What do OWS protesters want?

TO SOME IT MAY APPEAR THAT the Occupy Wall Street movement has no message, a lack of direction, and a haphazard way of presenting itself. I can agree that this characterization bears some resemblance to the truth, but the big picture is that there is “real trouble in River City” for most Americans and the intentions of the discontented, who are taking to the streets and public parks across this nation and the globe, are noble and just. They could get their message across better by employing a corporate public relations consultant and a professional group organizer; having in hand a cache of big bucks would also be a welcome boon to their cause. Yet not having these things in many ways proves their legitimacy. These are the people. There is indeed a class struggle in this country, even if the right wing elite refuses to publicly admit it — or seeks to delegitimize it before it gains traction with the “silent majority” of Americans. They may be too late. The following data shows why a major change in our present political system is swiftly needed. • Until 1974, real incomes of working class people kept pace. Between 1974 and 1995, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, real incomes (adjusted for inflation) dropped to $550 per week. At the end of 2007, weekly incomes increased by approximately 10 percent to $612. Meanwhile, from 1979 to 2006, the incomes of the top 5 percent — those making more than $191,000 per year — rose 87 percent, while the incomes of the bottom 40 percent — those making $47,000 or less — rose only 16 percent. As women entered the workforce, family incomes increased a moderate amount but never kept pace with the incomes of the wealthy. • Political influence in Washington has swayed significantly to the benefit of the elite. The number of lobbyists paid by corporate America has increased to more than 35,000. In 2010, political contributions by big business amounted to approximately $1.3 billion, while the contributions from labor unions — the only major political outlet for working people to press their needs, improve workplace safety, and steward the environment —amounted to only $92 million, or 7 percent. • The income tax structure favors the rich far more now than it has in decades. Our present tax structure would make taxes paid by the elite during the Reagan years look like the pejorative “socialism.” According to the IRS, from 1992 to 2007 the top 400 elite households saw their effective tax rates drop from 27 percent to 17 percent. The effective tax rates of those earning more than $1 million dropped from 26 percent to 22 percent. Consider this: The top 400 taxpayers in the 1950s faced a 90 percent federal tax rate. Now it’s barely 16 percent. • The big banks have gotten too big to fail, too politically influential, too diverse in services, and are becoming less competitive to the sacrifice of the consumer. During the bank failures of the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration and Congress enacted the Glass-Steagall Act to regulate banks and limit their ability to expand horizontally and vertically. Until the 1980s we had a relatively stable financial industry that stayed within limited geographic confines, with banks only lending, S&L’s lending on real estate, insurance companies only insuring, and the securities industry only selling stocks and bonds. Under Reagan and Clinton, Glass-Steagall was first defanged and then repealed — causing the S&L crisis of the late ’80s and the present mega financial industry crisis and meltdown of the real estate and other markets, and requiring hundreds of billions in bailouts. • Unemployment has reached dangerous levels. Is there a faint light of hope on the horizon, with joblessness levels slowly dropping and real private job creation improving? Perhaps. With reasonable regulations that protect the environment and the consumer foremost, capitalism can be an effective financial model for innovation and economic growth. But it is vital that basic needs such as health care, energy, minimal housing, food, and infrastructure be in the public domain. Call it socialism or whatever, but outcomes are what is most important. When taxpayer funds and facilities are used for the benefit of the masses, whatever it’s labeled, it’s a good thing. We bailed out the big Wall Street banks and protected the billionaires from ruin. Now we are being asked to make good on the debts they caused, while the super-rich get even richer — some making more than $2 million an hour! It would take more than 47 years for the average family to make as much as the top 10 hedge fund managers make in one hour. And that’s what OWS is fighting to change.

The devil I know

AS AN INDEPENDENT VOTER, I am supporting Barack Obama this year, not because I believe he is a sterling example of integrity and leadership, but because he is the devil I know, and I believe he will do the least harm to most Americans and the world at large. I say to people with whom I talk at our local coffee shop, “Obama is like a broken finger, compared to Romney being a broken leg. Pick your poison.” I would want Romney to run my business, but my business is not the culture of diversified needs and unique stakeholders that is America. I believe based on the data and past history of Obama’s behavior that if you are like most Americans in the “99%,” Obama is the best choice to represent your interests. All presidents lie to some degree. It’s a job skill required by the “shadow elite” who pull the puppet strings. Reagan lied about Iran Contra and Grenada, Clinton lied about covert CIA operations in Africa, Bush lied about WMDs and 9/11. The extent of Obama’s lies will become clearer with time. Regardless, here we are in probably the most corrupt, warlike nation in today’s world (based on dollars and covert incursions), trying to decide who is the best criminal liar to lead our country. Generally, the issues at the forefront in the upcoming election are the economy and job creation, the environment and climate change, women’s and gay rights, foreign affairs and national security, social responsibility, taxation and consumer protection. Most of these distill down to economics, human empathy and justice. The sole issue, for someone out of work or underemployed, is job creation. And for those with the “big bucks” — like Mitt Romney’s friends who are able to avoid paying income taxes by sheltering their money in the Grand Caymans or Luxembourg — are concerned about continuing crony capitalist subsidies, avoiding taxes, keeping the military strong and creating profit-making enemies, and removing controls on banking and business. Women, gays and people of color want government out of their private lives — except where it can create a level playing field in the job market and in educational opportunities — and would like a helping hand to enable them to survive in our society. Then we have the predominately older, male white Christian extremists who would prefer that we regress a couple hundred years to a time when women were property who had no reproductive dominion over their bodies, minorities were kept in their subordinate places and the rule of law was primarily influenced by “fire and brimstone” beliefs. This group of radicals has helped move our country so far to the political right that someone such as Nixon or Reagan would now be seen as moderate and would have great difficulty getting elected. They’ve even managed to push a moderate like Mitt Romney to the fringes. Based on his track record, I consider Romney a right-wing moderate. After all, he supported single-payer health care when he was Massachusetts governor, believed women’s reproductive rights were only a medical, not a government issue, and avowed that gay marriage was not a priority for him. But his choice of running mate Paul Ryan, an extreme tea party type and the darling of the Koch brothers, exemplifies how concerned Romney is with pandering to right-wing extremists — and the more he panders, the more he simply becomes one of them. Ryan is no Sarah Palin ignoramus; he is a very bright and articulate politician whose agenda is to destroy Obamacare, eliminate Social Security and eviscerate union and other working class rights. But Ryan may have more serious problems than mere stupidity. He has been documented as participating in insider trading with the likes of Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs — a serious allegation that speaks to Ryan’s lack of integrity. Ryan may be fast on his feet, bright and articulate, but I believe he will turn out to be a millstone around Romney’s neck. Fourteen years of obscurity in the House of Representatives means Ryan could not possibly have been totally vetted before Romney chose him. When it comes to foreign policy, both Obama and Romney are way too hawkish for the needs of America, but we need to understand that the military industrial complex, corporate America and international bankers, now bolstered by Citizens United, dictate what happens in government. In the mix, Obama is more moderate and would be more inclined to scale back military spending and American imperialism. Meanwhile, on social and human rights issues, Romney has had to embarrassingly “flip flop” because of pressure from the far right. After nearly four years, Obama has finally gotten the courage and political sense to come out in support of gay rights, and in particular gay marriage, finally following the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who said, “Injustice for one is injustice for all.” To have a prosperous and civilized nation, we need to do whatever we can to empower those who are in the minority so they can fulfill their intellectual and economic potential, and participate in our society to the fullest. The influence of backward religious dogma is not beneficial to American society. Obama is more supportive of keeping the influence — and prejudices — of religion out of government. On another front, health issues that are the result of environmental factors and poor nutrition habits have become epidemic in the U.S., with the obesity rate now exceeding 30 percent. Obama advocates stricter food labeling laws, transparency in food ingredients, higher air quality and, generally, stronger environmental stewardship. Romney advocates laissez faire regulation in all these areas, inviting greed and abuse. One of the most important jobs of a president is the appointment of Supreme Court justices. With the court presently stacked with right-wing corporate lackeys and an elderly liberal, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, headed for retirement, this country does not need anymore “bench puppets” to give the corporations and banks more power. Citizens United was an egregious error and a stain on our nation’s character; Romney has said he would appoint justices in the mold of that abominable decision’s most ardent defenders. The biggest issue for most of us is the economy. “Trickle-down economics” for the most part is a myth perpetrated by those in the “1%” who do not want to pay taxes. I agree that a certain amount of investment capital is critical for funding new research and building manufacturing infrastructure. At present many corporations are flush with cash, and wealthy individuals have the liquidity for new investment opportunities. Capital finds the best return balanced with a modicum of risk — it has no patriotism or desire to create jobs, only return on investment, sometimes to the detriment of human beings and the environment. Approximately 70 percent of our GDP comes from middle-class spending. If we want to create jobs and jump-start the economy, we need to lower taxes for the 99% and increase taxes on the 1%, whose lifestyles will not be materially affected. Romney, whose net worth is estimated at $250 million, paid approximately 13 percent in taxes in recent years — or so he claims — largely because his income mostly derives from investments. This unconscionably low tax rate for the privileged few is an insult to the human value of working people. A working person has a payroll tax of 7.65 percent applied up through $106,800 of earnings; why should a CEO making million of dollars per year receive an exemption of more than $890,000 on income not subject to payroll taxes? This amounts to $68,000 per year that the elite may use to send their children to the best private schools and colleges, while the working class struggle to pay tuition, or their children become saddled with loans that are not even dischargeable in bankruptcy. Obama favors economic policies that favor the working class, while Romney has a real conflict of interest in raising the capital gains rate from a present historic low of 15 percent to above the weighted average of 25 percent. Why should working people be in a higher tax situation than the privileged wealthy? In the final analysis, we must bring America back to the center, halting its move in a dangerous direction of fascist oligarchy. I urge everyone to vote for the “broken finger,” because the “broken leg” will cripple the dream of the American middle class.

My ‘Occupy’ experience — and the rest of the story

AMERICANS, AND I AM SURE to a lesser degree people worldwide, often complain about their corrupt and deceitful governments while doing little to participate or solve the problem. I consider myself a doer, and to some extent an activist for progressive change. My goals for change do not necessarily run along political party lines but rather along moral and ethical ones. Those who know me either applaud me as a moderate liberal activist or demonize me as a “communist un-American socialist traitor.” Fortunately, most people see me as a moderate, reasonable person, though they may not agree with everything I espouse. The bottom line is that the “99%” — and even some of the reasonable “1%” like Warren Buffett — know that our way of doing socio-politico-economic business in America is broken. The time is long overdue for major changes in our corporate government system — and Occupy Wall Street is the forefront of that coming wave of progressive change. While a small portion of activists may behave in an uncivilized fashion, damaging property, impeding traffic, assaulting others or leaving debris in public areas, it’s important to remember that democracy is usually not an efficient process. Sometimes things get messy. The actions of a few immature or unstable people do not tarnish the whole movement, which is overwhelmingly intent on peaceful, meaningful change. Compared to the egregious machinations of government war criminals and government-aided corporate greed, a few messy parks are inconsequential. Of course, we see mostly slanted reporting from corrupt corporate media that depicts the unacceptable behavior of a small minority of Occupiers. Those who operate with a political agenda seek to tarnish the movement for other, equally nefarious reasons. Yet despite these and other ill-informed efforts to portray the Occupiers in an unfavorable light to the electorate, as the movement grows it continues to draw more support and participation from the 99%. I have made a commitment to be part of the solution, and to date have participated in two local protests. Several weeks ago, on “Occupy Bank Day” I participated in a very peaceful demonstration with about 30 other local residents in front of the JPMorgan Chase Bank in the main Vallejo shopping center across from Target. Many of us had signs — “Audit the Fed,” “Take your money out of big banks,” “Stop corporate corruption of politics,” “We are the 99%,” etc. — and we walked in a circle in front of the bank for several hours. It was very encouraging to see many people drive by, honking their horns in solidarity and showing support in other ways. I met a bright, enthusiastic community organizer I plan to connect with a consumer financial protection organization. Then, last month, my partner Jane and I participated in Occupy Martinez in front of the post office on Alhambra Boulevard at the junction of Highway 4. We counted approximately 100 respectful participants carrying signs and chanting slogans on both sides of Alhambra. I spoke with a volunteer named Frank who paid for the sign materials and personally made more than 75 signs. I was so moved by his dedication that I offered to donate two dozen cans of spray paint to aid him in making more signs. At that moment I felt hopeful that if enough people participate in this positive movement, there is a possibility of real change coming to our broken political system. Violence by protesters and police is unacceptable. The recent incident at the University of California-Davis, and uncounted incidents like it, should never have happened. But it is telling that this blatant abuse of power is seen as an isolated incident, while few discuss the ramifications of the timely donations of millions of dollars to the NYPD Foundation by JPMorgan, Bank of America, Barclays, Jeffries & Co. and other banking institutions. These banks know, it seems, who is keeping them from having to face the growing crowds who seek economic justice for having driven the economy into a ditch from which it has yet to recover. This, of course, highlights the OWS protesters’ chief complaint: that the rules don’t apply equally to all, that the Friedman/Thatcher/Reagan “trickle down” myth never really worked, that “corporate personhood” is an affront — and that capital protects itself by engineering the curtailment of constitutional rights. But there is a message and focus of the Occupy movement that is stronger and more powerful than the sum of its parts, and this cannot be curtailed. That message is that the “99%” will sleep no more. We are fed up with the corruption, exploitation and deceit and we are ready to take steps to effect change. My partner and I plan to participate in many more nonviolent demonstrations in our local communities, be it Vallejo, Benicia, Martinez or Concord. I strongly urge any of you who have not yet participated to demonstrate your patriotism and be part of the solution. Show your support in your local communities. One of the biggest threats to democracy and justice is not only the government, but the silence of good people. An active majority can definitely make a positive difference in our society. I am getting out there to be an active participant for change, and I hope you will, too.

America destabilizes the world 97 countries at a time

There is a continuing story spread by U.S. mass media propaganda and our Department of State and Pentagon that our military invades other countries to promote “Freedom and Liberation”. Anyone who has done some home work outside the veil of our duplicitous government and corporate owned media will quickly discern that the patently clear information speaks to the fact that the U.S. is the greatest barbaric terroristic imperialistic nation in the world. Our primary reasons for expanding our reign of terror throughout the world is protection of multi-national corporate interests, control of petroleum resources and minerals, enrichment of the Military Industrial Complex, and a strong signal to third world democratically elected governments that the spreading of benefits to their poor masses by taxing, nationalization, or pairing down the power elite will not be tolerated. Hugo Chavez who through U.S. mass media propaganda has been widely demonized, but in reality is a very popular leader in Venezuela and poses a threat by positive example to the oppressive power elite. George W. Bush has gotten the iconic insignia of being one of “Real Bad Guy” presidents, but in reality the stealth appearance of Barack Obama continues to promulgate world terror against 97 world nations. The following are excerpts from an article in Alternet.org news, a non corporate funded, very good source for more honest balanced information. The "arc of instability" includes 97 countries. A startling number of these nations are now in turmoil, and in every single one of them, from Afghanistan and Algeria to Yemen and Zambia, Washington is militarily involved, overtly or covertly, in outright war or what passes for peace. The Pentagon and U.S. intelligence services are also running covert Special Forces and spy operations, launching drone attacks, building bases and secret prisons, training, arming, and funding local security forces, and engaging in a host of other militarized activities right up to full-scale war. But while you consider this, keep one fact in mind: the odds are that there is no longer a single nation in the arc of instability in which the United States is in no way militarily involved. “Freedom is on the march in the broader Middle East,” the president said in his speech. “The hope of liberty now reaches from Kabul to Baghdad to Beirut and beyond. Slowly but surely, we're helping to transform the broader Middle East from an arc of instability into an arc of freedom.” “An arc of freedom”; you could be forgiven if you thought that this was an excerpt from President Barack Obama’s Arab Spring speech, where he said “It will be the policy of the United States to… support transitions to democracy.” Those were, however, the words of his predecessor George W. Bush. The giveaway is that phrase “arc of instability,” a core rhetorical concept of the former president’s global vision and that of his neoconservative supporters. In addition to waging more wars in “arc” nations, Obama has overseen the deployment of greater numbers of special operations forces to the region, has transferred or brokered the sale of substantial quantities of weapons there, while continuing to build and expand military bases at a torrid rate, as well as training and supplying large numbers of indigenous forces. Pentagon documents and open source information indicate that there is not a single country in that arc in which U.S. military and intelligence agencies are not now active. This raises questions about just how crucial the American role has been in the region’s increasing volatility and destabilization. Our presidents, irrespective of their political parties, become nothing more than “Puppeted dart boards” to catch the political flack that is created by the continuing malicious directives of the clandestine power elite. Given the centrality of the arc of instability to Bush administration thinking, it was hardly surprising that it launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and carried out limited strikes in three other arc states -- Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Nor should anyone have been shocked that it also deployed elite military forces and special operators from the CIA elsewhere within the arc. Many of these covert wars carried on by our CIA are financed from the proceeds of illegal drugs that are laundered through major banks and corporations that result in the destabilization of many countries. It has been the Obama administration, however, that has embraced the concept far more fully and engaged the region even more broadly. Last year, the Washington Post reported that U.S. had deployed special operations forces in 75 countries, from South America to Central Asia. Recently, however, U.S. Special Operations Command spokesman Colonel Tim Nye told me that on any given day, America’s elite troops are working in about 70 countries, and that its country total by year’s end would be around 120. According to Pentagon documents released earlier this year, the U.S. has personnel deployed in 76 other nations sometimes counted in the arc of instability: Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Syria, Antigua, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. A decade’s evidence has made it clear that U.S. operations in the arc of instability are destabilizing. A recent Zogby poll of respondents in six Arab countries -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates -- found that, taking over from a president who had propelled anti-Americanism in the Muslim world to an all-time high, Obama managed to drive such attitudes even higher. Substantial majorities of Arabs in every country now view the U.S. as not contributing “to peace and stability in the Arab World.” Despite the salient lesson of 9/11-- interventions abroad beget blowback at home -- he has waged wars in response to blowbacks that have, in turn, generated more of the same. A recent Rasmussen poll indicates that most Americans differ with the president when it comes to his idea of how the U.S. should be involved abroad. Seventy-five percent of voters, for example, agreed with this proposition in a recent poll: “The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.” In addition, clear majorities of Americans are against defending Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and a host of other arc of instability countries, even if they are attacked by outside powers. Using key buzzwords such “Freedom and Liberation”, “Nation Building”, and “Furthering Democracy”, the U.S. in reality has overtly done more to increase terrorism through violence, destroy a countries infrastructure, oppress and barbarize innocent civilians, False Flag 9/11 events, and xenophobic Muslim bashing than all the other combined forces in the world. Since WWII the U.S. has been directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of over 6 million innocent civilians through its covert and overt military operations. It is easy for Americans to demonize despots such as Hitler and Stalin for causing the deaths of millions of innocents, but our heavy handed foreign policy takes no back seat in brutality and destruction relative to these infamous dictators. If in fact if we put peace as higher priority than corporate and bankers greed and profit, and our own individual need to maybe be employed by, or profit from by the Military Industrial Complex than I believe the positive consequences will result in a more peaceful world.

We owe progress to the eccentrics not to the conformists

We may sometimes mock or vilify the non-conformists who think or act outside the box, but through history these are the steadfast heroes who have been the catalyst for progress. Societies need creative innovators and social pioneers, but societies also need the conformists and robotic masses to carry out the plans of the leaders and creative forces. From childhood, our school years, and in the work place we are constantly encouraged to blindly follow authority and conform to the wishes of our societal masters. Our Madison Avenue advertising and public relations machines constantly reinforce conformity through appearance, cars, music, and technology. Our militaries and religious institutions are a consummate example of follow and do not question. So lets beg the question where would we be today if it were not for the likes of Galileo, Carl Sagan, Ralph Nadar, Einstein, MLK, Edison, Job, Emma Goldman, Gandhi, and Teddy Roosevelt? Being a non-conformist may be inconvenient, cause societal rejection, and require massive courage and perseverance. I like to proudly label myself a non-conformist who marches to his own drummer. I could care less about people’s judgments of me. My observation is that most people are so caught up in being loved and accepted that they throw the special creative pieces of themselves away in trade for acceptability. Anyone can “Go along to get along”, but those that challenge the status quo, be it technologically or socially are the unique seminal forces that carry us forward. I believe that how we project and interface ourselves in society is a complex amalgam of the “Nature/Nurture” paradigm.

Columbus Day is an insult to the heritage of Italian Americans

Question: Why do we honor a man who, if he were alive today, would almost certainly be sitting on Death Row awaiting execution? Italian Americans have many people of their heritage, who have made great contributions to medicine, science, the fine arts, music, academics, finance, etc., but Christopher Columbus is a moral stain on the Italian Diaspora. We should have a Fermi, Marconi, Puccini, Tony Bennett, or Michelangelo Day, before we celebrate a despotic barbarian such as Columbus. If we choose to celebrate Columbus Day it would only be fair to have a Hitler, Kissinger, and Stalin Day. Columbus was nothing more than a plundering imperialistic oppressor who was responsible for the death, enslavement, and suffering of millions of native people. So let us dig further into why Columbus Day was created, and why many people including myself believe that the immoral legacy left by Columbus is nothing that any group of people should be proud of. My intention is not to demean any ethnic group, but only to rail against intolerance, protest untruthful reporting of history, and to not glorify perpetrators of violence and oppression. Columbus Day was created through political pressure by the Knights of Columbus (K of C) who lobbied FDR in 1937 to create a special day for the Italian community to revere a hero. The Knights of Columbus is the world's largest Catholic fraternal service organization. Founded in the United States in 1882, it is named in honor of Christopher Columbus. Father Michael J. McGivney in New Haven, Connecticut was the founder of the K of C. The K of C has had a history of some progressive social and minority intolerance, but on a positive note is known for its community volunteerism and major charitable contributions to children and research with disabilities, and Special Olympics. In the United States, the K of C upholds the Roman Catholic Church's positions on public policy and social issues. The K of C has adopted resolutions advocating a Culture of Life, one of the largest contributors to Yes on Prop. 8, and promoting Catholic practices in public schools, government, and voluntary organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America. The Order also funded a postcard campaign in 2005 in an attempt to stop the Canadian parliament from legalizing same-sex marriage. As an alternative to the dishonest chronicling and hypocritical celebration of Columbus Day, Indigenous People's Day (also known as Native American Day) is a secular holiday celebrated in various localities in the United States, begun as a counter-celebration to Columbus Day. The purpose of the day is to promote Native American culture and commemorate the history of Native American peoples Much of the following information is abstracted from a well researched scholarly book entitled, Lies my teacher told me - by James W. Loewen. This book attempts to clear up much of the dishonest reporting of history specifically relating to Columbus, the Pilgrims, hero making, slavery, imperialism, American exceptionalism, and other polemics created as a propaganda tool to misinform and mold the minds of school age youth. Columbus wasn't the first European to discover America. Leif Ericson founded a village on Newfoundland 500 years before Columbus made his voyage to the Americas. The concept of Columbus discovering America is arrogant. Historians estimate that Native Americans discovered North America about 14,000 years before Columbus. New DNA evidence now suggests that courageous Polynesian adventurers sailed dugout canoes across the Pacific and settled in South America long before the age of Columbus and Ericson. Columbus wasn't a hero. When he arrived in the Bahamas on October 12, 1492, Columbus discovered that the islands were inhabited by friendly, peaceful people called the Lucayans, Taínos and Arawaks. Writing in his diary, Columbus said they were a handsome, smart and kind people. He noted that the gentle Arawaks were remarkable for their hospitality. "They offered to share with anyone and when you ask for something, they never say no," he said. The Arawaks had no weapons; their society had neither criminals, prisons nor prisoners. They were so kind-hearted that Columbus noted in his diary that on the day the Santa Maria was shipwrecked, the Arawaks labored for hours to save his crew and cargo. Columbus was a cruel and barbaric man who immediately seized the land of the Islanders for Spain and enslaved them to work in his brutal gold mines. As a result of his exploitation of the natives, in only two years, 125,000 (half of the population) of the original inhabiatants on the island were dead. Sadly, Columbus supervised the selling of native girls into sexual slavery. Young girls were the most desired by his men and were routinely ensalved. In 1500, Columbus casually wrote about it in his log. He said: "A hundred Castellanoes are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten are now in demand." Many of the peaceful natives were forced to work in his gold mines until they died of exhaustion. If an "Indian" worker did not deliver his full quota of gold dust by Columbus' deadline, soldiers would cut off the man's hands and tie them around his neck to send a message. Slavery became so intolerable that many of these kind island people committed mass suicide. Catholic law forbade the enslavement of Christians, so Columbus solved this problem by simply refusing to baptize the native people. Columbus brought cannons and attack dogs on his second trip to the New World. Natives resisting slavery by Columbus, would have a nose or an ear cutoff. He was so brutal that he would have attack dogs hunt down the slaves, and the dogs would tear off the arms and legs of the screaming natives. Columbus would burn natives alive who attempted to escape from slavery. If Columbus crew ran short of meat to feed the dogs, they would kill Arawak babies for dog food. The lionized explorer’s acts of cruelty were so unspeakable and so legendary - even in his own day - that Governor Francisco De Bobadilla arrested Columbus and his two brothers, slapped them into chains, and shipped them off to Spain to answer for their crimes against the Arawaks. Greed took priority and the emporers of Spain, their treasury filling up with gold, pardoned Columbus and let him go free. It sounds like the leaders of our government pardoning people such as Libby, Cheney, Kissinger, Rich, and others who have committed high crimes. One of Columbus' men, who chronicled the atrocities, Bartolome De Las Casas, was so mortified by Columbus' brutal atrocities against the native peoples, that he quit working for Columbus and became a Catholic priest. He described how the Spaniards under Columbus' command cut off the legs of children who ran from them, to test the sharpness of their blades. According to De Las Casas, the men made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. He says that Columbus' men poured people full of boiling soap. In a single day, De Las Casas was an eye witness as the Spanish soldiers dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3,000 native people. "Such inhumanities and barbarisms were committed in my sight as no age can parallel," De Las Casas wrote. "My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature that now I tremble as I write." De Las Casas spent the rest of his life trying to protect the dwindled population of helpless native people. Experts generally agree that before 1492, the population on the island of Hispaniola probably numbered above 3 million. Within 20 years of Spanish arrival, it was reduced to only 60,000 natives. Within 50 years, not a single original native inhabitant could be found. De Las Casas alos noted, Columbus was the first slave trader in the Americas, deriving most of his income from slavery. As the native slaves died off, they were later replaced with black slaves. Slave trading became a big family business, and Columbus' son became the first African slave trader in 1505. There should be no room in a civilized society or teaching in our classrooms of outmoded traditions, myths, and holidays that promotes intolerance, or celebrates the placing of despicable barbaric people such as Columbus in high esteem.

Sustainability, collectiveness, and long term thinking

Sustainability, collectiveness, and long term thinking will be the progressive paradigms and socio-economic engines that will lead us through the next 50 years. The past 50 years of America’s narcissism, rugged selfish individualism, social apathy, and excessive material consumption have led us through a period of relative economic prosperity and reckless disregard for the stewardship of the earth’s bountiful resources and sustainability of a healthy environment. Any political mutterings or movement away from this attitude of consumption and conservation has been demonized by selfish special interests and myopic thinkers as foolish “Bleeding Heart Liberal Enviro Greenie Tree Huggers” who don’t care about jobs or the short term increase in costs for addressing the important issues of sustainability. The chickens are finally coming home to roost in a major way from the eggs that were hatched by the incestuous partnership of government and major corporations, The Military Industrial Complex, and greedy Wall Street bankers. The seminal contribution to this deteriorating equation is an ignorant electorate that has time to watch a vapid soap opera, but lacks the time or passion to open a book, get involved in the workings of government, or truly questions authority. Our short term thinking is pervasive from the highest corporate and government levels down to the average consumer who goes into denial about the long term effects of a variable interest mortgage or the total cost of credit card borrowing. We have become oblivious to the long term effects and political “Blowback” from our continued global abusive military world presence and our attempt at imperialistic global domination and control. We are subordinate to many other developed countries in health care, education, sustainability, quality of life issues, and our empathy for our working class. We have let the propaganda of the corporate elite talk us into accepting the Reagan/Freidman myths of “Trickle Down Economics” and that low taxes for the rich create jobs. Well, part of the equation is true; the rich partly through their tax savings have invested in low paying jobs, but not so much at home, but in Latin America, India and China, thereby exacerbating joblessness in the U.S. Another myth bolstered by Pentagon propaganda and the False Flag 9/11 incident is that we are in such a state of threatened security that we need to spend more than half our federal budget on defense and its support services. These are all diversions of financial and intellectual capital that take our collective eyes off the important big ball; that being what is best for the long term health and prosperity of the American people as a whole, not the top one percent. America is no longer the open frontier of geographic isolation, rugged individualism, and every man for himself. We must all band together as a collective world without regard to separation by religion, ethnicity, nationality or economic status; after all stripped naked and bleeding we are all the same. With requisite sustainability policies there are enough resources for all assuming moderation and an abundant universe. Why does anyone need a hundred room mansion or a personal yacht the size of an ocean liner? Warren Buffett lives comfortably in a regular size home that he has owned for decades. Do we need to drive Hummers and oversized fuel guzzling pickup trucks? A New York mega millionaire real estate developer by the name of Durst, who makes money building “Green” buildings is OK driving a fuel efficient hybrid Toyota Prius. A survey was taken of what group of people are best tippers and most generous in helping others relative to their incomes; it was not the wealthy, it was your average working class American. Donald Trump was chastised for not tipping his cab driver. Trump said, “Why should I tip the cab driver who had the privilege of driving me in his cab”. I am not saying that everyone who is wealthy is a stingy tipper. There are wealthy people who have a sense of empathy and generosity. My point is that someone such as Trump can publicly feel comfortable making such an egotistical statement in a society that covets wealth and materialism to the point of excess without fear or shame of major judgment. Just think of all the water that could be saved, air and noise polluting lawn mowers that could be eliminated be replacing lawns with drought resistant plants or a healthy vegetable garden. We bought our house almost four years ago and the first thing we did was to remove the water dependant lawns in the front and back yards and replace them with drought resistant plants that require little water or physical maintenance, and fruit trees and vegetables. So what does this accomplish? It reduces our water, gardening and produce costs. In addition, the gas that is required to power the trucks that would have delivered that produce to Safeway is eliminated and the electricity that pumps the water is minimized using a drip irrigation system. We have the joy of food independence and the improved health benefits of eating non GMO and insecticide laden produce that is eaten the day it is picked, or dried without preservatives for future consumption. In the US when a typical building has been designed many developer/owners only looks at the first few years costs. In Europe and Japan developers look at the total costs and benefits relating to both building and operating the building over a 50 year lifespan. I believe the difference in philosophies stems primarily from a cultural attitude of short term thinking in the US, versus looking at the long term effects and the bigger picture in other countries. This myopic attitude in the US also sets a strong tone for a lack of long term planning and policies in many of our government agencies. For example there are some strong critics of our mayor’s long term wider vision of instituting sustainability programs in local policy. Granted a few sustainability projects due to a lack of proper and thoughtful due diligence may result in a dollar chasing a dime. I believe that these critics of the mayor lack a sense of vision and understanding of the positive domino effect that sustainability projects have on the private sector. The cities of Berkeley and Davis have been cutting edge leaders and who are very proactive in their goals and execution for instituting sustainability programs. As a result these cities have a relatively strong economic base, with many local developers following suit with privately financed “Green” projects. Sustainability must be both economically and environmentally viable, but must also be trendy and in vogue so that society as a whole will embrace this most important emerging paradigm with priority, gusto, and longevity. The cost of solar panels continues to decrease, while the cost of non-sustainable electricity production has been increasing approximately six percent yearly in the last few years. We also need to factor in the long term health effects and medical costs of dealing with health degradation due to the burning of fossil fuels. The demonstrable effects of green house gases on our atmosphere are all ready proving to be a threat to stabile climate conditions and our environment. Should we wait until the greater damage is done, or should we get ahead of the curve and invest now for beneficial sustainability outcomes in the future? Europe and Japan are way ahead of us in their planning and execution of sustainability programs. Before we get ourselves tweaked about the City of Benicia purchasing $30,000 worth of bicycle racks, that possibly were not a priority and that hurt no one, lets rain in big time on the massive multi-billion dollar wastefulness that continually goes on in the Pentagon and also results in massive deficits, death and destruction, and new enemies every day, worldwide.