party this country has ever had, and it would win every election season unless people get out and vote for something else.

But "Revolution" is always working from the outside right? Wrong, revolution is what happens when people get the power back from the plutocracy that has stolen it year after year from year one. Revolution does not by definition have to be violent, but with no representation in the electoral process it is not allowed to be peaceful, and by design is prevented from ever happening. Thomas Jefferson once said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Is our democracy so rigid, and yet so fragile that a bloody revolution is what's needed make major revisions and corrections? Why can't democracy include in it's blueprint a mechanism to lubricate the process of these constant corrections, like simply making revolution an option to vote for. I'd rather be forced to vote, than prevented from voting for revolutionary changes.

Even small adjustments to our electoral system are just beyond our reach and require a revolution to be considered at all. For instance, instant runoff voting would break up the two party system in this country by eliminating the fear of voting for a third party, simply put a number next to each candidate representing your first, second, and possibly third choices. In the 2000 elections this might have looked like this: Nader=1 Gore=2 Bush=3, in which case no candidate could be seen as a "spoiler" and everyone can vote their heart first and their head second. This runoff system that is widely accepted as the best way to determine the NFLs' MVP constitutes a revolutionary change for our democracy, it doesn't even enter the realm of national debate during election season.

And while this bad design continues uncorrected, more bad designs are being adopted, like allowing corporations to spend limitless money to influence elections. If you thought this was a bad idea, see if you can change it now, you cannot. We have entered an accelerated phase of electoral corruption, the leak in the damn has burst open and there is no going back now, not without, dare I say it, revolution. The green party can do the right thing and focus on the right issues, but it has a boot on its collective neck and is prevented from making any real change on the national level. But a Revolution Party could play a very effective role in making significant changes in our system. The two dominant parties continue to block the Green party from the public debate forums often by having their candidates arrested if they show up at the debate hall. And if you are a private citizen who shows up to voice your discontent, you are liable to be beaten down in the streets and jailed for no reason.

Revolution is a strong word, I realize that. But the parasites who run the world have always known that they do so at the risk of an all out revolution that could very quickly end their reign of cruelty and greed. They steal the worlds resources and then they spend half of their riches to maintain the machine that made them rich, to prevent anything or anyone from making any real change. But they simply cannot go on much longer, they have concentrated so much wealth in so few hands that they have the whole world against them. They know this and they have fear beyond description that some cause, some leader, some forum can unite these people against them in an effective way. Revolution is that banner, that cause, the real and only hope and change we have as a people, as a planet. Revolution is a threat, and if it's allowed to do it's work as a threat, it may never have to be a reality. We the people deserve some leverage.

Everybody gets a home!

Calls are growing across the country for a nationwide moratorium on home foreclosures as several major banks including Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase are postponing foreclosures in 23 states due to fraudulent practices. The Obama administration and his friends on Wall street have rejected these calls on the grounds that a freeze on these eviction/sales would hurt the housing market and the greater economy. Let's ask ourselves who will be hurt and how? As it is there are tens of thousands of families scheduled to be kicked out of their homes by the end of the year, which also happens to be the middle of winter. BUT, if we we're to call a halt to these evictions and bank foreclosures the banks will lose money, and perhaps some real estate predators would have a harder time finding desperate people to prey on.

Remember the bank bailout of just a couple of years ago where we were told that if we didn't give the banks everything they wanted our economy would collapse? What they didn't tell us is that it would collapse anyway due to their corrupt practices and that they still would not lend money as they promised, oh, and now they want our houses too. These banks have admitted that many of these foreclosures are not valid but they're going to push them through anyway in the majority of states who don't require a court hearing. They only intend to stop potentially invalid foreclosures/evictions in those states where they stand the chance of being caught. You can't expect them to do the right thing where there's no oversight can you? It could really effect their bottom line, they need to wrongfully throw thousands of people from their homes for the sake of the economy.

They are telling us that the housing market will suffer if more people aren't homeless, as if there were a real estate god demanding human sacrifices to grant us a good harvest. The banks have done the greatest damage to the housing market in the history of real estate and now they want to inherit all of the ruins they have created while real people are swept away. They'd like us to believe that the market that is bad and getting worse will somehow get better if only they can continue to flood it with more eviction sales. And of course they know they can get anything THEY want by telling us that the "economy" will get worse if they don't get it, when just the opposite is true. The economy does not get better as more people join the ranks of the homeless and banks accumulate greater and greater wealth. Banks don't really care about the health of the economy, they only care about how much wealth they can extract from it.

It is time for the people to unite as a community and prevent ANY AND ALL EVICTIONS. This is not just about people who bought homes they could not afford, or renters who have never had the credit and/or savings to buy a house in the first place. Everybody deserves a home, just one, and nobody deserves to be homeless. I am calling for every home owner with a mortgage or house payment, and every renter to STOP PAYING FOR YOUR HOME! Come together as a community and agree to prevent anyone and everyone in your town from being kicked out of their home. It doesn't matter who thinks they own the house and property, if they aren't using the house it no longer belongs to them. If you live there it is your home, that is all that matters, that is all that is required for you to continue living there without paying a penny to anyone, especially a bank.

This is what revolution looks like and I assure you that the people who would resist this restructuring of the ownership society will not be popular and they will not want to fight their own battles. Many people who own more than one house would actually welcome this revolution because the market has turned their assets into liabilities as they try to pay taxes on properties that can no longer pay for themselves, and whose sale will inevitably be a loss. I welcome signs that the Obama administration may be considering this moratorium but I am here to take it several steps forward to it's eventual outcome. Ownership society is slowly dying by it's own methods, unchecked capitalism has followed the path of least resistance right down the drain. It is the wealthiest among us who do deserve to be evicted from all but one of their homes, and the banks, corporations, and politicians deserve to be evicted from the planet.

Everybody gets a home, you get a home, you get a home, you! Oprah for president 2012!

I'm adding this recent Democracy Now interview with Joseph Stiglitz for its' relevancy to the topic.