Environmental Disaster is Real



 

 

A Recent "State of Nature" Report in the UK Finds...

About 60 percent of the UK wildlife is in decline with a possible 10 percent entering the Endangered List.  While the study has many knowledge gaps, the data is clearly on the side of environmentalists.  There is real danger in allowing remaining practices to continue, especially those by big business.

"According to the document, reasons for the decline are "many and varied" but include rising temperatures and habitat degradation." -BBC News

One of the big problems that face advocates for environmental protection is the misleading title of "global warming".  Is it easy to ignore the term (and therefore the facts) on any brisk morning.  It doesn't speak to the huge variety of problems we have in being better stewards of the planet.  The planet is a very large, complex, connected system.  The label of global warming just doesn't cut it. 

If There is a Problem That Proves the Stupidity of Humanity - This is It.
Watch the movie Austin Powers (remember this?) and you will find a hilarious bit where the hero is driving a steamroller very slowly towards a guard.  They keep telling him to get out of the way, but he stands in place yelling, "NOOOOOOO!".  At the moment we look very much like that guard.  Environmental disaster is real, but its dire nature is muted by the efforts of many large corporations bolstered by people who believe their anti-global warming propaganda.

Consider the Following:

• Why are there so few reports on the state of the environment that are made public and easy to understand?
• If the major objection is "we don't have enough data" then why is every effort made to defund environmental research by the US government?
• Environmental laws make it more expensive for businesses to operate, so much of the time they are ignored.
• Who enforces environmental protection laws in the Third World? 
• Why does a large majority of the scientific community agree that the state of the environment is worsening?

COMMUNICATE.  ORGANIZE.  PROTEST. 



Freedom of the Press

 

 

Freedom of the Press
It was revealed recently that the Justice Department has just stolen phone records and other information from the Associate Press.  Over 50 news agencies have protested and Attorney General Eric Holder properly handed responsibility over to a colleague because he was already interviewed for the case. 


Why Does This Matter?

It matters because it's a very public example of how the government can take away your rights any time they find it necessary.  Usually the government notifies the news agency before it does such things so that their can be some discussion on the matter.  For example, if the US government is looking for a particular item there is no need to take unrelated information if possible.  Reporters also have to try to protect their sources or risk the possibility of never having anyone give them a story again.  There's a lot of trust that must be built up through relationships and actions to protect those relationships. 

If the government takes what it wants, whenever it wants then they can violate your privacy whenever they please.  People want to rant about the Obama Administration not following any rules, but the truth is the American government has historically ignored many of their own rules whether the President is a democrat or republican.  There are clauses in the laws that give our government the right to invade any citizen's privacy whenever they "deem it necessary".  All they have to do is call you a terrorist or associate you with one somehow.


Growth of Government Power

Despite the fuss over the budget, there is currently very little difference between the policies of our two party system.  One thing they both have in common is growing the power and size of the US government.  In recent years we have seen the criticism of Bush Jr./Cheney and now people are saying the same of Obama/Biden.  Both administrations have terrible violations of civil rights on their records.  The reality is much worse than the blame game politics show.  This trend will continue unless there is major backlash from normal US citizens.

You can read the Washington Post article about this here.


Think.  Organize.  Protest. 

Economic Sanctions and Nukes

What is an Economic Sanction?

This is when one or more countries chooses to make it harder for another country to have a healthy economy.  The common ways to do this are to impose penalties and limit trading (exports/imports), including restriction of financial transactions (hard to move money in or out of the country).  Economic sanctions are supposed to be a tool of diplomacy.


Why Does This Matter?

The two largest stories in recent news involves Iran and North Korea.  Both have had UN approved sanctions against them and have responded in defiance.  North Korea, as it typically does, threatens a greater build up of nuclear weapons.  Iran, however, has had a less hostile response insisting that its nuclear program is civilian and has even signed the non-proliferation treaty (a treaty that all nuclear powers should sign, requiring them to follow certain guidelines to ensure that nuclear weapons technology and material do not become common place).  Israel has not signed this treaty, but that's another story.

It matters because both Iran and North Korea see America as one of the top threats to world peace.  North Korea is seen as more problematic due to the cult worship of its national leaders and their recent rocket tests done contrary to the wishes of most countries, including their strongest ally, China.  A nuclear situation is the concern of the entire planet.  No one wants a nuke going off unless you're playing Terran in Starcraft.


Why Economic Sanctions?

The goals of economic sanctions are varied, but the big idea is to force a country to change its mind about a particular practice and/or policy.  Some of the goals and side-effects that have been argued in debates on whether or not economic sanctions work are:

• Make the population suffer in order to turn them against their leaders.
• Weaken the strength of the leaders directly by weakening their economy.
• Make the sanctioned country look like a bad guy in the news.
• Diplomacy effort to avoid war, like a slap to the economy instead of bombs on your moms.
• The appearance of a diplomatic effort.  (Justification for future military action.)
• The build up of international support against a particular country.
• Damage to the economies of all countries who normally trade with the target country.
• Damage to the American economy in the estimated annual sum of $15-$20 billion (jobs, exports).
• Indirect damage to civilians.
• Economic sanctions are mostly unilateral (only imposed by 1 country, usually the US) or do not carry enough international support to send a powerful message to any developed country.

But Do They Work?

There's a lot of debate about this.  You can read an excellent one hosted by the Council on Foreign Affairs, here.  Both sides have valid points, but the data does show that they fail more than they succeed.  The success rate is hovering somewhere below 20%, not too good if you're hitting around 1 for 5.  

In relation to our current potentially serious nuclear problems with North Korea, I think one has to take a tailored approach to it (as with any diplomatic situation).  There has to be serious consideration of the personalities leading the country.  Even with a little information one can quickly see that economic sanctions against North Korea are a bad idea.  It has only escalated the situation and pushed North Korea into further isolation.  Even China is distancing itself from their long time trading partner.

The majority of the North Korean population is already suppressed.  The country was already isolated.  Whatever normal outcomes and goals that economic sanctions usually have will prove ineffective against such a country.  Many of them are already starving or suffering from various levels of malnutrition.  A standard approach is foolish.

Iran is another very different case.  Their problem centers around not allowing more inspectors to come frequently.  What inspectors have found is that there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program yet.  It should be understood that the majority of that part of the world views Israel and the US as the most dangerous countries in the world.  This means that they believe Iran should have nuclear weapons as a deterrent to keep Israel and the US out of the region.  

What is a "Deterrent"?

Nuclear deterrence is a way of using the threat of total world nuclear destruction (or at least mutual nuclear destruction) to prevent your enemies from firing the first nuke.  The logic is simple - "if you nuke me, I'll know about it and then I'll nuke you before I die."  It's the classic "if I go I'm taking you with me!" routine.  This is part of the reason why we have enough nuclear weapons to blow the world up many times over.

I'll stop here because this will quickly turn into a lesson on nuclear weapons policy, which is another huge mess the human race has gotten itself into.

What Can We Do?

This is a federal issue, so your Congressmen/women and Senators are the ones to bother.  I suggest we tone down on the political posturing and move to make diplomatic solutions behind the scenes in cooperation with China and other countries in the region.  It should be done in a way where no loses face in the public eye.  Let's face it, every media will spin it in a way to make it look good for their country.  It's best to find a way where everyone gets something and everyone gives something up.

You can call them by phone, send an e-mail or letter.  (Phone calls are the best.)  The have local offices in your state and offices in Washington D.C.  You can also check to see if your elected officials are on any committees directly related to foreign affairs.  You can also contact our Department of State directly.  Their website is http://www.state.gov/

Gun Control Debate

What is the Gun Control Debate?

On one side you have those who want to ban guns, making it illegal to purchase or own them.  On the other side are people who want to ensure that these rights continue for all individuals.  You also have the extreme and highly vocal fringe who tend to be conspiracy theorists and believe that gun control laws are a move towards the enslavement of America.  Then there are most people who fall somewhere between, favoring some form of gun control laws and/or restrictions.

The NRA (National Rifle Association) is also heavliy involved and is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the American political system, even outside of Washington D.C.


What's the Problem with Guns?

Guns are the most efficient and easily obtainable weapons for killing things.  If there were a zombie apocolypse, would you want a knife or a gun?  Dark humor aside, I think the question proves a point that when we want to kill something we would reach for a gun if it were available.  For those of you wanting to make arguments for bans on things like knives, I would ask the qustion, if there were a delicious steak in front of you, would you want a knife or a gun?  The invention and continued improvement of the gun was for one purpose - to kill things, especially people.

This debate has been reignited by the recent shootings at Newton.


What About Hunting and Sport Shooting?

I enjoy sport shooting and I think hunting has many great benefits if done properly.  It does seem unfair to take away these simple pleasures from those who responsibly engage in them.  One could argue for gun rentals to be allowed for such activities, but part of the joy in these activities is owning and mastering your own weapon. 

Personal Note: I have certifications for hangun ownership and marksmanship, having taken lessons from military personnel and defense contractors, but I find it harder to defend my hobby in the light of the history of gun violence in America.


What Does the 2nd Amendment Really Say?

It literally reads:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Notice that the reason for allowing people the right to own guns is that the founders saw it necessary for the security of our nation to keep well regulated Militias.  Apart from this reason the Constitution is silent about individual rights to own guns. 


How Can We Come to a Solution?

One thing is for sure, we cannot allow things to continue the way they are.  Both sides need to understand that the opposing side has valid concerns and fears.  Then they need to come together to talk about what is reasonable.  The following is a list of questions that could be used for discussion, debate, and coming to solutions.

• Considering the language of the 2nd Amendment, would it be too much to ask gun owners to organize into local militia (by city or county)?  If one wants to become a gun owner they also have the responsibility to their fellow citizens of joining the militia only to be called on in extraordinary circumstances to be defined in new laws.  Perhaps they could have montly meetings to practice evacuation drills, first aid, marksmanship and emergency procedures.  Normal citizens not in the milita could not get a gun.
• What good reason is there for a normal citizen to own an assault rifle?
• What can we do to protect the freedom of those who responsibly hunt and/or enjoy sport shooting?
• What fears do gun owners have that made them purchase a gun?  How can these be addressed?
• What fears and sorrows do the victims of gun violence have?  How can these be addressed?
• Who has the most to lose if access to guns is restricted?
• What businesses and/or other groups have a financial interest in the status quo?  What politicians are closely associated with these groups? 
• Are you making your voice heard on this important issue?

Financial Corporations Above the Law - Legal Bribes

Note: Data from AP and a recent NY Times article that you can read here.

HSBC Just Paid a $1.92 Billion Bribe

HSBC is guilty of money laundering, no question about it.  But instead of prosecuting the global financial giant, our legal system has chosen to slap it with a fine of $1.92 billion.  I say slap because in 2011 alone they pulled in $19 billion in profits.  The stated reason they fined instead of prosecuted was due to fear that a criminal prosecution would ruin the bank and upset the world economy.

I call this a bribe because they are guilty of severe crimes such as laundering money for Mexican drug cartels and terrorists.  They even instructed such parties from Iran on how they could format their deposits so that their transactions would not be blocked.  In 2010 they were found to have moved a questionable $60 trillion from 17,000 accounts flagged for suspicious activity from Mexico to the US.  They were not fined in 2010.

They are guilty and will not have to face the consequences of their actions.  The rule of law does not apply to them in this case.  If corporations are "persons" then they should be prosecuted in the same manner that a person who committed crimes of this kind would be.


"Too Big to Fail" is Nothing But Propaganda

I have made this point before, but if the argument for bailing out banks (which is anti-capitalist behavior) is that they are too big to fail, then why did they get larger after the financial crisis?  Why didn't governments around the world force them to split up and reduce their size?  If competition drives up quality and keeps the system more stable, why did we put policies in place that let them consolidate?

Wells Fargo and Wachovia
Bank of America and Merrill Lynch
J.P. Morgan Chase and Washington Mutual

And this short list doesn't even account for all the small banks swallowed up in the mess.


Why Does This Matter and What Can You Do?

The one's holding the bill for the crimes of the major financial institutions wasn't the institutions themselves, but the citizens of the US and many other countries around the world.  They're robbing normal people and we're letting them do it.  Big Media propaganda has normal people upset at each other and fictional fat cats instead of the real criminals who are rewarded and allowed to go on engineering the next financial bubble to exploit.  This system serves to mainly harm the real economy by draining it of capital while producing nothing of value.

Collective action by a majority of the population has always been the only answer for real change.  The Civil Rights Movement and the anti-Vietnam war protests are some fine examples of democracy in action.  What is going on now is not democracy.  It is what the self-proclaimed financial masters of the universe want - passive complaining with no action by the masses, government abandoned to the will of the super-rich.

Inform, organize, and let your government representatives know you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it anymore.

Demand the crooks who engineered the financial collapse come to justice and pay their debt to society.

The Business of Prisons in the USA

Prisons Do Business?

Yes, yes they do.  The prison labor force is the cheapest source of labor in the US besides unpaid interns and volunteers.  They even manufacture goods, such as furniture, electronics, and denim clothing.

http://oce.oregon.gov/products/112

http://www.prisonblues.net/



Why Do We Do This?

The Federal Government (and increasingly, Private Corporations) can legally pay prisoners much lower than minimum wage ($0.23-$1.15 per hour).  This creates the ability for these companies to compete globally with poorer developing countries.  Products, such as these denim clothes, are not only sold in the US, but all around the world.

Why Does This Matter?

These corporations compete with normal American businesses and puts people outside of them out of work, leading to a decrease in wealth for normal citizens.  A New York Times article in March, 2012 covered such a story, showing how one Tennier Industries lost out on a $45 million contract to Federal Prison Inudstries (a government owned corporation also known as Unicor).  Tennier Industries had to layoff about 100 workers after losing the contract.

What Do We Make of This?

The propaganda would have you believe that these jobs are teaching prisoners valuable job skills that they can use once they exit the prison system and that paying them anything at all is noble.  But what do we say of other countries that have similar practices? 

Inhumane.  Unfair competition.  Violation of human rights.  Barbaric.  Manipulation. 

To be fair there is a positive correlation between prisoners who participate in this work program and stay out of jail after they serve their time.  Keeping men busy with work does tend to make them less violent.  The program does have some positive effects, but I have to wonder about some of the side-effects to the mental state of someone who comes out of this system.

Perhaps they are willing to accept rock bottom wages now because those are better than what they were getting in the prison?

Perhaps they are more passive and submissive to authority, never questioning poor working conditions and longer hours because it's better than what they experienced in prison?

Perhaps they feel that at least the chattel slavery on the outside of prison is better than being behind bars, creating the illusion that they are free.

Another side-thought I have is about the overall effect on the economy.  As wages have consistently stagnated or gone down since the 1970's for the middle-class, I can't help but see this as another contributor to that problem. 

• It increases the wealth gap between the top of the top 1 percent  and the rest of us.  (Who profits from all this business anyhow?  Certainly not the American people.)
• It negatively impacts the mental state of many who participate, even after they have left the prison labor force.
• It keeps the middle-class scared so we work harder and longer with fewer complaints because at least we don't have it as bad as the other guy.

I find it disturbing that private corporations are also getting into this business.  I also find it disturbing that the programs typically try to hire as many prison workers as possible.

What Can You Do?

As usual, you can contact your Representative in the House and your Senators to find out more and to express your concerns.  You can also spread awareness of programs and policies like this to your friends and take collective action.  City and County officials have less power, but are usually more willing to listen and give you the time of day.

American citizens still hold the great power of the vote.  Use it collectively for the greatest effect.


You can read the New York Times article here.

US Foreign Diplomacy Forward

Using Tragedy to Score Political Points?

After the deadly attack in Benghazi on the US Consulate the Republicans have been quick to point fingers at the administration, even prompting a few embarrassing moments for former Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney.  These moves, no doubt, were inspired by the typical attack dog political advisers that have served them well for so many years.  This time, however, they were very wrong.  No officer in the field or the people that protect them see partisan politics as any help.

What is the Goal of Foreign Policy?

The basic understood goal is to influence nations in your favor.  Anyone working at any embassy or consulate can tell you that.  It is a job you cannot do from a military fortress, which is unfortunately what our embassies and consulates are turning into.  About 30 years ago the risks were an accepted  part of the job and it was understood that you took risks by becoming an FSO (Foreign Service Officer).  Staff who work our our foreign facilities are civilians and are not allowed to carry weapons.  Their focus is to improve the relationship between the country they are in and America.  It's hard to do that if security measures are too tight.

Who is Responsible for Those Deaths?

The people who killed them.  An attack by anyone on another American for the deaths of our fellow countrymen is not helpful and an insult of the highest order.  If such attacks are sustained then those who make the attacks should hope they find evidence of conspiracy.  Otherwise they will open themselves to be even more distant from most of America.  I say this as a former Republican (I'm DTS <Decline To State> by the way) and someone who wants to see both parties work together - don't say anything unless you've got clear evidence.  Terror threats come into many embassies on a daily basis and it is the Intelligence Community's job to sift through all of that.  If you want to ask questions you must question the appropriate personnel, not the President or the UN Ambassador or any other political target.

What's the Best Way Forward?

Sometimes the Old School is still the best school.  The risks will always be there and diplomats can't do their job effectively if security measures are too tight.  A good strategy would be a preventive one, not a reactive one.  And a good preventive strategy is not to do so many things to piss people off in the world.  Increase military or private security forces will not help reduce the risk.  Getting our nose out places where it doesn't belong and not killing civilians in other countries would be a great start to reducing risks for our fellow citizens serving overseas.

Good diplomacy creates its own security by making friends where they are...what a novel idea.