Same and different people

A friend of mine sometimes mentioned a thought that he considered disturbing: If you could rise up high enough into the air, human beings would all started looking the same, like a bunch of ants. One consequence of this perspective is that particular humans would seem expendable and replaceable. Personally, I vacillated between thinking that human animals are exquisitely different from each other or disturbingly the same. Along came Donald Brown to convince me that we are deluded to think that people are meaningfully different from each other. Last night my wife and I watched an unusual video that, to me, reinforced this idea that humans everywhere are largely the same. The video is title "Life in a Day," and it was produced by National Geographic. Imagine 4,500 hours of video all all shot on the same day, edited down to 94 minutes. Here is a description of the project at the site where you can view the entire video:

Director Kevin Macdonald (The Last King of Scotland) and producer Ridley Scott (Alien, Gladiator) team up to offer this candid snapshot of a single day on planet Earth. Compiled from over 80,000 YouTube submissions by contributors in 192 countries, Life in a Day presents a microcosmic view of our daily experiences as a global society. From the mundane to the profound, everything has its place as we spend 90 minutes gaining greater insight into the lives of people who may be more like us than we ever suspected, despite the fact that we're separated by incredible distances.
This is a compelling video that I recommend. It reminded me that most of what I think of as "happening" are the images and sounds I personally experience. For the most part, I don't know what in the world is going on. While I live my life, and it seem important to me, 7 billion other people are living lives that they consider equally important. The video is a terrific reminder that we are each only a tiny part of a much bigger whole.

Continue ReadingSame and different people

Why Americans are at war in the Middle East

Glenn Greenwald keeps unveiling stunning information about U.S. foreign policy. The following video by General Wesley Clark is jaw dropping, especially in light of the events that have unfolded since the conversations he reveals. The bottom line is that a pro-war U.S. foreign policy is repeatedly enacted without any national debate. The U.S. considers the Middle East to be U.S. property. How else can you explain that we are operating armed drones in six Muslim countries, and that politicians are actively discussing the "need" to invade Iran?

Continue ReadingWhy Americans are at war in the Middle East

What the candidates aren’t discussing

In the video you'll find at this link, Dylan Ratigan, author of a new book called Greedy Bastards, laments that with very few exceptions, the candidates are not discussing the fact that current American banking, trade and tax policy all prevent investments into this country into education and infrastructure. No matter what issue is important to you, the system is set up to prevent you for participating in U.S. policy unless you are pouring large amounts of money into the system to feed the dependency of politicians. According to Ratigan, we should consider that money as preventing good things from happening at a time when we are desperate for good things to happen. In this same article, Ratigan spells out the specific effects of big money awash in American politics: 1) The Candidate With More Money Wins. 2) Congress's Main Job Is to Raise Money, Not Govern 3) 48 Percent Say Most Members of Congress Are Corrupt 4) Voters Think That Cash is King 5) No Trust in Elected Officials 6) Outsider Movements Are Quickly Coopted 7) Faith in All Institutions Collapsing 8 ) People don't like horse race coverage. Meanwhile, distrust in media reaches all-time high. (Coincidence?) 9) Cash Determines Voting 10) The Middle Class Is Collapsing

Continue ReadingWhat the candidates aren’t discussing

Who will address critically important election issues?

Glenn Greenwald points out that no viable candidate is addressing critically important issues:

The chances that any of these issues will be debated in an Obama/Romney presidential contest are exactly zero. On all of these issues — Endless War, empire, steadfast devotion to the Israeli government, due-process-free assassinations, multiple-nation drone assaults, escalating confrontation with Iran, the secretive, unchecked Surveillance and National Security States, the sadistic and racist Drug War, the full-scale capture of the political process by bankers and oligarchs — Romney is fully supportive of President Obama’s actions (except to the extent he argues they don’t go far enough: and those critiques will almost certainly be modulated once the primary is over, resulting in ever greater convergence between the two).
Greenwald points out that voting for Barack Obama (or Mitt Romney) regarding any of these issues would not be voting for change:
How can you pretend to vehemently oppose the slaughter of foreign civilians, the deprivation of due process, a posture of Endless War, radical secrecy, etc., when the President behind whom you’re faithfully marching is an aggressive advocate and implementer of those very policies?
In a previous column, Greenwald discussed many of Barack Obama's "grave moral and political failings" in these areas. He quotes Matt Taibbi on the expected lack of choice in the upcoming election:
There are obvious, even significant differences between Obama and someone like Mitt Romney, particularly on social issues, but no matter how Obama markets himself this time around, a choice between these two will not in any way represent a choice between “change” and the status quo. This is a choice between two different versions of the status quo, and everyone knows it.
Nonetheless--and this is the point of Greenwald's recent article, progressives who dare to publicly recognize that Ron Paul (despite his many major faults, from a progressive viewpoint) will be excoriated by fellow progressives and accused of being Ron Paul supporters.

Continue ReadingWho will address critically important election issues?