Global Warming
Michelle Tracy is right, global warming should be a priority for the US National Government. The US Environmental Protection Agency was established 40 years ago with this purpose: "The EPA was assigned the daunting task of repairing the damage already done to the natural environment and to establish new criteria to guide Americans in making a cleaner environment a reality." Well, 40 years later we are facing a global warming crisis, and we all know by now that the US is a major contributor of greenhouse gases.
The EPA, under a new Administration has finally published a report acknowledging what the rest of the world already knew, that greenhouse gases are not only causing great damage to the environment, but endengering the health of the human race. The report along with Obama's comitment to addressing the issue will have an impact on the future health of the planet, but it will be our job as its inhabitants to do everything we can on its behalf, this includes pressuring our leaders in government to make the necesary adjustments to policy. The corporate sector has had control, but we've entered a new cycle and people all over the world are poised to take responsibility.
Michelle gave us some ideas on her post as to what we can do, and there are many more small changes we can make in our daily lives that can have an enormous effect on the amount of pollution we generate. Here is a link to ideas from the EPA. The agency is also encouraging the public to submit comments.
This is a great opportunity to let our government officials know what we want from them.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Role of Government in the Modern American Reality
A corporate financial state has replaced true democracy in America. The mass consciousness is being controlled by a corporate state. Thanks to a slow and steady flow of propaganda, the American people has become desensitized, turning a blind eye to the decisions our government makes on our behalf. From ecology to war, to the unrealistic democratic process we have settled for. The concept of checks and balances, which is one of the principles of democracy, has been replaced by the uncontrollable need to consume, freedom of choice reduced to mimicking the images fed to us via mass media, and with the blessing and support of our "elected" government. We went to war and will continue to wage war on the basis of fear. We are so controlled by fear that we allow our government to inflict torture, to kill children and innocent people in their own homes. We are willing to sacrifice basic civil liberties granted to us by the Constitution in the name of safety. Quoting Benjamin Franklyn: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" and this is happening in America. Prime example is the absurdity of the so-called war on drugs. After the Supreme Court ruled that roadside drug checkpoints are unconstitutional, we now have immigration checkpoints manned by members of the National Guard and Border Patrol, which means that if you're driving within 100 miles of the Canada or Mexican border, you can be stopped and searched, and you don't have to carry a significant amount of any controlled substance to be labeled a criminal and put in jail. United States has the highest documented rate of incarceration rate in the world and it has quadrupled in recent decades because of mandated sentences related to drug charges. In the name of safety we allow the government to spy on us, they can wiretap our conversations, install cameras anywhere they want and in the works is a national ID card. Granted, the new administration has the intention of reversing some of the laws implemented by the former President, and has already done so in some instances, but it is also allowing the corporate machine to continue propagating the illusion of freedom and power. We are so fearful of losing the lifestyle we have been instructed to embrace, that we're willing to give our hard earned money to the banks that caused the economic problems we're now facing. Because without credit we can't buy the things that makes us better and happier, according to the mandates of the mighty capitalist system we've come to depend on.
It is tragic that a first world nation, which calls itself free is unable to provide any guarantee to its citizens; that 20% of them live under the poverty level; that they don't have access to decent or affordable healthcare (forget about free). The only guarantee the American people have is the opportunity to compete against each other for work, money, and status.
Unless the American people regain the ability to think for ourselves and realize that ownership and domination are not really rewards, and that we're capable and responsible of respecting and accepting one another as citizens of the planet earth, the social justice and the freedom on which this nation was supposedly founded, will continue to be an illusion.
It is tragic that a first world nation, which calls itself free is unable to provide any guarantee to its citizens; that 20% of them live under the poverty level; that they don't have access to decent or affordable healthcare (forget about free). The only guarantee the American people have is the opportunity to compete against each other for work, money, and status.
Unless the American people regain the ability to think for ourselves and realize that ownership and domination are not really rewards, and that we're capable and responsible of respecting and accepting one another as citizens of the planet earth, the social justice and the freedom on which this nation was supposedly founded, will continue to be an illusion.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Blog Stage Four
The Zombie Presidency
Ian Mastes writes in counterpunch.com that Americans didn't get the government of change they thought they voted for; the government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich lives on. The money continues to flow from taxpayers to Wall Street's big banks, not in the form of deposit accounts, but in the form of bailouts. Mr. Masters is angry, and rightly so, and he blames the beggining of the current economic problem on Ronald Reagan's decision to favor the millionaires at the expense of the working class and on Bush/Cheney regime as the grand finale. But this reverse of the Robin Hood phenomenon, as he calls it, has existed since the invention of Capitalism; in fact, it is Capitalism by definition. I don't think Capitalism in itself is evil; but our government from the very beginning has tilted the rule of law in favor of the businesses, thus allowing the unequal distribution of wealth that has been the core source of the problems we face today, just as it was the mayor cause of the great depression in the 1930s. When a society is governed by an entity that has the absolute power to make, control and distribute money, as ours does, the concept of democracy has no room to survive. The power of the people becomes non-existent against such absolutism; the illusion is perpetuated via democratic elections and such, and the truth as Masters puts it, is that politicians represent money, not people.
Personally, I am starting to think that the Obama machine has been insulting the intellingence of the people who elected him, especially when they continue the propaganda of hope and change at the same time that they are conducting the business of politics as usual. Mr. Maters' statement that America is screwed and we have only ourselves to blame might be right, but he also notes that it will take a movement from the bottom-up to bring us out of the mess. I believe the movement has begun, because daily I come across social movements like Community Earth Councils, and the people and ideas featured on websites such as HaveFunDoGood, and many others out there, as well as people I meet everyday that are aware of the problems we face and the responsibilities we must face ourselves, and eager to do what it takes, because they are finally convinced that the goverment won't do it for us.
Ian Mastes writes in counterpunch.com that Americans didn't get the government of change they thought they voted for; the government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich lives on. The money continues to flow from taxpayers to Wall Street's big banks, not in the form of deposit accounts, but in the form of bailouts. Mr. Masters is angry, and rightly so, and he blames the beggining of the current economic problem on Ronald Reagan's decision to favor the millionaires at the expense of the working class and on Bush/Cheney regime as the grand finale. But this reverse of the Robin Hood phenomenon, as he calls it, has existed since the invention of Capitalism; in fact, it is Capitalism by definition. I don't think Capitalism in itself is evil; but our government from the very beginning has tilted the rule of law in favor of the businesses, thus allowing the unequal distribution of wealth that has been the core source of the problems we face today, just as it was the mayor cause of the great depression in the 1930s. When a society is governed by an entity that has the absolute power to make, control and distribute money, as ours does, the concept of democracy has no room to survive. The power of the people becomes non-existent against such absolutism; the illusion is perpetuated via democratic elections and such, and the truth as Masters puts it, is that politicians represent money, not people.
Personally, I am starting to think that the Obama machine has been insulting the intellingence of the people who elected him, especially when they continue the propaganda of hope and change at the same time that they are conducting the business of politics as usual. Mr. Maters' statement that America is screwed and we have only ourselves to blame might be right, but he also notes that it will take a movement from the bottom-up to bring us out of the mess. I believe the movement has begun, because daily I come across social movements like Community Earth Councils, and the people and ideas featured on websites such as HaveFunDoGood, and many others out there, as well as people I meet everyday that are aware of the problems we face and the responsibilities we must face ourselves, and eager to do what it takes, because they are finally convinced that the goverment won't do it for us.
On the other hand, maybe Andrew Sullivan in The Promise of Pragmatism has a point and we should give the President some more time and not under-estimate his ability to deliver on his promise. Hard to imagine, but not impossible to conceive.
Friday, March 6, 2009
I Consent
BLOG STAGE THREE
Is the Supreme Court About to Kill Off the Exclusionary Rule?
Adam Cohen writing an Editorial for The New York Times on February 16, 2009 exposes the recent efforts by the Supreme Court to undo a controversial law that has endured for nearly five decades. He is addressing the general public and for those unfamiliar with the rule, he gives an abbreviated history and the court cases it has affected since its inception in 1914.
This is how Wikipedia summarizes it:
“The exclusionary rule is designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, short of criminal prosecution, in response to prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, by conducts unreasonable searches and seizure or compelled self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule also applies to violations of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel”
Mr. Cohen presents arguments from both sides of the debate, but he is obviously in favor of keeping the rule intact. Critics argue that the rule allows criminals to go free based on technicalities, which was predicted when the rule was adopted as a national standard in 1962. But it has also changed the incentives for the police, he says, “it gave them less reason to enter a home or tap a phone without a warrant”.
Cohen’s concern stems from last month’s Court ruling on Herring v. United States, in which information used to conduct a search was later discovered to be incorrect due to a negligent error in a police’s database, but it was allowed anyway In this case, Mr. Cohen says, writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts declared that…. Evidence need not necessarily be disqualified if it was illegally obtained because of errors in police databases. Isolated mistakes of this sort are not among the exclusionary rule’s core concerns…. Mr. Cohen agrees with the dissenting Justice Ruth Ginsburg, who wrote…. In the modern age database errors can lead to many people’s rights being denied. The harm to a citizen who is arrested and searched on the street because a bureaucrat has made a computer error is just the sort of invasion the founders worried about when they drafted the Fourth Amendment.
Mr. Cohen reminds us what the Supreme Court said back in 1961: “nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence”.
Adam Cohen’s editorial must not be ignored. People must not forget that the US is still a Government of Laws not of Men.
Link to original editorial http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/opinion/16mon4.html?_r=1
BLOG STAGE THREE
Is the Supreme Court About to Kill Off the Exclusionary Rule?
Adam Cohen writing an Editorial for The New York Times on February 16, 2009 exposes the recent efforts by the Supreme Court to undo a controversial law that has endured for nearly five decades. He is addressing the general public and for those unfamiliar with the rule, he gives an abbreviated history and the court cases it has affected since its inception in 1914.
This is how Wikipedia summarizes it:
“The exclusionary rule is designed to provide a remedy and disincentive, short of criminal prosecution, in response to prosecutors and police who illegally gather evidence in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, by conducts unreasonable searches and seizure or compelled self-incrimination. The exclusionary rule also applies to violations of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to counsel”
Mr. Cohen presents arguments from both sides of the debate, but he is obviously in favor of keeping the rule intact. Critics argue that the rule allows criminals to go free based on technicalities, which was predicted when the rule was adopted as a national standard in 1962. But it has also changed the incentives for the police, he says, “it gave them less reason to enter a home or tap a phone without a warrant”.
Cohen’s concern stems from last month’s Court ruling on Herring v. United States, in which information used to conduct a search was later discovered to be incorrect due to a negligent error in a police’s database, but it was allowed anyway In this case, Mr. Cohen says, writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts declared that…. Evidence need not necessarily be disqualified if it was illegally obtained because of errors in police databases. Isolated mistakes of this sort are not among the exclusionary rule’s core concerns…. Mr. Cohen agrees with the dissenting Justice Ruth Ginsburg, who wrote…. In the modern age database errors can lead to many people’s rights being denied. The harm to a citizen who is arrested and searched on the street because a bureaucrat has made a computer error is just the sort of invasion the founders worried about when they drafted the Fourth Amendment.
Mr. Cohen reminds us what the Supreme Court said back in 1961: “nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence”.
Adam Cohen’s editorial must not be ignored. People must not forget that the US is still a Government of Laws not of Men.
Link to original editorial http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/opinion/16mon4.html?_r=1
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
- I Consent
A Task to Make Democracy Matter
While majority of the media, mainstream and not, remains busy either denouncing or promoting their “better” ideas for a recovery plan, the fundamental and truly urgent questions continue to be buried in the usual political propaganda. But Henry A Giroux’ is not; in his story "Educating Obama" his main concern is the future of democracy. The story published in the online political newsletter counterpunch, he brazenly points to the debauchery that our market driven society has been engaged in for the past 30 yrs and invites us to question the role of the media and other educational institutions in celebrating and legitimizing the value of consumption over rationality and critical citizenship. He believes that the economic crisis presents an opportunity for reevaluating our role in the political process, that knowledge is power and so our corporate leadership is determined to keep us ignorant and sedated. His is a wake up call, and this time we must not snooze, our survival as a democratic society depends on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
