Ground Zero - 60 Minutes - CBS News
We should be ashamed.
There is no excuse.
As the report said, they built the Empire State Building in a year in the middle of the Great Depression.
We went to the Moon in a decade.
When the ten year anniversary of 9/11 rolls around we'll be lucky if there's anything more than a big hole of dirt.
This is an unfortunate sign and symbol of the decay that has set in in this country. We have not headed warnings from the founders about the corrupting influences of corporate power and monied interests. We have ignored words of caution from the likes of Eisenhower ("beware the military-industrial complex") and MLK ("A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.") and wise political scientists (Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" of two decades ago warned of US "imperial overstretch). Comparisons with the Roman Empire are current and apt.
We not only don't make things of substance much anymore, it also seems we can't build anything anymore. Numerous countries build new skyscrapers while we can't even get our act together at an important site like this.
We are doomed and the American Dream will die a horrible death if we don't turn this ship around.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Fear Mongering with "15 Facts About China That Will Blow Your Mind"
The American Dream is unfortunately being replaced by fear.
15 Facts About China That Will Blow Your Mind
15 Facts About China That Will Blow Your Mind
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Zero Diversity of Opinion: Diane Rehm Gives Free Air Time to NATO Apologists
Mission of NATO
(Comments I send to the Programming Department at WAMU, which produces the Diane Rehm Show)
I am disappointed and frankly horrified at the poor quality of the second half of Diane Rehm Show program on this date. I don't know what she and your producers were thinking by inviting on three individuals who are all apologists for NATO and its member governments. There are many and strong alternative points of view that do not have a place at the table today. You have deprived your listeners of the expert knowledge and opinions that could be presented by alternate guests. The reasonable discussion of the issues that results from a panel that gives a fair representation of the spectrum of opinion was impossible.
I hope that you will follow up with a program with three guests representing the following points of view not represented formally today: (1) the problematic modern history of NATO and reasons for its abolishment; (2) the historical and current problems caused by militarism and colonialism by Europe and the United States, and; (3) the unwise, illegal, and immoral nature of the continued occupation and war in Afghanistan.
Nathan Ruggles
Cincinnati, Ohio
*********
(I recognize that the Diane Rehm Show is not formally an NPR program. However, it does appear on many of the same public radio stations.)
(Comments I send to the Programming Department at WAMU, which produces the Diane Rehm Show)
I am disappointed and frankly horrified at the poor quality of the second half of Diane Rehm Show program on this date. I don't know what she and your producers were thinking by inviting on three individuals who are all apologists for NATO and its member governments. There are many and strong alternative points of view that do not have a place at the table today. You have deprived your listeners of the expert knowledge and opinions that could be presented by alternate guests. The reasonable discussion of the issues that results from a panel that gives a fair representation of the spectrum of opinion was impossible.
I hope that you will follow up with a program with three guests representing the following points of view not represented formally today: (1) the problematic modern history of NATO and reasons for its abolishment; (2) the historical and current problems caused by militarism and colonialism by Europe and the United States, and; (3) the unwise, illegal, and immoral nature of the continued occupation and war in Afghanistan.
Nathan Ruggles
Cincinnati, Ohio
*********
(I recognize that the Diane Rehm Show is not formally an NPR program. However, it does appear on many of the same public radio stations.)
Charlotte Would Have Insisted on Antibiotics for Wilbur the Pig in Today's Corporate Web
The American Dream has so often in the past invoked the idea of a family homestead, or farm. It also would indicate a desire for security and confidence in our food supply.
This piece involves both.
Facebook | Champaign County Farm Bureau: American Farm Bureau Federation Voices Concerns to CBS News, Katie Couric
I must first mention that I have not seen the original CBS report. However, I hardly think it matters to the points below.
First, we must recognize that this letter comes from industry groups. They represent livestock companies and large factory farms.
(As an aside, I enjoy how they reject the terms "factory farms" and "industrial farms" yet they claim to represent an "industry" – some even have "industry" in their titles. The term they use – "modern" farm -- does not adequately describe the farms they represent, since there is a very big difference from the small family farm and the gigantic industrial farms in this country. The other terms, on the other hand, are indeed accurate; they just don't like them because they have expensive market research studies -- not to mention common sense -- that tells them that they don't play well in the public relations/marketing world. But I digress...)
In any case, the goal of these companies (and the groups that represent them) is to make money. Period. And as it should be. Naturally. They are businesses, after all. Money is the one and only thing we can count on them to value. However, if we recognize that fact, we also must understand that if any other things are to be valued -- public health, animal rights, human life, worker's rights, the environment, public safety -- then the public either as consumers or through their government have to introduce and enforce those values upon industry. Consumers are starting to speak by buying organic, for instance. And all those pesky regulations that industry hates so much -- because it costs them money, naturally -- are what keeps us and our families safe and allows us to sleep at night.
With that in mind, we have to remain ever skeptical of absolutely anything that these industry groups say, understanding that it will ever be in the self-interest of the industry, and therefore in the service of the almighty dollar. (The companies pay these industry groups handsomely to represent them and they darn well want their money's worth) Other values and the interests of us the citizens – let alone truth -- may well be damned, if it doesn't suit their interests. We must take everything they say -- including this letter -- with a grain of salt. (Hell, a whole salt mine wouldn't be a bad idea).
It also must be made clear that these industry groups only really represent the factory farms. Not the average family farm that built this country and created sustainable agriculture. Not the average farmer who works and cares for their own land. They could care less about them -- except when the interests of the factory farms and the family farms happen to coincide -- and would just as soon put them out to pasture by buying them out or crushing them as to represent them. Though of course, they love to claim to represent them, and play to American's love of the family farm when they do so (I especially love this photo on the homepage of the Livestock Marketing Assocation). As an example, the Ohio Farm Bureau (made up mostly of larger corporate farms) is not the Ohio Family Farm Coalition (which represents real people), though they may claim otherwise.
(As another aside, by representing factor farms they also claim to represent "conventional" farms. Which begs the question: as opposed to what? Family farms? Organic farms? One would assume "unconventional" farms at least. However -- in support of this term it seems -- they cite that antibiotics have been "used in livestock for half a century," implying it has been a lengthy time. On the other hand, agriculture has existed for thousands of years without antibiotics. Now, who is really being "unconventional?")
With that being said, there is an inescapable logic that this letter and the industry ignores (because it is not in their interest). That is, it has been conclusively shown without a doubt that overuse of antibiotics -- whether in humans or in livestock -- promotes the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is more conclusive in humans, I believe, but what is good for the goose, in this case, is good for the swine. It has become more widely accepted that physicians for this very reason should avoid prescribing antibiotics unless they know that an illness is driven by a bacteria that can be combated by that antibiotic. This has not always been the practice in the past. Physicians have (and still do) prescribe antibiotics for patients begging for medication but who suffer from viruses that only time and rest will cure. And it is not even the case that we give antibiotics to people who aren't even sick, but whom we merely suspect might have been exposed. Or even given to people that have not even been expose, as a mere preventative. To suggest such a thing would be laughable in the medical community. Yet this is regular practice now in the livestock industry. There is a study in which the Union of Concerned Scientists -- a well-respected non-profit organization with no financial stake in the outcome -- found that 70% of antibiotics are given to livestock that are perfectly healthy. This is a recipe for disaster. That is, if we value the long-term public health.
But this is not what industry values. As a reminder, they (and rightly so) value the dollar above all. They perceive that antibiotics in the short term seem to promote healthier livestock. They see results of all these and other chemicals and methods in terms of fatter, larger pigs. They have also bought into the sales pitches of other industries that produce and sell the antibiotics and the alleged benefits they produce. This may be good for the bottom line, but is it good for the average American?
Just as pharmaceutical companies can trot out study after study that they pay for and which seem to show that their drugs are wonderful so therefore we all should buy them, the livestock industry can do the same. They can make all kinds of claims about this strain or that strain, and whether it has shown up or not, or been actually proven to spread between livestock and humans. But what if we actually wait for the proof? How many would have had to die of the Black Death before the rat lobby would have admitted that the proof existed that rodents were indeed the ones guilty of spreading the disease? How much of the ice cap has to melt before we have the "proof" we need to show that global warming exists? Does the rising ocean waters actually have to reach our bottom lips? Likewise, with the knowledge that bacteria routinely mutates into hardier and more deadly strains, and that they evolve to jump species from animal to human, how much proof do we need that the next lethal bacteria has actually spread to humans before we take action to prevent what could be the worst health crisis to hit humankind since smallpox and polio reigned or before penicillin existed?
I also know that all of Europe has now adopted the Danish methods that these American industry groups attempt to trash. It hardly makes sense that they would do so if the results weren't worthwhile.
I do not claim to be an expert on this subject. And I do know that antibiotics can be used safely, responsibly, and beneficially in livestock (and humans). However, I will forever remain wary of the claims made by self-interested money-worshipping industries – whether borne in a letter, in a "scientific study," or by the lips of Rush Limbaugh -- that have shown time and again that they are far from truthful and will lie, deceive, and fabricate if it benefits them (can we say the cigarette industry, for but one example), and that money is really all that they love. If I care about values other than money and the welfare of myself and the ones that I love, then it is the only responsible thing to do.
This piece involves both.
Facebook | Champaign County Farm Bureau: American Farm Bureau Federation Voices Concerns to CBS News, Katie Couric
I must first mention that I have not seen the original CBS report. However, I hardly think it matters to the points below.
First, we must recognize that this letter comes from industry groups. They represent livestock companies and large factory farms.
(As an aside, I enjoy how they reject the terms "factory farms" and "industrial farms" yet they claim to represent an "industry" – some even have "industry" in their titles. The term they use – "modern" farm -- does not adequately describe the farms they represent, since there is a very big difference from the small family farm and the gigantic industrial farms in this country. The other terms, on the other hand, are indeed accurate; they just don't like them because they have expensive market research studies -- not to mention common sense -- that tells them that they don't play well in the public relations/marketing world. But I digress...)
In any case, the goal of these companies (and the groups that represent them) is to make money. Period. And as it should be. Naturally. They are businesses, after all. Money is the one and only thing we can count on them to value. However, if we recognize that fact, we also must understand that if any other things are to be valued -- public health, animal rights, human life, worker's rights, the environment, public safety -- then the public either as consumers or through their government have to introduce and enforce those values upon industry. Consumers are starting to speak by buying organic, for instance. And all those pesky regulations that industry hates so much -- because it costs them money, naturally -- are what keeps us and our families safe and allows us to sleep at night.
With that in mind, we have to remain ever skeptical of absolutely anything that these industry groups say, understanding that it will ever be in the self-interest of the industry, and therefore in the service of the almighty dollar. (The companies pay these industry groups handsomely to represent them and they darn well want their money's worth) Other values and the interests of us the citizens – let alone truth -- may well be damned, if it doesn't suit their interests. We must take everything they say -- including this letter -- with a grain of salt. (Hell, a whole salt mine wouldn't be a bad idea).
It also must be made clear that these industry groups only really represent the factory farms. Not the average family farm that built this country and created sustainable agriculture. Not the average farmer who works and cares for their own land. They could care less about them -- except when the interests of the factory farms and the family farms happen to coincide -- and would just as soon put them out to pasture by buying them out or crushing them as to represent them. Though of course, they love to claim to represent them, and play to American's love of the family farm when they do so (I especially love this photo on the homepage of the Livestock Marketing Assocation). As an example, the Ohio Farm Bureau (made up mostly of larger corporate farms) is not the Ohio Family Farm Coalition (which represents real people), though they may claim otherwise.
(As another aside, by representing factor farms they also claim to represent "conventional" farms. Which begs the question: as opposed to what? Family farms? Organic farms? One would assume "unconventional" farms at least. However -- in support of this term it seems -- they cite that antibiotics have been "used in livestock for half a century," implying it has been a lengthy time. On the other hand, agriculture has existed for thousands of years without antibiotics. Now, who is really being "unconventional?")
With that being said, there is an inescapable logic that this letter and the industry ignores (because it is not in their interest). That is, it has been conclusively shown without a doubt that overuse of antibiotics -- whether in humans or in livestock -- promotes the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is more conclusive in humans, I believe, but what is good for the goose, in this case, is good for the swine. It has become more widely accepted that physicians for this very reason should avoid prescribing antibiotics unless they know that an illness is driven by a bacteria that can be combated by that antibiotic. This has not always been the practice in the past. Physicians have (and still do) prescribe antibiotics for patients begging for medication but who suffer from viruses that only time and rest will cure. And it is not even the case that we give antibiotics to people who aren't even sick, but whom we merely suspect might have been exposed. Or even given to people that have not even been expose, as a mere preventative. To suggest such a thing would be laughable in the medical community. Yet this is regular practice now in the livestock industry. There is a study in which the Union of Concerned Scientists -- a well-respected non-profit organization with no financial stake in the outcome -- found that 70% of antibiotics are given to livestock that are perfectly healthy. This is a recipe for disaster. That is, if we value the long-term public health.
But this is not what industry values. As a reminder, they (and rightly so) value the dollar above all. They perceive that antibiotics in the short term seem to promote healthier livestock. They see results of all these and other chemicals and methods in terms of fatter, larger pigs. They have also bought into the sales pitches of other industries that produce and sell the antibiotics and the alleged benefits they produce. This may be good for the bottom line, but is it good for the average American?
Just as pharmaceutical companies can trot out study after study that they pay for and which seem to show that their drugs are wonderful so therefore we all should buy them, the livestock industry can do the same. They can make all kinds of claims about this strain or that strain, and whether it has shown up or not, or been actually proven to spread between livestock and humans. But what if we actually wait for the proof? How many would have had to die of the Black Death before the rat lobby would have admitted that the proof existed that rodents were indeed the ones guilty of spreading the disease? How much of the ice cap has to melt before we have the "proof" we need to show that global warming exists? Does the rising ocean waters actually have to reach our bottom lips? Likewise, with the knowledge that bacteria routinely mutates into hardier and more deadly strains, and that they evolve to jump species from animal to human, how much proof do we need that the next lethal bacteria has actually spread to humans before we take action to prevent what could be the worst health crisis to hit humankind since smallpox and polio reigned or before penicillin existed?
I also know that all of Europe has now adopted the Danish methods that these American industry groups attempt to trash. It hardly makes sense that they would do so if the results weren't worthwhile.
I do not claim to be an expert on this subject. And I do know that antibiotics can be used safely, responsibly, and beneficially in livestock (and humans). However, I will forever remain wary of the claims made by self-interested money-worshipping industries – whether borne in a letter, in a "scientific study," or by the lips of Rush Limbaugh -- that have shown time and again that they are far from truthful and will lie, deceive, and fabricate if it benefits them (can we say the cigarette industry, for but one example), and that money is really all that they love. If I care about values other than money and the welfare of myself and the ones that I love, then it is the only responsible thing to do.
Racism is alive and well in the U.S.: Part 1
So. Very. Offensive.
Not to mention dangerous.
Tancredo Says Obama Won Because We Lack a ‘Literacy Test Before People Can Vote’ « SpeakEasy
(I actually find the grassroots concerns of average working people -- expressing their genuine hopes and fears -- which are reflected by some of the Tea Party activists both interesting and powerful. But these are not the people at this convention, by and large, which was populated by elites that could afford the pricey entry ticket.)
Not to mention dangerous.
Tancredo Says Obama Won Because We Lack a ‘Literacy Test Before People Can Vote’ « SpeakEasy
(I actually find the grassroots concerns of average working people -- expressing their genuine hopes and fears -- which are reflected by some of the Tea Party activists both interesting and powerful. But these are not the people at this convention, by and large, which was populated by elites that could afford the pricey entry ticket.)
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist - America Is Not Yet Lost - NYTimes.com
Op-Ed Columnist - America Is Not Yet Lost - NYTimes.com
Klugman makes some good points here. A response and the implications for the American Dream.
1. If we keep it up, despite what Klugman says, we will indeed emulate the Romans (and the Hapsburgs, and the French, and the British, and the Russian Soviets....), both in terms of imperial overstretch, and the non-functioning and the corruption of the Senate -- along with their ceded of power to the executive -- which was an integral part of it's downfall. Poland was never an Empire...
2. We should separate the sources of the current problems. Some stem from the current Senate as it stands today in terms of how it operates. Then there are those whose source is traceable to the institution as it was formed and evolved.
In terms of today, our Congress is wholly owned by monied interests, who demand these special favors that Krugman mentions in return for all the financial support they provide candidates. This will only get worse with the recent Supreme Court rulings. Founders foresaw some of this: Jefferson warned of monied interests. However, I don't think they could have seen how incredibly powerful and corrupting it could be.
As an aside, this prompts the question: so even without Republican obstructionism, would something gloriously substantial be happening? Passage of so-called health care reform?
In terms of the Senate institutionally, it always has been fundamentally undemocratic. Even following reforms from a century ago, it still violates the basic principle of one person one vote. A Senator from Wyoming represents the voices of like a half a million people, and on from CA like 30 some million. This creates a core problem.
If these issues are not addressed -- the current corruption and fundamental undemocratic structures -- then the American Dream will continue to be in jeopardy.
Klugman makes some good points here. A response and the implications for the American Dream.
1. If we keep it up, despite what Klugman says, we will indeed emulate the Romans (and the Hapsburgs, and the French, and the British, and the Russian Soviets....), both in terms of imperial overstretch, and the non-functioning and the corruption of the Senate -- along with their ceded of power to the executive -- which was an integral part of it's downfall. Poland was never an Empire...
2. We should separate the sources of the current problems. Some stem from the current Senate as it stands today in terms of how it operates. Then there are those whose source is traceable to the institution as it was formed and evolved.
In terms of today, our Congress is wholly owned by monied interests, who demand these special favors that Krugman mentions in return for all the financial support they provide candidates. This will only get worse with the recent Supreme Court rulings. Founders foresaw some of this: Jefferson warned of monied interests. However, I don't think they could have seen how incredibly powerful and corrupting it could be.
As an aside, this prompts the question: so even without Republican obstructionism, would something gloriously substantial be happening? Passage of so-called health care reform?
In terms of the Senate institutionally, it always has been fundamentally undemocratic. Even following reforms from a century ago, it still violates the basic principle of one person one vote. A Senator from Wyoming represents the voices of like a half a million people, and on from CA like 30 some million. This creates a core problem.
If these issues are not addressed -- the current corruption and fundamental undemocratic structures -- then the American Dream will continue to be in jeopardy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
"China has 150% more soldiers than America does, plus a high tech 'Kill Weapon' the U.S. can't deal with."
What this doesn't go into is whether these troops are active duty or simply some kind of reserves. Or how well trained or equipped they are. Or what kind of missions they are prepared for. I am sure we best them on all counts....
As for some kind of special weapon, it's almost laughable. The USSR spent decades spending a hell of a lot more making all kinds of antiship missles aimed at our aircraft carriers. Carrier battle groups are defended by the most sophisticated air defense radar and missiles systems in the world. Besides, if you compare the US military to China's, it's not even a contest: we spend almost 8 times as much as China (and btw true estimates put us now at more than the rest of the world combined). We have probably hundreds of times as many nuclear weapons. We have dozens of nuclear subs; they have none. We have like a dozen aircraft carriers; they have none. We have experienced troops while the only thing Chinese troops have done since Korea is beat up on poor Tibetan civilians, and fly too close to a US spy plane. We have hundreds of bases around the world and the ability to project real power globally. They do not.
To pump up some perceived threat from China would be really funny if it weren't to seriously dangerous. That's all we need is a new arms race.
We have to stop allowing unsubstantial fears dictate our foreign policy if this country is ever going to get back on its feet.