I wish to focus on our next industrial/technological revolution, that being sustainability. There is incredible opportunity for reducing our dependence of fossil fuels, reducing our need for natural resources, creating a tremendous positive engine for domestic employment, and responsible stewarding of our environment for generations to come. Moving into this next exciting technological revolution will require citizen passion and commitment, ergo political will, and a redirection of financial and intellectual resources. So the question is where will the money, scientific, engineering, and manufacturing talent come from?
In reality we are spending over 8% of our GDP, ballooning our national debt, including direct Department of Defense, interest, veteran’s benefits, Department of Energy, Homeland Security, and subsidies to city and state law enforcement for quasi-homeland security issues. We are talking money, that could be better spent on alternative energy research, development, and implementation; all mostly domestic employment. Our attempt to improve health care has been a superficial strategy that is really about the welfare of the drug, insurance, and general health care purveyor industry, and ultimately Wall Street. Health care industry jobs and services usually improve people’s lives and create domestic employment. Our declining position as a modern country in the world is decaying in part due to our reduced industrial manufacturing sector and inadequate training and educational resources, as well as staying behind in finding ways to use those resources more effectively. Our infrastructure of roads, bridges, parks, inland waterways and levees are in need of major upgrading and improvement; all domestic employment opportunities that provide positive societal benefits.
The ultimate cause of the growth of the insidious destructive immoral Military Industrial Complex is corporate greed and our own amoral complicity. How many people who work in the defense industry would give up their lucrative jobs in order to support better humanitarian uses of financial and intellectual resources? How many of us will write a letter, telephone our legislators, write an article in a tabloid in protest of our misplaced priorities for defense? How many people are afraid to stand up to our government leaders because some of the electorate are apathetic citizens, indolent, or fearful of being labeled Anti-American, “Pinko”, or unpatriotic? How many people would support the closure of their local military base, even though it would mean a short term loss to local city or town’s economy? Unfortunately the economic tentacles of defense spending serve to enrich many people both in the public and private sectors at the expense of more important and beneficial stakeholders. So before we layoff responsibility on corrupt bankers, greedy defense contractors, and deceitful prostituting politicians we need to get our own ethical and moral houses in order. Are we really serious about peace, or do we just like to mouth the abstract words? If we choose to opt for short term economic gain over morality, how can we expect our own politicians to be moral creatures?
Falling behind in sustainability progress is a greater real security priority to our nation than the manufactured need for a bloated military killing colossus. There is a requirement in general in the interest of national security, that all military defense hardware be manufactured in America by legal citizens of this country, but in reality our domestic corporations are the major beneficiaries of this major economic charade. If we make sustainability a national security priority, all those employed in alternative energy, recycling, energy auditing and engineering, re-adaptation of energy systems, “Green Industries”, and anything else directly related to the above would have to be made in America by naturalized citizens. In reality death and disintegration will come to our nation if we do not have the energy resources, we continue to foul our environment, and we do not focus on all elements and stakeholders that add actual positive benefits to our society.
The structure of the military and its results are the antithesis of a sustainability model. The military is one of the largest single consumers of fossil fuels. The military is exempt from many environmental laws that govern civilian society. The testing and actual use of military hardware and munitions leaves devastation and environmental contamination wherever it is used. The inherent wastefulness and corrupt purchasing practices of the Pentagon are an example of the very poor use of financial, intellectual, raw materials and energy. There is no major single societal service or product that comes to mind that is less sustainable than the Military Industrial Complex.
America is incredibly resourceful and a “Can do” nation. When one reflects on how quickly we ramped up our engineering talent and manufacturing resources to produce liberty ships, planes, uniforms, munitions, and military base infrastructure and support for WWII; why can’t we use that same talent, focus, and energy to produce for the nations good, not destructive ends? It is estimated that over half of the scientists and engineers in this country are connected directly or indirectly to the design and production of military hardware. Just think of the good that could be produced by our society if a major portion of these talented people were used to support sustainability projects instead of murder and destruction?
Eisenhower remarked that "every gun that is made is a theft from those who hunger" – a bomber is two power stations and a hospital not built. I believe that we buy into the Military Industrial Complex fraud for greed, self interest, and a manufactured fear that we need major military security. When we spend money motivated by fear, be it for insurance, our military, emergency health care, or other reasons that may interfere with our thoughtful and rational thinking processes we are less mindful of the cost. After our initial invasion of Iraq typical gains in stocks for the defense industry increased at double the rate of non-defense stocks. If we choose to invest our money in killing hardware, how can we call our leaders and politicians immoral, when we in fact out of our own greed are equally complicit in our immoral economic decisions?
What can I do as an ordinary American to effect a change? Firstly think about selling all your investments in the defense industry and reinvest them in sustainability industries. If you are a member of a union or pension group lobby, I suggest you lobby your representatives to divest themselves of all investments of the plans in the defense industry, and reinvest in positive domestic industries. If you are employed by the defense industries try and seek employment in other industries, even if it requires a minimal pay reduction. Write your legislative representatives discouraging them from funding pork barrel legislation that funds war industries. If there is a convention in your area that is used to market military hardware, try to discourage your city from hosting it. If there is such a convention in your locale, organize a large group of protesters to draw media attention to the wasteful use of our countries resources.
Be active, encouraging your children and any students of college or high school age to stop military recruitment on campus, blocking ROTC programs, and generally resisting the expansion of the military in your area. If they show recruitment advertising, before the major movie in your local theater threaten the movie house owner that you and your friends will not be a continuing movie patron unless the misleading deceptive recruitment advertising is eliminated.
So believe it or not, we do have the power and ability, as ordinary citizens to create a peace loving mindset in this country and the world if we are truly sincere and manifest our passion. Do not forget that it was major protests in the 60’s and 70’s that brought the Vietnam War to an end. Apathy, cowardice, and inaction are more dangerous to a society than guns and swords.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Leave Religion Improve your Sex life
A recent study by Dr. Darrel W. Ray of 14,500 secularists concluded that people who leave religion have a healthier attitude about their sex lives as opposed to some who feel bound by their religion. Dr. Ray is an organizational psychologist, consultant and author of “The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture” and founder of the organization Recovering from Religion. For the first 10 years of his career he practiced as a clinical psychologist before moving into the corporate world where he has had an international consulting practice since 1986. Some the text of my following article is from The Humanist magazine of critical and social concern.
The key findings of his survey were as follows:
• Sex improves dramatically after leaving religion.
• Sexual guilt has little staying power after leaving religion.
• Those raised most religious show no difference from those raised least religious in their sexual behavior.
• Those raised most religious experience far more guilt but have just as much sex.
• Religious parents are far worse at educating their children on matters of sex.
• Religious guilt differs in measurable amounts according to denomination.
This first of its kind survey looks at attitudes and behavior related to sexuality and religion including religious sexual guilt, parenting behavior, sex education and sexual satisfaction before and after leaving religion. The most important finding shows dramatic improvement in sexual satisfaction and a decrease in guilt after people left religion. Approximately 55%% of respondents said their sex life greatly improved to an 8, 9 or 10 (on a 10 pt. scale) after leaving religion while only 2.2% said it became worse.
The primary findings of the study show that people who are religious have a good deal of guilt about sex
and sexuality, but their behavior is about the same as the non-religious. Guilt is a key component of
religious attitudes about sex, but actual behavior, whether first masturbation, first oral sex, first intercourse,
Etc. does not change appreciably with religiosity.
The US government has been deeply involved in abstinence only education for almost 10 years. The government’s own research shows that such programs do not work or at best, delay the onset of sexual behavior by months. Results of this survey closely mirror those of abstinence only programs. Children from religious homes don’t delay sexual activities appreciably but they feel guilty about doing it and probably know less about sex and protecting themselves, than their secular counterparts. Being knowledgeable about the subject of sex including safety and reproductive control are crucial to a well functioning society.
One key finding was a clear pattern of improvement in sexual satisfaction depending on former religious affiliation. The study concluded that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventists, and Baptists are among the most guilt driven of religions Lutherans, Catholics, and Presbyterians were in the middle. Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists appear to have the healthiest attitudes about their sexuality. Those leaving high guilt religions showed the most improvement in their sex lives.
In the US, many religious leaders are against sex education in schools and insist that parents and churches should be primarily responsible for teaching their children about healthy sexuality. In reality not all parents are knowledge wise, or emotionally equipped to communicate in a mature manner about sexuality with their children. Unfortunately compared to many more progressive European countries the U.S. has a duality about sexual acceptance. A great deal of sexual innuendo is used in American advertising and marketing, but healthy generic sexual attitudes are not necessarily taught or embraced. Results of this survey show parents, whether religious or not, are not particularly good at talking to their children. More secular parents do talk to their children 38% of the time, to a mere 13% of religious parents. People from religious homes felt that their education in sex was poor compared to those from less religious homes.
Most religions preach strongly against pornography or “erotica” so it is reasonable to think that pornography use would be less among the more religious. This survey found that porn use is quite high in all groups and is a key source of sex education for religious teens. The most religious teens said they got their sex education from porn 33% of the time, the less religious 25.2% of the time. The survey found that 90% of men were using
pornography by age 21 with no significant difference between those most and least religious. For women,
over 50% of them were using porn by age 21, and 70% at age 30, with little difference between most and least
religious followers. Many couples find pornography or erotic images to be a positive adjunct to their relationships.
Religions teach against sex before marriage, but the survey found that differences between the most and least religious was negligible. Most important, religious teens said they got their sexual education from personal experience 50.2%, compared to 42.4% for the less religious. In other words, children who were raised most religiously are experimenting with sex more than those raised non-religious.
Women and men saw equal improvement after religion. Those who felt their sex life was worse gave revealing comments such as: “Since leaving religion, I have not had a physical or emotional relationship with my wife.” “Since becoming an atheist I have not met anyone who does not have some religious or 'spiritual' belief system. As a result, life is very lonely. I am proactively meeting new single members of the opposite sex, in an effort to find someone who does not believe in the supernatural.” Some said that religion contributed to marital problems. Those married to very religious people had the least satisfying sex lives and reported many restrictions on what was allowed, even if they had been married many years.
The following are examples of comments from those who felt that they were harmed by religion:
“Once, my wife came home from Church and announced that there will be no more oral sex because the
priest said oral sex was a sodomy and she should not practice it.” “His religiosity prevents us from having an honest discussion. I feel like there is an unseen wall between us now”.
The researchers expected to find those who left religion with residual effects of guilt for many years after leaving their religion. Surprisingly, those who had been out of religion for several years reported few residual effects with great sexual satisfaction. Many who were polled indicated that leaving religion had a strong positive impact on their improved sexual satisfaction.
The study concludes that “biology happens” and people will have sex regardless of religious training. Religious parents do a poor job of educating their children leaving them without the tools to make informed decisions. Religious people have more guilt about sex but do it just as much. The effects of religion wear off fairly quickly for most people once they leave religion entirely. Finally, leaving religion improves sexual satisfaction dramatically for most people.
In my opinion any dogma, cult, or philosophy that discourages critical thinking, free thought, deep questioning, encourages ignorance, and instills unproductive guilt is unhealthy for individuals and society both physically and emotionally. Ignorant and fearful parents who try to keep their school districts from instructing students about sexuality, LBGT studies, and the realities of human interaction are only bringing harm to their children and society. Everyone should attempt to empower themselves about their bodies, organic functions, and diversity in gender relationships. The full report can be downloaded at www.IPCpress.com.
The key findings of his survey were as follows:
• Sex improves dramatically after leaving religion.
• Sexual guilt has little staying power after leaving religion.
• Those raised most religious show no difference from those raised least religious in their sexual behavior.
• Those raised most religious experience far more guilt but have just as much sex.
• Religious parents are far worse at educating their children on matters of sex.
• Religious guilt differs in measurable amounts according to denomination.
This first of its kind survey looks at attitudes and behavior related to sexuality and religion including religious sexual guilt, parenting behavior, sex education and sexual satisfaction before and after leaving religion. The most important finding shows dramatic improvement in sexual satisfaction and a decrease in guilt after people left religion. Approximately 55%% of respondents said their sex life greatly improved to an 8, 9 or 10 (on a 10 pt. scale) after leaving religion while only 2.2% said it became worse.
The primary findings of the study show that people who are religious have a good deal of guilt about sex
and sexuality, but their behavior is about the same as the non-religious. Guilt is a key component of
religious attitudes about sex, but actual behavior, whether first masturbation, first oral sex, first intercourse,
Etc. does not change appreciably with religiosity.
The US government has been deeply involved in abstinence only education for almost 10 years. The government’s own research shows that such programs do not work or at best, delay the onset of sexual behavior by months. Results of this survey closely mirror those of abstinence only programs. Children from religious homes don’t delay sexual activities appreciably but they feel guilty about doing it and probably know less about sex and protecting themselves, than their secular counterparts. Being knowledgeable about the subject of sex including safety and reproductive control are crucial to a well functioning society.
One key finding was a clear pattern of improvement in sexual satisfaction depending on former religious affiliation. The study concluded that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventists, and Baptists are among the most guilt driven of religions Lutherans, Catholics, and Presbyterians were in the middle. Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists appear to have the healthiest attitudes about their sexuality. Those leaving high guilt religions showed the most improvement in their sex lives.
In the US, many religious leaders are against sex education in schools and insist that parents and churches should be primarily responsible for teaching their children about healthy sexuality. In reality not all parents are knowledge wise, or emotionally equipped to communicate in a mature manner about sexuality with their children. Unfortunately compared to many more progressive European countries the U.S. has a duality about sexual acceptance. A great deal of sexual innuendo is used in American advertising and marketing, but healthy generic sexual attitudes are not necessarily taught or embraced. Results of this survey show parents, whether religious or not, are not particularly good at talking to their children. More secular parents do talk to their children 38% of the time, to a mere 13% of religious parents. People from religious homes felt that their education in sex was poor compared to those from less religious homes.
Most religions preach strongly against pornography or “erotica” so it is reasonable to think that pornography use would be less among the more religious. This survey found that porn use is quite high in all groups and is a key source of sex education for religious teens. The most religious teens said they got their sex education from porn 33% of the time, the less religious 25.2% of the time. The survey found that 90% of men were using
pornography by age 21 with no significant difference between those most and least religious. For women,
over 50% of them were using porn by age 21, and 70% at age 30, with little difference between most and least
religious followers. Many couples find pornography or erotic images to be a positive adjunct to their relationships.
Religions teach against sex before marriage, but the survey found that differences between the most and least religious was negligible. Most important, religious teens said they got their sexual education from personal experience 50.2%, compared to 42.4% for the less religious. In other words, children who were raised most religiously are experimenting with sex more than those raised non-religious.
Women and men saw equal improvement after religion. Those who felt their sex life was worse gave revealing comments such as: “Since leaving religion, I have not had a physical or emotional relationship with my wife.” “Since becoming an atheist I have not met anyone who does not have some religious or 'spiritual' belief system. As a result, life is very lonely. I am proactively meeting new single members of the opposite sex, in an effort to find someone who does not believe in the supernatural.” Some said that religion contributed to marital problems. Those married to very religious people had the least satisfying sex lives and reported many restrictions on what was allowed, even if they had been married many years.
The following are examples of comments from those who felt that they were harmed by religion:
“Once, my wife came home from Church and announced that there will be no more oral sex because the
priest said oral sex was a sodomy and she should not practice it.” “His religiosity prevents us from having an honest discussion. I feel like there is an unseen wall between us now”.
The researchers expected to find those who left religion with residual effects of guilt for many years after leaving their religion. Surprisingly, those who had been out of religion for several years reported few residual effects with great sexual satisfaction. Many who were polled indicated that leaving religion had a strong positive impact on their improved sexual satisfaction.
The study concludes that “biology happens” and people will have sex regardless of religious training. Religious parents do a poor job of educating their children leaving them without the tools to make informed decisions. Religious people have more guilt about sex but do it just as much. The effects of religion wear off fairly quickly for most people once they leave religion entirely. Finally, leaving religion improves sexual satisfaction dramatically for most people.
In my opinion any dogma, cult, or philosophy that discourages critical thinking, free thought, deep questioning, encourages ignorance, and instills unproductive guilt is unhealthy for individuals and society both physically and emotionally. Ignorant and fearful parents who try to keep their school districts from instructing students about sexuality, LBGT studies, and the realities of human interaction are only bringing harm to their children and society. Everyone should attempt to empower themselves about their bodies, organic functions, and diversity in gender relationships. The full report can be downloaded at www.IPCpress.com.
Quotes by Harvey Rifkin
"It is not the big powerful people that I fear most; but the many ignorant childlike fearful masses who find safety in delusion, and who are so easily led like sheep, while allowing themselves to be deceived by government propaganda and religion"
"My ultimate loyalty is to Truth, not Nations, Political Parties, or Religions"
"One man’s conquering hero is another man’s imperialistic barbarian"
"Institutions of Religion, Family, Government, Loyalty, and Finance are like drinking water; they should be consistently tested and questioned so that the users are not infected or poisoned"
"G.O.D= Gold/Guns, Oil, Drugs"
"Love your Capitalism, but don't like some of your Capitalists”
“Being cheap is not putting oil in your car; being frugal or thrifty is buying the best oil at the lowest price and putting it into your car”
“Buy when the fearful are selling, and sell when the greedy are buying”
“No one can make you angry, happy, or defensive; the choice is totally in your hands”
“There was never a good war”
“The apes must be really shaking their heads realizing that they evolved into such a destructive and evil animal as humans”
“Boundaries without flexibility are like valves that cannot be opened or closed”
“My best course of action for positive change is to look at me first, not them”.
“Pride in ones work and ethics is a virtue, pride that supports the ego and lack of clear self introspection is a disease”
"My ultimate loyalty is to Truth, not Nations, Political Parties, or Religions"
"One man’s conquering hero is another man’s imperialistic barbarian"
"Institutions of Religion, Family, Government, Loyalty, and Finance are like drinking water; they should be consistently tested and questioned so that the users are not infected or poisoned"
"G.O.D= Gold/Guns, Oil, Drugs"
"Love your Capitalism, but don't like some of your Capitalists”
“Being cheap is not putting oil in your car; being frugal or thrifty is buying the best oil at the lowest price and putting it into your car”
“Buy when the fearful are selling, and sell when the greedy are buying”
“No one can make you angry, happy, or defensive; the choice is totally in your hands”
“There was never a good war”
“The apes must be really shaking their heads realizing that they evolved into such a destructive and evil animal as humans”
“Boundaries without flexibility are like valves that cannot be opened or closed”
“My best course of action for positive change is to look at me first, not them”.
“Pride in ones work and ethics is a virtue, pride that supports the ego and lack of clear self introspection is a disease”
Osama bin Laden has been dead for 9 years
One thing we know is that Osama bin Laden was a CIA asset used to recruit Muslim fundamentalists to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. We also know that his family had very close ties to the US government and more specifically to the Bush family. In 2001 he was terminally ill with kidney disease. The day that the news flashed about bin Laden’s death I immediately said, based on previous information, “Here goes our leaders fabricating more lies again for political gain or electorate distraction”.
I connected with a politically conservative friend of mine that day that was no supporter of Obama and asked him about his reaction to the news. He said, “You may be correct that the information was a government fabrication, but I have to believe in my government”. The last part of that statement was very telling, as it typifies why many Americans, instead of asking the hard questions, go into denial and cling to false myths to support their emotional peace of mind. Faith can be a very dangerous mindset that distracts us from empowering truths. I believe it is the same reason why many Americans create an impermeable emotional block and refuse to accept, based on all the clear information that 9/11 was an inside job motivated by greed for oil and many other motives that have enriched the stakeholders. We want to feel safe and loyal to our government.
The following is one poignant review of a well researched and scholarly book on the subject. OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a crucially important and timely examination of the whole range of evidence bearing on the question, is Osama bin Laden still alive? The importance of this question for the present comes from the fact that the United States Obama is escalating its offensive in Afghanistan and expanding the war into Pakistan, and has claimed that the "hunt for bin Laden" is one of its principal motivations for doing so. Either explicitly or implicitly, the US government and major media outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post continue to assert that bin Laden is alive, hiding in the tribal territories on the "AfPak" border, posing an undiminished threat to US security.
In his gripping new book, Griffin strikes at the root of this pretext for war by closely examining all the evidence that has come out since September 11, 2001, either indicating that bin Laden is still alive or that he is in fact dead. His conclusion is that bin Laden is certainly dead, and that in all likelihood he died in very late 2001. Griffin shows that many US experts in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency came to this very same conclusion long ago, but their views, which do not support the continuation of what President Obama, borrowing the term from Dick Cheney, calls "the long war," have received very little media attention. Were they to do so, one of the main props for the war regime would be undermined.
In Chapter 1, "Evidence that Osama bin Laden is Dead", Griffin surveys in detail the many different indications published in the major media in late 2001 and early 2002 that bin Laden had been very ill and had died. These included a December, 2001 video in which he appeared to be at death's door (as admitted by a Bush administration spokesperson), analyses by medical experts of the grave state of his health, the sudden and total cessation in December, 2001 of any surveillance intercepts of communications from him, and even reports of his funeral. In this early period, various high-level officials in the US and Pakistani governments, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Pervez Musharraf, speculated that he was dead. By mid-2002 many experts had concluded that he was dead, including FBI counterterrorism official Dale Watson, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and Israeli intelligence officials. As a result the CIA closed down the bin Laden unit in 2002. The conviction that he died in 2001 is held today by former intelligence operatives Robert Baer and Angelo Codevilla.
In Chapter 2, "Two Fake bin Laden Videos in 2001?", Griffin shows that two videos which purportedly showed bin Laden taking credit for the attacks of 9/11 and thus established his guilt for them, were not only very conveniently timed for the Bush and Blair administrations' legislative and military agendas, but also were highly suspect for other reasons. One of them was never actually released, but simply claimed by the Blair government. The other showed a bin Laden who did not physically resemble the genuine bin Laden of earlier videos, in which he in fact denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Griffin presents strong arguments that claimed videos were faked, suggests likely motivations behind such a risky undertaking, and cites the opinions of experts (including the FBI) who came to this conclusion long ago.
In Chapter 3, "Purported bin Laden Messages After 2001", Griffin argues that if fake bin Laden videos were produced in this early period, when he was probably still alive, then there is even stronger reason to be suspicious of "bin Laden videos" or other claimed "messages" that were released later, after all communications intercepts from him had ceased and many experts had concluded that he was dead. Yet, in subsequent years, a long series of such dubious "bin Laden messages" were released. Griffin presents an exhaustive survey of 19 of these, from an "email message" of March, 2002 to the "bin Laden audiotape" of January 14, 2009. For each and every one, Griffin identifies key indications of fakery or strong reasons to be suspicious of its authenticity. In the course of the discussion of the messages, he establishes that the technical capability to fabricate fake messages of the different types already existed.
In Chapter 4, Griffin turns to the important question "Who Might Have Been Motivated To Fabricate Messages?" He shows that the US military in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 employed a psychological operations unit to produce bogus evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, as a pretext for the invasion. The psyops unit produced a "letter" from a Jordanian in Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, that was then "intercepted", purportedly enroute to Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. The psyop was advanced after the invasion by the New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins, who wrote front-page stories presenting the "evidence" as genuine. Journalists at other organizations, including Newsweek magazine and The Telegraph of London, however, thought it highly likely at the time that the letter was bogus. Griffin concludes that the target of the psychological operation was the US public. He asks, could something very similar have been going on with the "bin Laden messages"? Does the US government desire to expand its war operations anywhere, say into the precise places it claims bin Laden is still living in? Based on the evidence Griffin presents, there is no reason to assume that comparable psyops would not be utilized to achieve this goal.
In Chapter 5, "The Convenient Timing of Many of the Messages", Griffin shows that another reason to suspect the in-authenticity of the "bin Laden messages" is that they frequently were released at key moments when they would benefit the Bush administration in the pursuit of particular objectives. In other words, the "messages" were almost always objectively detrimental to the enemies of the US, and beneficial to the Bush administration or the Blair government. Griffin lists 11 specific instances of this unusual characteristic of the "messages."
OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a book to rally around - that is, a basis on which we can mobilize and organize resistance to yet another incalculably bloody war of aggression by the predatory military-industrial-financial elite that runs this country, and is running it into the abyss. The 9 year myth of bin Laden being alive served the war hawks who wanted to give us a reason to stay in Afghanistan and to perpetuate Muslim bashing. Some people seek an evil symbol to hate and justify aggression and retaliation. Griffin has placed a strong weapon of truth in our hands with which to stop the brutal war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let's use it!
I connected with a politically conservative friend of mine that day that was no supporter of Obama and asked him about his reaction to the news. He said, “You may be correct that the information was a government fabrication, but I have to believe in my government”. The last part of that statement was very telling, as it typifies why many Americans, instead of asking the hard questions, go into denial and cling to false myths to support their emotional peace of mind. Faith can be a very dangerous mindset that distracts us from empowering truths. I believe it is the same reason why many Americans create an impermeable emotional block and refuse to accept, based on all the clear information that 9/11 was an inside job motivated by greed for oil and many other motives that have enriched the stakeholders. We want to feel safe and loyal to our government.
The following is one poignant review of a well researched and scholarly book on the subject. OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a crucially important and timely examination of the whole range of evidence bearing on the question, is Osama bin Laden still alive? The importance of this question for the present comes from the fact that the United States Obama is escalating its offensive in Afghanistan and expanding the war into Pakistan, and has claimed that the "hunt for bin Laden" is one of its principal motivations for doing so. Either explicitly or implicitly, the US government and major media outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post continue to assert that bin Laden is alive, hiding in the tribal territories on the "AfPak" border, posing an undiminished threat to US security.
In his gripping new book, Griffin strikes at the root of this pretext for war by closely examining all the evidence that has come out since September 11, 2001, either indicating that bin Laden is still alive or that he is in fact dead. His conclusion is that bin Laden is certainly dead, and that in all likelihood he died in very late 2001. Griffin shows that many US experts in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency came to this very same conclusion long ago, but their views, which do not support the continuation of what President Obama, borrowing the term from Dick Cheney, calls "the long war," have received very little media attention. Were they to do so, one of the main props for the war regime would be undermined.
In Chapter 1, "Evidence that Osama bin Laden is Dead", Griffin surveys in detail the many different indications published in the major media in late 2001 and early 2002 that bin Laden had been very ill and had died. These included a December, 2001 video in which he appeared to be at death's door (as admitted by a Bush administration spokesperson), analyses by medical experts of the grave state of his health, the sudden and total cessation in December, 2001 of any surveillance intercepts of communications from him, and even reports of his funeral. In this early period, various high-level officials in the US and Pakistani governments, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President Pervez Musharraf, speculated that he was dead. By mid-2002 many experts had concluded that he was dead, including FBI counterterrorism official Dale Watson, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, and Israeli intelligence officials. As a result the CIA closed down the bin Laden unit in 2002. The conviction that he died in 2001 is held today by former intelligence operatives Robert Baer and Angelo Codevilla.
In Chapter 2, "Two Fake bin Laden Videos in 2001?", Griffin shows that two videos which purportedly showed bin Laden taking credit for the attacks of 9/11 and thus established his guilt for them, were not only very conveniently timed for the Bush and Blair administrations' legislative and military agendas, but also were highly suspect for other reasons. One of them was never actually released, but simply claimed by the Blair government. The other showed a bin Laden who did not physically resemble the genuine bin Laden of earlier videos, in which he in fact denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Griffin presents strong arguments that claimed videos were faked, suggests likely motivations behind such a risky undertaking, and cites the opinions of experts (including the FBI) who came to this conclusion long ago.
In Chapter 3, "Purported bin Laden Messages After 2001", Griffin argues that if fake bin Laden videos were produced in this early period, when he was probably still alive, then there is even stronger reason to be suspicious of "bin Laden videos" or other claimed "messages" that were released later, after all communications intercepts from him had ceased and many experts had concluded that he was dead. Yet, in subsequent years, a long series of such dubious "bin Laden messages" were released. Griffin presents an exhaustive survey of 19 of these, from an "email message" of March, 2002 to the "bin Laden audiotape" of January 14, 2009. For each and every one, Griffin identifies key indications of fakery or strong reasons to be suspicious of its authenticity. In the course of the discussion of the messages, he establishes that the technical capability to fabricate fake messages of the different types already existed.
In Chapter 4, Griffin turns to the important question "Who Might Have Been Motivated To Fabricate Messages?" He shows that the US military in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 employed a psychological operations unit to produce bogus evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, as a pretext for the invasion. The psyops unit produced a "letter" from a Jordanian in Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, that was then "intercepted", purportedly enroute to Al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan. The psyop was advanced after the invasion by the New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins, who wrote front-page stories presenting the "evidence" as genuine. Journalists at other organizations, including Newsweek magazine and The Telegraph of London, however, thought it highly likely at the time that the letter was bogus. Griffin concludes that the target of the psychological operation was the US public. He asks, could something very similar have been going on with the "bin Laden messages"? Does the US government desire to expand its war operations anywhere, say into the precise places it claims bin Laden is still living in? Based on the evidence Griffin presents, there is no reason to assume that comparable psyops would not be utilized to achieve this goal.
In Chapter 5, "The Convenient Timing of Many of the Messages", Griffin shows that another reason to suspect the in-authenticity of the "bin Laden messages" is that they frequently were released at key moments when they would benefit the Bush administration in the pursuit of particular objectives. In other words, the "messages" were almost always objectively detrimental to the enemies of the US, and beneficial to the Bush administration or the Blair government. Griffin lists 11 specific instances of this unusual characteristic of the "messages."
OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a book to rally around - that is, a basis on which we can mobilize and organize resistance to yet another incalculably bloody war of aggression by the predatory military-industrial-financial elite that runs this country, and is running it into the abyss. The 9 year myth of bin Laden being alive served the war hawks who wanted to give us a reason to stay in Afghanistan and to perpetuate Muslim bashing. Some people seek an evil symbol to hate and justify aggression and retaliation. Griffin has placed a strong weapon of truth in our hands with which to stop the brutal war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let's use it!
U.S. Corporations+Fascism=cozy bed fellows
Corporations do not see Fascism as an end game or some ideological principle, but rather as a convenient and profitable delivery system in order to bolster profits for their stockholders. Corporations are not in business to create jobs, become the altruistic benefactor of society, care for the working class, but only to make money for their investors by any means that they can legally achieve, and in some cases illegally without regard to the health and safety of the consumer or the environment. In the following article I will detail egregious examples of how many of our major corporations have partnered up with dictators, despots, and people who we deem to be a threat to our nation.
There has been a continuing trend, since the Reagan years for all branches of government to favor the corporation and financial sectors over the benefits of the purchasing public. The latest decision by a Supreme Court that has been packed by corporate shills such as Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and sometimes Kennedy, who ruled that corporations had the equivalent of “Personhood”, was not the intention of the Founding Fathers, nor does this decision inure to the benefit of an open and working democracy. We are seeing corporate favoritism in deference to the benefits of the mass electorate when it comes to consumer protections, stewardship of the environment, and tax payer paid corporate socialism when corporations fail, but free market capitalism when they make money.
My objective is not to malign corporations as a final objective, but rather to bring to the attention of the public that a corporation is like a venomous snake or killer shark that should be watched closely and regulated with reasonable boundaries so that it causes little harm to the public. Corporations should not be allowed to merge and become so big that their financial failure would cause a major disaster to our economy. Snakes, sharks, and corporations perform a useful purpose in society and should not be exterminated, but reasonably contained and regulated.
Corporations, bankers, and even labor unions form favored alliances that do not always benefit the public, with government that we characterize as “Crony Capitalism”. Wars, defense networks, and even the welfare state create a means to transfer tax payer dollars, not necessarily at will, but many times through fear and threats into hands of the corporate denizens. The populace many times will cry out in frustrated reaction to government legislation by demonizing politicians with the word Socialist, Marxist, Communist, or even Fascist many times not really understanding the true definition of the concept or ideology. As with all government stakeholder projects, they were not done by the government, they were done by private companies with funding from the government. This is one crucial difference between fascist economies and socialist economies. In a fascist economy public taxation is used to funnel money to private corporations through the government, whereas in a socialist economy like that of the Soviet Union there is no taxation and industry itself is run by the government for profit.
Corporations have no or little commitment to ideology, patriotism, nationalism, or humanity; they move their capital, hire and fire workers in any country that can maximize their bottom line. As a public relations gesture in order to make their products, services, or branding appear positive and attractive, they will emphasize a few gratuitous positive gestures as a means to gain increased market share.
Some of the primary and more famous American companies and individuals that were involved with the Fascist regimes of Europe are: William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father), Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Ford, ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush, National City Bank, Coca-Cola, and General Electric.
I.G. Farben was critical in the development of the German economy and war machine leading up to WWII. During this time I.G. Farben's international holdings along with its international business contracts with companies like Standard Oil, DuPont, Alcoa, and Dow Chemical were crucial in supplying the Nazi regime with the materials needed for war, as well as financial support.
Ford and GM supplied European Fascists with trucks and equipment, as well as investing money in I.G. Farben plants. Standard Oil supplied the fascists with fuel. US Steel and Alcoa supplied them with critically needed metals. American banks gave them billions of dollars worth of loans. American banks and businesses continued to support the Fascist regimes of Europe legally up until the day Germany declared war on America and the activities were stopped under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Despite this, some companies and individuals still maintained a business relationship with the Third Reich.
In Germany, for example, General Motors and Ford became an integral part of the Nazi war efforts. GM's plants in Germany built thousands of bomber and jet fighter propulsion systems for the Luftwaffe at the same time that its American plants produced aircraft engines for the U.S. Army Air Corps....
Ford was also active in Nazi Germany's prewar preparations. In 1938, for instance, it opened a truck assembly plant in Berlin whose "real purpose," according to U.S. Army Intelligence, was producing "troop transport-type" vehicles for the Wehrmacht. That year Ford's chief executive received the Nazi German Eagle (first class)....
After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing... Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne...
Due to their multinational dominance of motor vehicle production, GM and Ford became principal suppliers for the forces of fascism as well as for the forces of democracy. It may, of course, be argued that participating in both sides of an international conflict, like the common corporate practice of investing in both political parties before an election, is an appropriate corporate activity. Had the Nazis won, General Motors and Ford would have appeared impeccably Nazi; as Hitler lost, these companies were able to re-emerge impeccably American. In either case, the viability of these corporations and the interests of their respective stockholders would have been preserved.
Perhaps one of the most egregious contributors to the Nazi cause was IBM under the direction of Thomas J. Watson. IBM knowingly helped to setup Nazi census databases through the use of data sorting machines that enabled the Nazis to carry out the Holocaust in a way that they would not have otherwise been able to. Point blank, IBM increased the size and scope of the Holocaust, and did it for profit." Thomas Watson was awarded a medal by Adolph Hitler for his role in assisting in the Nazi regime, and Watson expressed, "the necessity of extending a sympathetic understanding to the German people, and their leader Adolph Hitler." He also expressed, "the highest esteem for Hitler, his country, and his people."
After WWII, corporations such as United Fruit, ITT, BP, Chevron, DuPont, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bechtel, Shell, and many others have been complicit in over throwing democratically elected governments in other countries in order to continue their oppression, rape the land of natural resources, and keep the indigenous populations in slaved in sub-standard wage conditions.
It is easy to put all the blame for a lack of ethical and moral behavior just on the corporations who support Fascist policies, but we as ordinary citizens are also complicit in being part of Fascist policies. We can mostly agree that the corporation is about profit, not compassion, fairness, humanity, or stewardship of the environment. When we own stock in these corporations, supply these companies, work for banks that lend to these companies, seek employment with these companies, or buy their products or services we are culpable participants in furthering Fascism. When we vote, we need to be cognizant of politicians who are owned by Big Business and avoid them. One of the most critical decisions one can make as a voter is who will or will not appoint judges that are owned by corporations. We as ordinary citizens need to set a benchmark for ethical behavior before we jump to just accuse the “Fat Cats” and politicians.
There has been a continuing trend, since the Reagan years for all branches of government to favor the corporation and financial sectors over the benefits of the purchasing public. The latest decision by a Supreme Court that has been packed by corporate shills such as Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and sometimes Kennedy, who ruled that corporations had the equivalent of “Personhood”, was not the intention of the Founding Fathers, nor does this decision inure to the benefit of an open and working democracy. We are seeing corporate favoritism in deference to the benefits of the mass electorate when it comes to consumer protections, stewardship of the environment, and tax payer paid corporate socialism when corporations fail, but free market capitalism when they make money.
My objective is not to malign corporations as a final objective, but rather to bring to the attention of the public that a corporation is like a venomous snake or killer shark that should be watched closely and regulated with reasonable boundaries so that it causes little harm to the public. Corporations should not be allowed to merge and become so big that their financial failure would cause a major disaster to our economy. Snakes, sharks, and corporations perform a useful purpose in society and should not be exterminated, but reasonably contained and regulated.
Corporations, bankers, and even labor unions form favored alliances that do not always benefit the public, with government that we characterize as “Crony Capitalism”. Wars, defense networks, and even the welfare state create a means to transfer tax payer dollars, not necessarily at will, but many times through fear and threats into hands of the corporate denizens. The populace many times will cry out in frustrated reaction to government legislation by demonizing politicians with the word Socialist, Marxist, Communist, or even Fascist many times not really understanding the true definition of the concept or ideology. As with all government stakeholder projects, they were not done by the government, they were done by private companies with funding from the government. This is one crucial difference between fascist economies and socialist economies. In a fascist economy public taxation is used to funnel money to private corporations through the government, whereas in a socialist economy like that of the Soviet Union there is no taxation and industry itself is run by the government for profit.
Corporations have no or little commitment to ideology, patriotism, nationalism, or humanity; they move their capital, hire and fire workers in any country that can maximize their bottom line. As a public relations gesture in order to make their products, services, or branding appear positive and attractive, they will emphasize a few gratuitous positive gestures as a means to gain increased market share.
Some of the primary and more famous American companies and individuals that were involved with the Fascist regimes of Europe are: William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy (JFK's father), Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Ford, ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush, National City Bank, Coca-Cola, and General Electric.
I.G. Farben was critical in the development of the German economy and war machine leading up to WWII. During this time I.G. Farben's international holdings along with its international business contracts with companies like Standard Oil, DuPont, Alcoa, and Dow Chemical were crucial in supplying the Nazi regime with the materials needed for war, as well as financial support.
Ford and GM supplied European Fascists with trucks and equipment, as well as investing money in I.G. Farben plants. Standard Oil supplied the fascists with fuel. US Steel and Alcoa supplied them with critically needed metals. American banks gave them billions of dollars worth of loans. American banks and businesses continued to support the Fascist regimes of Europe legally up until the day Germany declared war on America and the activities were stopped under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Despite this, some companies and individuals still maintained a business relationship with the Third Reich.
In Germany, for example, General Motors and Ford became an integral part of the Nazi war efforts. GM's plants in Germany built thousands of bomber and jet fighter propulsion systems for the Luftwaffe at the same time that its American plants produced aircraft engines for the U.S. Army Air Corps....
Ford was also active in Nazi Germany's prewar preparations. In 1938, for instance, it opened a truck assembly plant in Berlin whose "real purpose," according to U.S. Army Intelligence, was producing "troop transport-type" vehicles for the Wehrmacht. That year Ford's chief executive received the Nazi German Eagle (first class)....
After the cessation of hostilities, GM and Ford demanded reparations from the U.S. Government for wartime damages sustained by their Axis facilities as a result of Allied bombing... Ford received a little less than $1 million, primarily as a result of damages sustained by its military truck complex at Cologne...
Due to their multinational dominance of motor vehicle production, GM and Ford became principal suppliers for the forces of fascism as well as for the forces of democracy. It may, of course, be argued that participating in both sides of an international conflict, like the common corporate practice of investing in both political parties before an election, is an appropriate corporate activity. Had the Nazis won, General Motors and Ford would have appeared impeccably Nazi; as Hitler lost, these companies were able to re-emerge impeccably American. In either case, the viability of these corporations and the interests of their respective stockholders would have been preserved.
Perhaps one of the most egregious contributors to the Nazi cause was IBM under the direction of Thomas J. Watson. IBM knowingly helped to setup Nazi census databases through the use of data sorting machines that enabled the Nazis to carry out the Holocaust in a way that they would not have otherwise been able to. Point blank, IBM increased the size and scope of the Holocaust, and did it for profit." Thomas Watson was awarded a medal by Adolph Hitler for his role in assisting in the Nazi regime, and Watson expressed, "the necessity of extending a sympathetic understanding to the German people, and their leader Adolph Hitler." He also expressed, "the highest esteem for Hitler, his country, and his people."
After WWII, corporations such as United Fruit, ITT, BP, Chevron, DuPont, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bechtel, Shell, and many others have been complicit in over throwing democratically elected governments in other countries in order to continue their oppression, rape the land of natural resources, and keep the indigenous populations in slaved in sub-standard wage conditions.
It is easy to put all the blame for a lack of ethical and moral behavior just on the corporations who support Fascist policies, but we as ordinary citizens are also complicit in being part of Fascist policies. We can mostly agree that the corporation is about profit, not compassion, fairness, humanity, or stewardship of the environment. When we own stock in these corporations, supply these companies, work for banks that lend to these companies, seek employment with these companies, or buy their products or services we are culpable participants in furthering Fascism. When we vote, we need to be cognizant of politicians who are owned by Big Business and avoid them. One of the most critical decisions one can make as a voter is who will or will not appoint judges that are owned by corporations. We as ordinary citizens need to set a benchmark for ethical behavior before we jump to just accuse the “Fat Cats” and politicians.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
ACLU works to represent the rights of Californians
How can supporting human rights, individual rights, the 1st and 4th Amendments, and lobbying to outlaw costly capital punishment be Socialistic, Communistic, or anti-American? Some folks refer to the ACLU as though it were a pariah that that was against everything that just, humane, and supported by our Constitution. To the contrary the ACLU has been a staunch advocate for justice, equality, and constitutional adherence.
The ACLU publishes a seasonal newsletter that outlines many of their key projects. The following are issues that appeared in the “Spring 2011” newsletter that are at the forefront of some present day ACLU advocacy:
The ACLU has been a fervent advocate for abolishing California’s costly, inhumane, unjust, and ineffective death penalty. Our state faces a $20 billion plus budget shortfall; ending capital punishment is estimated to save the state approximately $1 billion over 5 years. By converting California’s 710 death sentences to permanent imprisonment, we would insure that each of those death row prisoners would remain in prison with absolutely no possibility of parole, and would be accountable to victim’s families through work and restitution to them.
In a quest to purchase drugs for lethal injections, the ACLU uncovered that the State of California had to go to the UK to find a source for 521 grams of lethal injection drugs. The California Department of Corrections paid a total of $36,415 for these imported drugs that were not available in the U.S. Included in the purchase price was $20,000 in fees, with the explanation of $10,000 in fees blacked out. Last year the CDCR paid only $1,210 for injection drugs purchased in the U.S.
States with the death penalty actually have a higher murder rate; capital punishment has not proven to be a murder deterrent. When do we ever hear of an affluent person being put on death row? Very seldom as capital punishment falls primarily on the poor, mentally handicapped, people color, and those who can ill afford expensive private legal representation. O J Simpson is the “poster boy” that proves that expensive legal advice coupled with sloppy state prosecution is the perfect equation for getting away with murder. ACLU staff attorneys have filed Freedom of Information Act requests for more records from the FDA and Customs and Border Protection to trace exactly where the drugs came from and the highly irregular process used to obtain them. The question begs what other secretive, deceptive, and irregular behavior are state officials employing?
The Tehama-Trinity Chapter of the ACLU and The North State Tea Party Alliance teamed up to protect First Amendment rights. The city of Redding attempted to impose new restrictions on when, where, and how residents may hand out leaflets in front of the public library. The unholy alliance of the “Tea Party” and the ACLU proved successful, with the help of a Tea Party activist Tim Pappas, who is also Shasta’s public defender. Recounted Yost the ACLU representative, “We explained our belief that speech is for everyone, regardless of whether one agrees with their point of view. Everyone listened with interest and respect. There seemed to be lots of agreement”.
“California has some of the best laws in the country to protect students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT), or who are perceived to be. The unfortunate reality is that anti-LGBT harassment is still far too widespread. Schools don’t always have tools or knowledge to adequately protect students from bullying, harassment, and discrimination”.
A tragic case in point is Seth Walsh who was a sweet intelligent, 13 year old boy, who loved his family and was also gay. He endured years of bullying, harassment, and verbal abuse in school. Last September as a result of desperation he hanged himself from a tree in his family’s backyard. After nine days on life support he died. After Seth’s death his family contacted the ACLU to perform an investigation of the local school and board of education. The school was urged to take immediate proactive action to remedy the destructive environment of LGBT harassment. In a national survey, nine out of ten LGBT students reported being harassed at school. According to the most recent California Healthy Kids Survey, 12 percent of seventh graders and 10 percent of ninth graders reported being harassed based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation.
The ACLU is co-sponsoring a new bill in the California Legislature (Seth’s Law) which would strengthen existing state laws by requiring every school district to “Create strong and clear anti-harassment programs, if they don’t have them already”. Passing laws is a positive first step, but without programs to reculturate fearful and ignorant people, human rights progress will not be meaningful.
The ACLU recognizes that with more advancement in internet technology, that users of these technologies become mindful of the inherent risks to personal privacy. In addition, the ACLU also is a strong public advocate for First Amendment rights in the alternative media as well as internet blogs and social networks such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook.
The ACLU recommends the following ways to upgrade our much needed privacy protections:
• Holds a conversation among industry leaders, the public, and speech and privacy advocates to reinforce the idea that the Internet is a necessary and powerful platform for free speech that benefits all Californians.
• Ensure that companies doing business in California comply with laws requiring them to inform customers about sharing their personal information with other companies.
The ACLU is supporting SB 602, the Reader Privacy Act, in order to safeguard reader privacy in the digital age. This law would help insure that the government and third parties cannot access our private digital reading records without proper justification.
California has the dubious honor of being the world’s leader when it comes to locking up its residents. The state’s budget for corrections now outpaces university spending. California’s criminal justice system, based on independent studies, has proven to be largely ineffective, unfair, and racially discriminatory. In addition, locking people up for non-violent crimes is way too costly and is a poor choice of human resources. Revenge and retribution are not civil or rational solutions to anti-societal behavior.
The ACLU makes the following recommendations to improve the criminal justice system:
• Stop sending non-violent offenders to prison. Tax payers could save millions of dollars by not incarcerating non-criminal drug users. Drug use should be seen as a misdemeanor, medical disability, not a felony.
• Emphasize rehabilitation. Transfer part of expensive incarceration costs to local jurisdictions for drug treatment programs and skills development.
• Ease the way for people with past criminal convictions to move forward and lead positive lives-to find jobs. People who are incarcerated typically are poor, hopeless, undereducated, and suffer emotional disabilities. Having the stigma of being a criminal only adds another unneeded burden of successful integration into society.
• Support efforts to provide services to all victims of crime, even those with felony convictions. This means that many crime victims are deprived of basic support services such as grief counseling or minimal financial or educational support.
• Issue guidelines to regulate police surveillance and intelligence gathering that targets individual or groups engaged in political or religious activities. This will help to reduce racial or religious profiling, or targeting political activists.
• Investigate and begin to remedy patterns of police misconduct in California. The attorney general has the authority to intervene in cases of police departments or officers engaging in misconduct, excessive force, or false arrests.
The ACLU has also set guidelines for immigrant rights. Procedures and guidelines would be set to ensure that racial and ethnic profiling, or excessive and prolonged detainment would be greatly reduced.
It is important that every Californian be they LGBT, an Internet user, or one voicing dissent that their constitutional, individual, and human rights be respected and upheld. Society prospers as a whole when every individual can be the best they can be without censorship, harassment, injustice, and discrimination. It is advocacy groups such as the ACLU that work for our collective behalf for those noble ends.
The ACLU publishes a seasonal newsletter that outlines many of their key projects. The following are issues that appeared in the “Spring 2011” newsletter that are at the forefront of some present day ACLU advocacy:
The ACLU has been a fervent advocate for abolishing California’s costly, inhumane, unjust, and ineffective death penalty. Our state faces a $20 billion plus budget shortfall; ending capital punishment is estimated to save the state approximately $1 billion over 5 years. By converting California’s 710 death sentences to permanent imprisonment, we would insure that each of those death row prisoners would remain in prison with absolutely no possibility of parole, and would be accountable to victim’s families through work and restitution to them.
In a quest to purchase drugs for lethal injections, the ACLU uncovered that the State of California had to go to the UK to find a source for 521 grams of lethal injection drugs. The California Department of Corrections paid a total of $36,415 for these imported drugs that were not available in the U.S. Included in the purchase price was $20,000 in fees, with the explanation of $10,000 in fees blacked out. Last year the CDCR paid only $1,210 for injection drugs purchased in the U.S.
States with the death penalty actually have a higher murder rate; capital punishment has not proven to be a murder deterrent. When do we ever hear of an affluent person being put on death row? Very seldom as capital punishment falls primarily on the poor, mentally handicapped, people color, and those who can ill afford expensive private legal representation. O J Simpson is the “poster boy” that proves that expensive legal advice coupled with sloppy state prosecution is the perfect equation for getting away with murder. ACLU staff attorneys have filed Freedom of Information Act requests for more records from the FDA and Customs and Border Protection to trace exactly where the drugs came from and the highly irregular process used to obtain them. The question begs what other secretive, deceptive, and irregular behavior are state officials employing?
The Tehama-Trinity Chapter of the ACLU and The North State Tea Party Alliance teamed up to protect First Amendment rights. The city of Redding attempted to impose new restrictions on when, where, and how residents may hand out leaflets in front of the public library. The unholy alliance of the “Tea Party” and the ACLU proved successful, with the help of a Tea Party activist Tim Pappas, who is also Shasta’s public defender. Recounted Yost the ACLU representative, “We explained our belief that speech is for everyone, regardless of whether one agrees with their point of view. Everyone listened with interest and respect. There seemed to be lots of agreement”.
“California has some of the best laws in the country to protect students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT), or who are perceived to be. The unfortunate reality is that anti-LGBT harassment is still far too widespread. Schools don’t always have tools or knowledge to adequately protect students from bullying, harassment, and discrimination”.
A tragic case in point is Seth Walsh who was a sweet intelligent, 13 year old boy, who loved his family and was also gay. He endured years of bullying, harassment, and verbal abuse in school. Last September as a result of desperation he hanged himself from a tree in his family’s backyard. After nine days on life support he died. After Seth’s death his family contacted the ACLU to perform an investigation of the local school and board of education. The school was urged to take immediate proactive action to remedy the destructive environment of LGBT harassment. In a national survey, nine out of ten LGBT students reported being harassed at school. According to the most recent California Healthy Kids Survey, 12 percent of seventh graders and 10 percent of ninth graders reported being harassed based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation.
The ACLU is co-sponsoring a new bill in the California Legislature (Seth’s Law) which would strengthen existing state laws by requiring every school district to “Create strong and clear anti-harassment programs, if they don’t have them already”. Passing laws is a positive first step, but without programs to reculturate fearful and ignorant people, human rights progress will not be meaningful.
The ACLU recognizes that with more advancement in internet technology, that users of these technologies become mindful of the inherent risks to personal privacy. In addition, the ACLU also is a strong public advocate for First Amendment rights in the alternative media as well as internet blogs and social networks such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook.
The ACLU recommends the following ways to upgrade our much needed privacy protections:
• Holds a conversation among industry leaders, the public, and speech and privacy advocates to reinforce the idea that the Internet is a necessary and powerful platform for free speech that benefits all Californians.
• Ensure that companies doing business in California comply with laws requiring them to inform customers about sharing their personal information with other companies.
The ACLU is supporting SB 602, the Reader Privacy Act, in order to safeguard reader privacy in the digital age. This law would help insure that the government and third parties cannot access our private digital reading records without proper justification.
California has the dubious honor of being the world’s leader when it comes to locking up its residents. The state’s budget for corrections now outpaces university spending. California’s criminal justice system, based on independent studies, has proven to be largely ineffective, unfair, and racially discriminatory. In addition, locking people up for non-violent crimes is way too costly and is a poor choice of human resources. Revenge and retribution are not civil or rational solutions to anti-societal behavior.
The ACLU makes the following recommendations to improve the criminal justice system:
• Stop sending non-violent offenders to prison. Tax payers could save millions of dollars by not incarcerating non-criminal drug users. Drug use should be seen as a misdemeanor, medical disability, not a felony.
• Emphasize rehabilitation. Transfer part of expensive incarceration costs to local jurisdictions for drug treatment programs and skills development.
• Ease the way for people with past criminal convictions to move forward and lead positive lives-to find jobs. People who are incarcerated typically are poor, hopeless, undereducated, and suffer emotional disabilities. Having the stigma of being a criminal only adds another unneeded burden of successful integration into society.
• Support efforts to provide services to all victims of crime, even those with felony convictions. This means that many crime victims are deprived of basic support services such as grief counseling or minimal financial or educational support.
• Issue guidelines to regulate police surveillance and intelligence gathering that targets individual or groups engaged in political or religious activities. This will help to reduce racial or religious profiling, or targeting political activists.
• Investigate and begin to remedy patterns of police misconduct in California. The attorney general has the authority to intervene in cases of police departments or officers engaging in misconduct, excessive force, or false arrests.
The ACLU has also set guidelines for immigrant rights. Procedures and guidelines would be set to ensure that racial and ethnic profiling, or excessive and prolonged detainment would be greatly reduced.
It is important that every Californian be they LGBT, an Internet user, or one voicing dissent that their constitutional, individual, and human rights be respected and upheld. Society prospers as a whole when every individual can be the best they can be without censorship, harassment, injustice, and discrimination. It is advocacy groups such as the ACLU that work for our collective behalf for those noble ends.
Poverty: Misconceptions and Reality
There are misconceptions that abound that poverty is primarily the fault of the impoverished. Using a simplistic linear mindset one may sometimes be justified in drawing this myopic observation about the poor. There are different factors that contribute to poverty. The challenge on the table is how do we break the chain of generational poverty, and mitigate the maladies of those in situational poverty.
Several months ago my partner and I were invited to be members of the “Safety Net Summit Planning” board of Solano County. This board is overseen by the First 5 Solano Children’s and Family Commission (FFFC). April 27th we attended a symposium in Fairfield sponsored by United Way in concert with FFFC that was attended by many people from Solano County government who in some way affect positively or negatively the lot of the impoverished. The FFFC is a not for profit agency primarily funded by a $6 million dollar yearly grant from United Way. The mission of FFFC, headed up by Christina Arrostuto, is to reduce poverty in Solano County, by 50% in ten years primarily amongst families with children.
The keynote speaker, Dr. Donna Beegle, Phd, told a very inspiring story about how she ascended from a family of abject poverty. She shared with us her personal feelings about what being poor means and how one’s self esteem and personal perception in the community is perceived..Dr. Beegle was one of six children, who’s mother and grandmother was an itinerant cotton picker and who’s father, who was also unskilled scraped by doing odd jobs. Her brothers all suffered from learning disabilities, substance abuse addictions, and a history of incarceration At the age of 15, Dr. Beegle was a high school dropout, pregnant with her first child, without marketable skills who had to survive on $400 a month in welfare and food stamps. Skipping ahead in this story she worked to receive her GED, be accepted to the University of Portland, and ultimately receiving her doctorate in psychology. Dr. Beegle explained the differences in generational and situational poverty. Dr. Beegle is primarily the rare exception to upward mobility than the norm.
Poverty is a complex issue where factors of physical, emotional, environmental, and perceptions of one’s power, or lack thereof perpetuates, hopelessness and desperation. We live in an affluent developed nation where one in eight people nationally live below the poverty level. The poor have very few advocates relative to the wealthy and powerful. Most laws do not promote the interests of the poor. Someone who is poor in our materialistic narcissistic society is seen typically in the abstract, as an inanimate drag on society, who is an uncomfortable reminder that we are all our brothers’ keeper. We sometimes negatively stereotype the poor as a way of assuaging our guilt about having to take more responsibility for solving the problem of poverty.
Poverty does not only effect the poor, but more importantly society in general. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, and more specifically the Head Start program was successful in reducing child poverty by 23%. In the next administration a societal malaise seemed to affect the electorate any many of these supportive anti-poverty programs were reduced or eliminated, but we had the money for B-52 bombers and thousands of tons of bombs that killed 2 million innocent Cambodian civilians.
Modern European nations are more humanistic and responsible in their views of dealing with poverty. Many people who are in poverty can be advanced out of this suffocating state of affairs by external forces in society if there is a genuine national will and priority to improve the lot of the poor.
My understanding is that generational poverty is where generations of families pass on an acculturated mindset that being impoverished is their prescribed destiny. Many people who are in generational poverty have distinct characteristics that mark them as outcasts in the general populace. For example their external dress, lack of etiquette, poor language skills, health challenges, eating habits, hopelessness, lack of financial skills, and little clear vision of exiting out of their predicament. There is a definite poverty mentality that needs to be broken with the help of external support from society. Many of us who own homes, have money set aside, investments, adequate food, transportation, and a clear plan for our lives cannot fully comprehend what it means to have to sleep in a car, or bounce from relative to friend, or not be able to afford a Costco card or enough money to buy at reduced prices by purchasing in bulk. Try having to move around the Bay Area without a car or adequate money for public transportation? If you have children, envision not having medical insurance and having to wait countless hours in clinic waiting rooms. Think about all the money you have to waste on check cashing services, money order costs, and shopping in local convenience stores because you do not have transportation to the local super market or discount store. Would your child want to attend school regularly, dressed in ragged dirty clothing, and be ostracized by their classmates for being less than? How do you feel when you are in the company of wealthy people, even though you are reasonably comfortable; well a poor persons feels the same way in the company of a working person who has steady financial health?
Out of desperation many of the generational poor self medicate their emotional pain with illicit drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. As a society do we take a proactive role to try to mitigate these diseases that unfortunately are viewed as crimes? The US has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. The poor have a much greater chance of being incarcerated than those that are affluent. Many of the people in prison are there as a result of system that deals with drug abuse in a punitive way instead of first using a medical solution. The financial resources used for predominately punitive reasons could be better used to work proactively with many of the poor, who out of hopelessness and desperation become substance abusers.
During economic recessions and with more jobs being outsourced, more and more people are falling into situational poverty. Situational poverty can be caused by being under employed and not being eligible for any or little public assistance. Those without adequate medical insurance, who are unable to work and have no other safety net fall into situational poverty.
Those in continual or prolonged situational poverty have a much greater chance of continuing in poverty because they become conditioned to have no hope. Ironically those poor who come from other countries, and most specifically third world nations perceive a myth about the US that our streets are paved with gold; ergo they have tremendous hope and optimism of exiting out of poverty. Unfortunately those US nationals have lost most hope.
The following is the most recent data on poverty in Solano County:
• The poverty threshold level is $18,310 for a family of four
• High school graduation rate was 75% in 2008-9; in CA it was 79%.
• 34% could not afford adequate food.
• 18% of families with children under 18 live in poverty.
• 21% of children 0-5 were living in poverty (many do not live in families)
• Unemployment is 12% (probably a low figure).
• Approximately 4,000 foreclosures
There are stories of families with children losing the homes in foreclosure, one or both parents lose their jobs, they have to sleep in their car or a cheap one room motel, the children are ostracized in school for being homeless, do not have a comfortable place to do their homework, and have to put their few belongings into mini-storage.
There is something very wrong in a population that sees its way clear to spend over a trillion dollars a year on defense, give tax cuts to the top 1% who many times will invest their money abroad for a higher return, subsidize major corporations, oil and agribusiness. Corporate profits were up 81% over the previous year, the income divide is it at its greatest since the Great Depression. Poverty is a major cost not just to those impoverished, but a loss/cost of over $500 billion per year to our nation as a whole. With all these misallocated resources in this country, how in good conscience can we blame poverty on the lot of the poor?
Several months ago my partner and I were invited to be members of the “Safety Net Summit Planning” board of Solano County. This board is overseen by the First 5 Solano Children’s and Family Commission (FFFC). April 27th we attended a symposium in Fairfield sponsored by United Way in concert with FFFC that was attended by many people from Solano County government who in some way affect positively or negatively the lot of the impoverished. The FFFC is a not for profit agency primarily funded by a $6 million dollar yearly grant from United Way. The mission of FFFC, headed up by Christina Arrostuto, is to reduce poverty in Solano County, by 50% in ten years primarily amongst families with children.
The keynote speaker, Dr. Donna Beegle, Phd, told a very inspiring story about how she ascended from a family of abject poverty. She shared with us her personal feelings about what being poor means and how one’s self esteem and personal perception in the community is perceived..Dr. Beegle was one of six children, who’s mother and grandmother was an itinerant cotton picker and who’s father, who was also unskilled scraped by doing odd jobs. Her brothers all suffered from learning disabilities, substance abuse addictions, and a history of incarceration At the age of 15, Dr. Beegle was a high school dropout, pregnant with her first child, without marketable skills who had to survive on $400 a month in welfare and food stamps. Skipping ahead in this story she worked to receive her GED, be accepted to the University of Portland, and ultimately receiving her doctorate in psychology. Dr. Beegle explained the differences in generational and situational poverty. Dr. Beegle is primarily the rare exception to upward mobility than the norm.
Poverty is a complex issue where factors of physical, emotional, environmental, and perceptions of one’s power, or lack thereof perpetuates, hopelessness and desperation. We live in an affluent developed nation where one in eight people nationally live below the poverty level. The poor have very few advocates relative to the wealthy and powerful. Most laws do not promote the interests of the poor. Someone who is poor in our materialistic narcissistic society is seen typically in the abstract, as an inanimate drag on society, who is an uncomfortable reminder that we are all our brothers’ keeper. We sometimes negatively stereotype the poor as a way of assuaging our guilt about having to take more responsibility for solving the problem of poverty.
Poverty does not only effect the poor, but more importantly society in general. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, and more specifically the Head Start program was successful in reducing child poverty by 23%. In the next administration a societal malaise seemed to affect the electorate any many of these supportive anti-poverty programs were reduced or eliminated, but we had the money for B-52 bombers and thousands of tons of bombs that killed 2 million innocent Cambodian civilians.
Modern European nations are more humanistic and responsible in their views of dealing with poverty. Many people who are in poverty can be advanced out of this suffocating state of affairs by external forces in society if there is a genuine national will and priority to improve the lot of the poor.
My understanding is that generational poverty is where generations of families pass on an acculturated mindset that being impoverished is their prescribed destiny. Many people who are in generational poverty have distinct characteristics that mark them as outcasts in the general populace. For example their external dress, lack of etiquette, poor language skills, health challenges, eating habits, hopelessness, lack of financial skills, and little clear vision of exiting out of their predicament. There is a definite poverty mentality that needs to be broken with the help of external support from society. Many of us who own homes, have money set aside, investments, adequate food, transportation, and a clear plan for our lives cannot fully comprehend what it means to have to sleep in a car, or bounce from relative to friend, or not be able to afford a Costco card or enough money to buy at reduced prices by purchasing in bulk. Try having to move around the Bay Area without a car or adequate money for public transportation? If you have children, envision not having medical insurance and having to wait countless hours in clinic waiting rooms. Think about all the money you have to waste on check cashing services, money order costs, and shopping in local convenience stores because you do not have transportation to the local super market or discount store. Would your child want to attend school regularly, dressed in ragged dirty clothing, and be ostracized by their classmates for being less than? How do you feel when you are in the company of wealthy people, even though you are reasonably comfortable; well a poor persons feels the same way in the company of a working person who has steady financial health?
Out of desperation many of the generational poor self medicate their emotional pain with illicit drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. As a society do we take a proactive role to try to mitigate these diseases that unfortunately are viewed as crimes? The US has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. The poor have a much greater chance of being incarcerated than those that are affluent. Many of the people in prison are there as a result of system that deals with drug abuse in a punitive way instead of first using a medical solution. The financial resources used for predominately punitive reasons could be better used to work proactively with many of the poor, who out of hopelessness and desperation become substance abusers.
During economic recessions and with more jobs being outsourced, more and more people are falling into situational poverty. Situational poverty can be caused by being under employed and not being eligible for any or little public assistance. Those without adequate medical insurance, who are unable to work and have no other safety net fall into situational poverty.
Those in continual or prolonged situational poverty have a much greater chance of continuing in poverty because they become conditioned to have no hope. Ironically those poor who come from other countries, and most specifically third world nations perceive a myth about the US that our streets are paved with gold; ergo they have tremendous hope and optimism of exiting out of poverty. Unfortunately those US nationals have lost most hope.
The following is the most recent data on poverty in Solano County:
• The poverty threshold level is $18,310 for a family of four
• High school graduation rate was 75% in 2008-9; in CA it was 79%.
• 34% could not afford adequate food.
• 18% of families with children under 18 live in poverty.
• 21% of children 0-5 were living in poverty (many do not live in families)
• Unemployment is 12% (probably a low figure).
• Approximately 4,000 foreclosures
There are stories of families with children losing the homes in foreclosure, one or both parents lose their jobs, they have to sleep in their car or a cheap one room motel, the children are ostracized in school for being homeless, do not have a comfortable place to do their homework, and have to put their few belongings into mini-storage.
There is something very wrong in a population that sees its way clear to spend over a trillion dollars a year on defense, give tax cuts to the top 1% who many times will invest their money abroad for a higher return, subsidize major corporations, oil and agribusiness. Corporate profits were up 81% over the previous year, the income divide is it at its greatest since the Great Depression. Poverty is a major cost not just to those impoverished, but a loss/cost of over $500 billion per year to our nation as a whole. With all these misallocated resources in this country, how in good conscience can we blame poverty on the lot of the poor?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)