Providing Jobs in a matter of Hours

The 99% occupation of Wall St. shows us that many people are waking up to the colossal failures of our economic system and the main tenets of "Free Market" Capitalism. Our centralized currencies are not unlike a mono cultured crop, a fragile system vulnerable to any number of threats. Diversity has the strength that mono-cultures lack, because even if one entire crop fails the greater harvest can still succeed. Centralized currencies are literally money-opolies, they are monopolies of money itself, and they must be broken up in a controlled demolition before they bring down the whole system when they fall. But our current government backed currencies can work side by side with alternatives, allowing for a transitional shift to a new system. If any of these suggestions seem too "radical" or "socialist" for you, consider the fact that we have a mixed economy that has for the last half century been systematically stripped of the most important socialist elements that have kept the system functioning for so long, and that now more drastic corrective measures must be taken to have an effective outcome.

Local hours based currencies (Also called Time Based Currency) offer a solution in both the immediate and long term future for the many challenges we now face, and challenges yet to unfold. With a very simple idea local towns and cities can stimulate economic growth in times of national and global economic downturns. Hours based currencies have been around for a while and there are more towns and cities around the world adopting them every year. Cities like Ithaca, New York and Madison, Wisconsin are the largest hours based currency systems in the united states and have been operating successfully for decades. So there are already a variety of models that can be studied and implemented based on the characteristics of your local economy. Here are some ideas, some of which are already a part of these models, and some are suggestions on how to expand an hours based economy beyond current models so that they can take the wheel when our national currencies are too punch drunk to drive.

Hours are issued through a collectively owned and operated 'Hours Bank' or 'Hours Collective' and decisions are made by members of the collective in transparent, democratic forums. The current model is one that must function in the context of our federal laws and with the dominant federal currency, therefore these collectives must charge membership fees to cover the costs of the operation. This sets a slight disadvantage on the psychological front when people ask why they must pay federal dollars to take part in a alternative currency. One of the problems with federal currency and it's 'get rich quick' pyramid scheme design is that it breeds skepticism over any and every exchange where dollars are involved. The current Hours based currency model is also limited to service and labor due to existing federal law stating that alternative currencies given a dollar value are then taxable as dollars by the federal government. These flaws in the current models are temporarily imposed by the federal government whose main players profit from it's long standing monopoly. Hours can easily integrate commodities and cover all costs once these false barriers are lifted, the flaws are in the laws.

So how can we make Hours work in our current legal system? Our existing democratic institutions can work in concert with this system in a few key ways: Local City/Town councils can endorse/promote the establishment of an independent Hours collective to help lend the fledgling currency legitimacy (a concern for all new forms of currency since the dawn of paper money) and encourage local businesses to accept it. In return the council can commission the Hours Bank to issue Hours as compensation for labor invested into public works and projects. Building and maintaining public infrastructure can be fully or partially funded with hours based currency, enabling projects previously lacking funds to go forward. Hours can exist simultaneously with national currencies, but are not adversely affected when large fluctuations or crashes in the national currency occurs. In fact, this is precisely why these local hours based currencies are required, so we can continue basic trade in the event of a total collapse of interdependent centralized currencies. Hours can work in two ways: they are issued to the workers of public projects, cooperatives, and collectives as compensation for hours worked. Then, once Hours are in circulation they stimulate the local economy and help anchor the poor and middle class in hard economic times.

Hours collectives can function as a socialist mirror to the banks in a capitalist system. Whereas Banks loan funds to private entities to create private wealth, Hours collectives can actually pay the labor cost of a collectively owned and operated organization. In an hours based economy hours don't represent some arbitrary value system, or even a far away piece of gold, hours represent your work. And as you work, you earn the work of others and the products they produce which you redeem with your Hours based currency. But the first generation Hours issued directly from the collective come from no fund, but the raw renewable resource of human labor. Instead of capitalizing that resource for the gain of the few, these hours are invested in public, lateral, democratic institutions. The Hours collective is simply one collective among many, whose paid staff earn no more than the hours for the time they worked. But they enable the sprouting of many new collectively owned businesses that can provide more than just jobs, but secure living wages.

Imagine waking up in 10 years to a world with no unemployment, with a thriving market and strong infrastructure. Imagine a world where the gap between the rich and the poor is all but vanished as we embrace that old work ethic that tells us that if we want more we can simply work harder. Imagine having everything you need to start a new enterprise, as long as you can do so in the collective format equally sharing the profits, costs, and goals and visions with all those who work their fair share. Imagine a world where people no longer think in terms of owners and workers, or use the rhetoric of our outdated class war.  A world where one must earn what they own, where the tyranny of inherited wealth no longer tilts the tables of equality. Imagine a world built by the people, with their hard work as the capital invested in the commons. A world that we the people actually own, with local shops and industries that we provide for as they provide for us. It's time for 'We the people' to take charge of our own welfare, to create a world of the people, by the people, and for the people.



Here's an interesting idea from England that takes a different approach, but the current systems work basically the same way in the US. I believe currencies should be locally issued by collective hours banks in autonomous city-states, and globally compatible: One hour of human labor being universally equal. This video is a nationalist, centralist model to which I am opposed, though it would be a step in the right direction and they make their case very clear.

Globalize Democracy/Localize Government!

We the people of the world will fundamentally change our global system to embrace the collective ideals of Justice, Liberty, Freedom for all people around the world equally, no exceptions. All animals, habitats, ecosystems, and of course the entire planetary ecosystem are all equal in this global system, with equal rights to a healthy existence. Those rights that we enjoy as Americans are the minimum standard of what we as humans will have universally, no exceptions. Human rights, democracy, equality, are what MUST be globalized, because in small pockets they are used as tools of hegemony, empires who rule by double standards for justice, rights, and democracy. Until democracy is universal it is undemocratic, until justice is universal it is unjust, until equality is universal it is unequal, until rights are universal they are still wrongs. As the 99% we welcome the 1% to willingly make the required sacrifice, to overpay the overdue dues, that we all know will make this planet more equitable, more sustainable, more adaptable and flexible for the changes that are happening.

It's beyond difficult for most americans to imagine a radically different world power structure, one that effectively eliminated any group, organization, corporation, or even government from becoming too big to fail. Can we imagine a world without super powers? Or a world where the people are the super power? Well, we live in that world today, we the people of the planet, along with the Earth and all of the natural world, are the only real super power. Our nations and corporations are "legal fictions," they are products of our imaginations and only exist on paper. These false entities are struggling for survival in a world that is quickly awakening to the fallacy that has sustained them, but many are still hesitant because they are unsure of what awaits them if we change. How can we change the world for the better without just resetting the same game to take place all over again with different players or the same players gaming the system? We've been playing Money-opoly for too long, we need to change the game.

Every nook and cranny of our world can be self governed on the smallest possible scale, and yet partake in various levels of democracy ranging from local to global. Each local governing body can enjoy autonomy under the agreement of adherence to a set of global treatise not unlike our current international laws. In a true global democracy, "one person, one vote" extends to every human being across the entire planet. Unlike our current international laws and treaties, each individual on the planet actually has a vote for or against these global policies, and their own ideas can be brought to the table without needless association with a group, organization, or political party. The same way that we vote for city, county, and state policies through measures, propositions, and special elections, we can vote for global policies. Open source governance can replace career politicians and patriarchal "executive" figure heads by putting the choice and the necessary information in the hands of the people. There is no need for a global government modeled after our current federal government or the UN, functions at the regional and global levels become little more than that of the election volunteers on the county level.

Instead of having various levels of governance, each town and city will have open councils in person and/or online that handle the everyday affairs of the city. An example of how an online forum overlaps with a physical event, live stream video combined with live stream chats allow the people attending meetings to draw from the ideas and information that others are sending in real time. Instead of counties, we will have resource shed councils, like water sheds, and food sheds, where towns/cities in the same water shed for example have shared stewardship of that resources. The goal (perhaps part of the global treatise) would be for each watershed to become self sustainable so no town or city would carelessly grow beyond it's capacity to sustain itself with water and other basic resources. Beyond these resource-shed councils there would be only the infrastructure and apparatus of democracy, no executive figure heads who rule over many cities and towns like we know today. When we have issues that govern global policies, we all have a say, and possibly a hand in drafting them and eventually voting for them, one person, one vote world wide, no exceptions.

Only issues of global importance and significance are globally decided, the rest will happen at the local levels. Examples of global issues are: democracy, human/animal rights, civil liberties, equality, economic justice, environmental sustainability, regional and global trade and resource sustainability, and war crimes. Direct democracy on a global level is perhaps the only way to avoid the usual fear of world government, the only ones who should fear direct democracy are those who want an unfair hierarchical system with themselves on top and the rest of us on bottom. Those of us who are tired of being on bottom are the 99% and we are ready to create a lateral world. We have for too long globalized the most inequitable systems while limiting democracy and human rights to small groups and regions. We who occupy our little corners of the planet, also occupy the planet as a whole, together. We are beginning to see a 'We the people' who are no less than the global population, each deserving of the same rights, the same voting power. We the people of the world, will form a more perfect union, of real entities, not false idols, a union of people, planet, and ecosystem.

Occupy Earth!

wRONg PAULitics! ...why Ron Paul is not the 99%

One of the great things about the 99% is that it's so inclusive, all individuals are truly welcome and can have their voices heard. But aside from the 1% there are a few other considerations for those who are thinking, and acting in radically democratic ways. For example, it's not cool to come to rallies and marches drunk, high, or in possession of recreational drugs or alcohol. It would be TOTALLY inappropriate to speak at a rally or use the peoples microphone for racist hate speech, MEL GIBSON! And of course it would be downright douche-y to endorse your company or product while addressing an occupy crowd. What has been a source of confusion and contention is the political activity of campaigners, or those who endorse a specific candidate and/or agenda and effectively represent that group and it's strategy. They do not come to the events and cyber hubs of the occupy movement as individuals, but as representatives of that group and/or agenda, often with the only goal of recruiting people to their more limited causes and remedies.

Of these groups one stands above them all in their concerted effort to corral the 99% into their ranks to adopt their agenda and strategy, and that group is made up of Ron Paul supporters who effectively campaign on his behalf. This may have had something to do with the deadline for GOP registration being October 14, of course the Paul campaign wants as many people registered GOP as possible so his odds of winning the Republican nomination increase. There's nothing new about this, and if there's anything "wrong" with it, it's that it's business as usual politics. In fact, Ron Paul has for years been recruiting those on the left whom he can convince that his agenda is also their agenda, based on a few overlapping issues. Those issues are primarily the ongoing wars and military bases around the globe, abolishing corporate person-hood, and the goal to end the Federal Reserve banking Money-opoly. And those ideas are already a BIG part of the 99% agenda, so of course anyone can come discuss those issues and bring any idea to the table. But why should those ideas be called Ron Pauls' ideas?

I have attempted to engage in dialog with many of the people who leave Ron Paul links on Occupy Facebook pages, or bring Ron Paul campaign signs to 99% events, and it always goes the same. They tell me that Ron Paul wants what I want, that he has been "fighting the good fight" for decades, and that he is all about "Freedom" and "Liberty." And when I try to tell them that I don't want everything Paul wants, and that I have different ideas about "Freedom" and "Liberty" they go into straw man mode, accusing me of advocating things I never even eluded to. As if I can only TOTALLY agree with Ron Paul, or TOTALLY disagree with him on each and every issue, you're with him or against him. But I believe the majority on the left simply see right through Ron Pauls' gratuitous rhetoric about war, the issue that made him popular on the left during the Bush years when we needed allies on the right to oppose war. And he makes a lot of sense when he talks about the crimes of our nation, not because he's so smart or such a great guy but simply because he's talking about it at all.

So he has some good ideas, so do I, and so do the 99%. So he can tell us that our wars and military policy are wrong, we knew that already no matter how refreshing it is to hear in a republican primary debate. So he has been a life long champion of the cause to end the Federal Reserve, no offense, but so have a lot of us and altogether none of us have achieved this goal thus far through the normal channels of "democracy." So you might think that Ron Paul and his supporters would be overwhelmed with joy knowing they have common goals with the 99%? But their greater goal is to elect Ron Paul for president, and they only see these common goals as opportunities to bring more voters into their fold. So when we talk to them the conversation always short circuits back to Ron Paul, and the strategy is limited to voting for him, a political dead end. Let's face it, Ron Paul will never be the president of the United States, just as Ralph Nader will never be the president, and I knew that when I voted for him. But Ron Paul supporters don't seem to know this, they actually think Paul could win the popular vote, if only the corrupt system would let him.

So their goal is for us to register as GOP voters, and vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Then IF he wins the primary, vote for him for president, then IF he wins the presidency he will end the wars and end the Fed. Hooray! But wait, what else will he do? He won't bring us universal health care, he claims that's socialism and socialism doesn't work. He may or may not deal with Wall St. beyond breaking up the Fed, but he is 100% for "Free Market Capitalism" which is conservative code for "Unfettered capitalism" which could also be called "Ungoverned Capitalism". Why would you want to remove the rule of law from the market place, isn't that called anarchy? If we apply the "Unfettered" concept to criminal law it would be the law of the jungle, when we apply the same concept to the military we get martial law, why would we want such a savage economic system? I don't hear the wealthy saying we need to remove murder barriers, why remove trade barriers? Ron Paul supporters would dismiss us as mistaking capitalism for "corporatism", I think we know the difference. But they don't seem to understand the difference between "Free Trade" (an oxymoron) and "Fair Trade" a level playing field in which they might actually fail.

I don't need to tackle his whole agenda before I decide whether Ron Paul qualifies to "represent" me, and I know the difference between people joining the discussion as campaigners as oppose to individuals. We are all the 99% as individuals, not as representatives of groups, politicians, corporations, etc. This is not a "rule" and there is no "forcing" people one way or the other. But I know that if I brought my pop up tent and folding table and started selling my wares at an occupy event that I would not be the 99%, I would be selfishly exploiting the opportunity for my short term economic gain. I don't want to see political canvassing, tabling, or campaigning in the occupy movement anymore than I want to see Fedex style product placement from corporations. I don't want to see political parties recruiting voters any more than I want to see the branches of the military recruiting soldiers among the discontent, despondent youth in the movement. I sincerely have no problem with Ron Paul or his supporters, but as a group, as a campaign, as a unified front with a singular goal, I'd rather they not try to co-opt this movement to their own ends. It's hard to discuss alternatives to our current system when people are trying to convince you to give it another shot.

We are all the 99% as individuals, so please check your Ron Paulitics at the door.

Here is an example of guidelines established for Occupy Wall St. forums, in this case the Global Revolution live stream chat, which has hosted one of the most vibrant and rapid interactions of any online forum:

globalrevolution on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

"We are here for one purpose ...to support the OWS and new occupations..
we do not discuss politics...political candidates...religion...or any other isms..
this is because those topics...bring division and conflict ...and we will not be distracted
if you want to talk about money...or the fed..or the wars...or taxes.. there are other places to do that ..
we have been using these rules for 30 days now... and the make this a safe productive space..
we do not bash anyone...
no racsim...sexism...or any other bigetry is allowed..
HATE, VIOLENCE and ILLEGAL ACTS or DRUGS  talk...will get you a perma ban ..
we ask for mutual respect and focus :)
we love and thank every one of you!
when we ban...it is not personal...it is just keeping things on track..
please only share related links...
no personal promotion is allowed...
there are fake donation sites...so be careful :)
please dont spam... it makes it too fast.."

~Global Revolution live stream chat admins.

A Radical Proposal for a Rational World

The cry has gone out across the country, as it reverberates around the world, there is a revolution on the rise and the buzz is undeniable. As many have been witnessing the destruction of our democracy, our infrastructure, and our planet, it has finally come to the breaking point. While many in the US media have been wondering "What's everyone so upset about?", the rest of the world is wondering "What took you so long?" Those of us in the US are just a fraction of the true 99%, but we have a special responsibility to change our system enough that it ceases to manipulate the rest of the world. The 99% are global, whether they realize it yet or not, if we don't seize the moment to make a world of true global equality, we have failed the greater achievement. Now is the time for a dialogue about what steps can be made towards a better world, as well as making radical revisions of a global society without compromise. Those with ideas must come forward now because the whole world is watching, and listening, and we have got plenty to say. Occupy Earth!

So here is my wish list of demands, each one a link to a previous post elaborating or including the idea.


We need to do democracy right!

• Direct Democracy Now! We don't need to vote for people to make decisions for us, we can make those decisions, and unfortunately we are the only ones we can trust to do it right. See Also: Representative Demockary, Democracy For Sale, Class War Criminals, and Why I Voted for Obama: Reason 
• Globalize Democracy! One person, one vote should be global, universal, no exceptions. AND we can vote on local, regional, AND global issues! This is what global democracy looks like! See Also: Globalize Democracy/Localize Government!
• Open Source Government! We now live in an age where 'we the people' can collectively write our policies and laws, re-write and edit them in an open source format, giving all equal access to government. Think Wiki-Gov, and before you say how bad it could be, think of what we have now.
• The Party is Over! No more political parties. Political parties have always been a device to subvert democracy by creating large groups who vote together in blocks, instead of considering each issue as individuals. See Also: Left, Right, Wrong

We need to do money right!

• Tear down this Wall St! We're tired of playing Moneyopoly, can we play something else now? The Free Market has spoken, now it's our turn. See Also: Money-opoly
• Boycott Money! It's time we listened to our wisest fore-fathers who repeatedly warned us about big, centralized, banking institutions. Money IS a monopoly! Alternative and local currencies are the solution! See Also: Providing Jobs in a Matter of Hours
• No More Super Rich! That's right, I didn't say "No more tax cuts for the rich" We need to recapitulate (and cap) wealth in the world to limit income disparities as FDR suggested in his proposed "Economic Bill of Rights." See Also:  World Wide Strike, Moneyopoly, and The True Sleeping Giant; and from my other blog 'Pagan Jesus Freak' Two Golden Rules, and Grief and Joy
• Everyone gets a Home! Millions of people are being thrown from there homes by the banks who took our tax money! Everyone deserves a home, JUST ONE!!! For those of you who shrill at the notion of being limited to just one house, please juxtapose that scenario with the millions of people who are losing their ONLY home, some even now as you read this.

We need to do "Rights" right!

• Equal Rights For ALL! No more BS about why we can't allow others to have the same rights "we enjoy as Americans" Until equal Rights are universal, they are unequal and therefore not right. See Also: The Assassin president, Globalize Democracy/Localize Government, and from my other blog Racist Arizona
• People over Corporations! People, animals, and the planet have rights, corporations do not. Somehow we the people are once again powerless in a world of giants. See Also: Oil Well?, So you say you want A Mass Global Uprising and Obama is a traitor...
• Justice just is! Our institutions of justice are broken in precisely the same ways as our electoral and political systems are corrupt. In the US money wins court cases and elections, lawyers and lobbyists are the attack dogs and errand boys of the corporate aristocracy. See Also: The Assassin President

We need to wake up from the American dream!

• No more Nationalism! Nations don't really exist, they are legal fictions that exist only on paper and in the minds of men, and women. And yet, we kill and die for these entities, as if we were under some strange spell called patriotism. See Also:  False American Idol, An Inconvenient Revolution, Criminals, Imperialists, and Assassins, and Israel isn't Real
• Super Power Corrupts! We need to eliminate the "Too big too fail" governments just as we need to eliminate the big banks! But we can take small steps to an un-national world by simply making each state its' own nation. Even the smallest of US states is large enough to be a nation on the European subcontinent. See Also: Globalize Democracy/Localize Government,
• Unite the world! I happen to believe that the workers of the world can unite, we've got nothing to lose but our chains. But we cannot let the false chamber system of nationalism isolate us from the rest of the world, the true 99%! See Also: Thank You Scott Walker!, Class War Criminals, World Wide Strike!, Egypt Rising, and Revolution Party!
• Stop the War Machine! We need to stop occupying everyone else's homeland with our mega military bases and stop enabling the atrocities in Palestine, these two basic things could have prevented Al Queda, 9/11, and the war of terror. See Also: Happy War Day, President Betray-Us, Coalition of the Drilling, Whudya gonna do about it?, Nobel Peace Prize for Rhetoric, War on Peace!, Jesus goes Rambo, and from my other blog: Rebel Spirit

These are just some ideas I've been working on much of my life and I've been publishing them in recent years in anticipation of the right movement. This is that movement, I don't claim to have the message for the entire 99%, but if we do not all contribute our pieces of the puzzle we will never get to see the bigger picture. The media is asking for a message, we know there is a message and they just don't want to hear it. But that's why we need to spell it out for them, literally. We need to discuss our deepest visions for a better world and we better get it on right away. The mainstream media may not listen but a lot of people are listening, and talking, and it's time we have that discussion. So, have ya heard about these Occupy Wall St. people?

Agree to Dis-Argue

I have always disliked debates, not because I lose but because I can win if I want to. Or, more precisely, because of what it takes to win. As a natural debater I grew up taking on every challenge that came my way, despite my mothers wise council to choose my battles carefully. I quickly realized that there was a big difference between "winning" a debate, and being "right", and the winner rarely determined the more accurate view point. A debate, is really a fight by other means and by another name, and though we are more civilized for fighting in this way, it's still essentially a metaphoric battle to the death not unlike the games of ancient Rome. But instead of mortally wounding our bodies, we fight with our minds, or maybe ego is more to the point.

And it's all about points, the sharper the better. When one engages in a debate, they tend to see their opponent as living in a "bubble" of delusion, and it is up to us, for their own sake, to burst their bubble. In this bubble world there are some base assumptions, almost like a world view or creation myth, there is one great bubble called reality. When we see others forming a bubble around themselves that allows them to believe an unauthorized belief, idea, or theory, it is our duty to the great bubble called reality, that we sharpen our swords, words, minds, and get ready to burst some bubbles. We can even tell ourselves that anyone who disagrees with us and whatever authority we identify with, is a threat to us and maybe the world at large. This is sometimes the case when people and groups have counter agendas, and they may find themselves constantly blocked by one another seeking only to free the obstacles in their own path.

Open debates in the general public, rather than between two individuals, are more democratic and lateral, and less bent on winning or losing but instead on informing both sides. It's when we pit ego against ego that we bring out the worst in people, and in ourselves if we are the ones in the arena. You may not be the aggressor, you may not be a mud slinger, but you will be dragged down into the mud and may find yourself justifying some mud slinging as retaliatory. Great, except most people were turning away in disgust and lost track of who started hitting below the belt, and does it really matter? Listen to any two respected figures in any field engage in a highly informed debate, and count the seconds before one of them says "Excuse me, can I finish?" It never ceases to amaze me how childish men and women in their later years can become when they are engaged in a heated debate.

In the mechanics of debate the sword fight analogy is uncanny in it's accuracy. The mind is often represented in metaphor as the sword of the intellect, slicing the world into its' component parts: higher/lower, left/right, inner/outer. Ideally one has the sharper sword, the sharper point, and when a point is sharp it makes clean cuts. But sometimes we know that our point is not sharp, but we are invested in the outcome of the debate and we feel we must win. And what does it take to win a sword fight with a dull point? One must use great force if they wish to pierce the armor, flesh, and bone of their opponent, and when this occurs the cut is not clean. Unlike when a sharp sword pierces flesh and bone, the dull point breaks and tears the flesh and brutally crushes and chips the bone creating more of a hole than a cut. A person is less likely to recover from such a wound and the pain is tenfold that of the sharper, cleaner cut.

Another great metaphor is the landscape analogy: the field of ideas, facts, theories, beliefs, etc. is like a giant landscape stretching as far as the eye can see in every direction. In this mental landscape it becomes necessary to distinguish between a "point" and a "claim." When one makes a point they are metaphorically pointing at some other place however near or far from where they stand. They are in no way invested in this idea they refer to, but merely pose the question "But what of this?" When one makes a "claim" it is not unlike the minors of the California gold rush, staking their claims on a position they are willing to fight and die for. And perhaps when we seek to simply be "understood" we are asking one to simply stand where we stand and see the view from here. When one can simply see the others point, or see the world from their unique position, there is potential for understanding and tolerance, even if we choose to dwell on different points.

So among individuals, friends, acquaintances, Facebook friends and groups, it's better to pass up most, if not all debates. It's too easy to get sucked into debates, especially online. Whether you're just answering a simple question or if you decided just to put your two cents in, you may find like a gambling addict that you've managed to waste a lot more than two cents. And just like a casino, your chances of "winning" were somewhat random no matter your skill, knowledge, or experience. Perhaps this point is debatable, but it may be best just to agree to disagree before you agree to argue. Sometimes you find that you can't stop a debate once it starts, it becomes a monster constantly taunting your ego to fight like a man. Maybe the level of discourse has even sunk so low on your opponents part that you wonder if the mask of civility is off and if perhaps the proverbial gloves should come off as well. When you come to this point where you can no longer simply agree to disagree, try this instead:

Agree to dis-argue.

And remember, social skills are survival skills after all.

btw, if you feel like a winner, click on the sword fight image above to collect your prize.

The Assassin President

Does it strike anyone else as ironic that the President who was most under the threat of assassination from the time of his campaign through the first year of his presidency has become the assassination president? There was a time when you would hesitate to put the words "Assassination" and "President" in the same sentence, but now we have a sitting president who is synonymous with "Assassination." His targeting of "Al Queda" suspects using pilotless drones has been an on-going policy from his first day on the job and now he's eliminated his primary target. To amplify the irony Obamas' name was purposefully confused with "Osama" during his campaign and it's very common for people to mix up the two. No doubt at least one small town paper ran the headlines "Osama kills Obama", it's only one letter off after all. So if you were the first African American president who has received more death threats than any other president, would you promote assassination as an acceptable way to resolve conflicts?

Many people can justify the assassination of Osama under the eye for an eye system of justice, reasoning that Bin Laden assassinated others so he has received his due. Following this logic, is Obama himself not deserving of assassination? If I'm writing this as intended it should be ringing some alarm bells with the internet surveillance firms contracted by the government to find potential threats. So perhaps I should implicitly state that I do not wish assassination of any president, or anyone else, on the contrary I believe all presidents should be brought to justice in the International Criminal Court. Including, if not especially president Barack Obama for the crime of multiple extra judicial assassinations, someone must stop this serial killer before he strikes again. Noam Chomsky has asked us to imagine Iraqi commandos landing in George W. Bushs' compound, assassinating him, and dumping his body into the Atlantic. This would also be unacceptable, George Bush should be put on trial and convicted of his many crimes against humanity. That Obama quickly ruled out justice for Bush administration criminals makes him an accomplice at best.

I was not a "fan" of Bin Laden, though I believed little of what I have been told about him. I believe he was killed not for his crimes, but for the crimes of the US that he might reveal if captured alive. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were both extremely valuable witnesses for the trials against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld that should (but may never) take place. If Hussein was to be executed it should only have taken place after these other trials. And if Obama had dedicated himself to justice for the Bush era crimes, he would be facing a very weakened Republican opposition after many of the crimes and accomplices had been revealed and punished. A true examination of the crimes of Republicans in general would essentially eliminate them from having any further political role in the future. The party that claimed, funded, and supported Bush and his policies should have been treated the same way the Bathists were treated following the fall of Saddam. Or they should at least be treated the same way they treated the Clintons during Whitewater/Lewinsky affairs. Once again, if Osama got what he deserved, why then don't US government officials get what they deserve?

Barack Obama is not completely ignorant of his karmic footprint, he must know that he is still and always will be a target for assassination, it comes with the job after all. And if you believe in a kind of karmic, "comes around goes around" philosophy how can one not simply predict and expect the ultimate outcome to result in the assassination of Barack Obama? And if/when this occurs will anyone say "Hey, he assassinated a lot of people, so he got what was coming to him"? OK, I, and possibly Noam Chomsky will say that, but most people will hold him to an entirely different standard. If Obama were assassinated today people would still have a hard time putting it together, or recognizing the irony. The same news outlets and pundits who have been openly celebrating the assassination of Osama, would declare Obama's assassination to be a tragedy. Those who now look with scorn at anyone who would oppose the assassination of Osama, would look with the same scorn on anyone who would agree with the assassination of Obama. If we the people truly believe in justice, we would all join together to oppose assassination in general.

US UK BP Coalition of the Drilling

It has recently come to light that the British government met with the heads of BP and Royal Dutch Shell in late 2002 to secretly discuss Britain's policy toward Iraqi oil reserves. At the same time Tony Blair was brushing off any notion of Britain's interest in Iraq's oil as "One of the most absurd conspiracy theories you can imagine" a secret document in the Foreign office stated "Britain has an absolutely vital interest in Iraq's oil." Is anyone shocked to learn that we invaded Iraq for oil and not to spread democracy as we were told? Is anyone surprised to learn that BP has that much power in both the UK and the US? I mean it was basically BP that got us in the business of staging coups when Britain asked for our help to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953. Since that first fabulously successful coup our CIA has helped out hundreds of companies by subverting democracy around the globe.

Is it possible that our governments at the highest levels are actually serving the will of the rich and powerful corporations, and especially the energy goliaths in the coal, gas, oil, and nuclear industries? It is possible, and probable, and with all of the evidence it's beyond improbable that our governments were ever intended to serve anyone but the most powerful people and companies. So why should a company as tightly connected in the nexus of government and industry take all necessary precautions when pursuing greater and greater profits? If you feel I'm being cynical, ask yourself this: What price has BP paid for it's deep water disaster one year ago? Now ask yourself what price the people of that region have paid and continue to pay? We as tax payers will pay and pay for the endless ripple effects of such a disaster. And sadly, ultimately, What price does the environment pay? Our governments, supposedly designed to keep powers in check, are so completely corrupted that the will of the people is the only thing in check.

If it seems like corporations are acting as though they own the world, well they kind of do own the world, or at least they lease it for pennies on the dollar. And as long as we live in a world of property rights over human rights we might as well just hand them everything and beg for their mercy on our pathetic souls. The two main tactics the Republicans (and too often Democrats) employ are deregulation and privatization, essentially handing over everything to the ones who are supposed to be regulated. How long can we watch this go on before we realize that this is the opposite of what we are told our government does. "Regulate" and "Govern" are synonyms, deregulation is ungovernment. Privatization of the commons gives away the apparatus of the state so that there is nothing left to govern, to regulate. If there ever was a true regulatory body in government it has been completely replaced by conspirators in a corporate coup d'etat.

Democrats in office are at best co-conspirators in this epic crime and they're only criticism of privatization is that it should be instead called "Public/private partnerships" so that we the people will have a harder time catching on to the fire sale they have made of government. The two party system has co-opted democracy and the energy industry has co-opted the government, even Mr. Hope and Change was quickly brought into the fold of this criminal syndicate. There may be some "Heroes" in the Democratic party but they are bound and gagged as are we the people, good guys simply aren't allowed to do good things. It's only when one aligns oneself to the agendas of "Big oil" that they are truly allowed to function in government. We have a secret opaque center to our supposedly transparent government that makes the real decisions about exactly how to steer the ship of state. Generally speaking, when a republican is president he is "The most powerful man in the world" and when it's a Democrat, especially a do-gooder Democrat, the president is the biggest prisoner in the world, and every effort ends in fruitless failure.

So take a look at what's happening now in a small town called Benton Harbor, Michigan where the governor recently pushed through a bill allowing corporations to completely take over local townships if they are determined to be in "Fiscal crisis." Maybe you haven't noticed but the majority of local governments are in fiscal crisis and by no fault of their own. Local governments are not unlike we the people, they can't do anything to stop Wall street from robbing them blind or to get BP to adequately compensate the people of the Gulf coast region. So it's the criminal behavior of Wall street that put us all in this mess, and now the corporations are rewarded with the wholesale acquisition of entire towns. Benton Harbor is the first victim, the governor Rick Snyder appointed an "emergency financial manager" to usurp all political power and dismiss all elected officials. This has always been the plan, the corporate coup d'etat, to destroy the economy and then declare a fiscal crisis so great that we all just sit and watch our democracy be dismantled piece by piece. It's time we realize that our democracy is a false democracy, "representatives" will sell us down the river every time.

Direct Democracy Now!