The Greatest Purveyor of Violence In the World Today

It should not be a surprise to anyone that there is a culture of violence in the United States unlike that of any other country in the over-developed, so-called “First World”.  The singular notions of “rugged individualism” and the nationalistic fervor of “American Exceptionalism” are engrained in the American psyche and embraced, or at least tolerated by many.  These aggressive, arrogant notions are no accident.  They have been carefully cultivated and disseminated by the establishment media, corporate advertising, and political platforms and speech; not to mention the actual military “adventures” engaged in by the U.S. military establishment around the world since the end of World War II.

With the end of the Soviet Union and the unleashing of a no-holds-barred, global, predatory economic complex, violent competition has become the norm for most of working society.  In everything from vying for a promotion to racing through a red light to beat the traffic, life has become, for most people, a literal struggle for survival.  The excesses of the wealthy elite leave little for the rest of us.  Life is becoming, for many of us mean, brutish, and short.

In business, “corporate culture” comes from the top down.  Low-level managers engage in unseemly, unethical, or criminal activities to the extent those behaviors are tolerated by the executives above.  Likewise, societal norms are to a very great extent determined at the top.  Here, we must be clear what the top of our society is.  Thanks to the Occupy movement and the very visible crimes of financial elites (and the government’s non-reaction to those crimes), many more people have come to recognize just who and what is at the top of the decision-making pyramid in this country.  The two top decision makers are of course the wealthy elites (and here I include not just the wealthiest individuals but also the even more fabulously wealthy families, such as Walton’s, DuPont’s, Rockefeller’s, and the like) and the military.  Way down in third place in terms of societal control is the government.

Which brings us to guns.  And the second amendment, which regulates them.

Much has been claimed regarding the second amendment over the past 40 years: gun ownership is a “God-given right”; that it places no limitations or restrictions on gun ownership; that its purpose was to protect the people from their government, and the like.  Constitutional scholars, those who study the origins and original meanings of what the founders intended as their life’s work, have come to very different conclusions regarding the 2^nd Amendment.  Professor Saul Cornell of Fordham University makes clear, through the historical record, and the actual words of James Madison, the author of the 2^nd Amendment, exactly what was intended.  Thom Hartmann and Sam Sachs, in their recent article also explain the history and meaning of the amendment.  Nowhere in the history of the constitution, is there any evidence the founders intended the 2^nd Amendment to be a safeguard for the people to take violent action against their government.  As Cornell points out, its intent was actually just the opposite.  Since the new United States had no standing army at the time, and many splinter groups and sects were in regular rebellion against various state governments, the “well regulated militias” were the citizen-soldiers needed to defend the government against internal insurrection as well as external invasion.  We call that force today the National Guard. The constitution also addresses the taking up of arms against the U.S. government (Article 3); that’s called treason.   In fact, Shays’ Rebellion in 1786 was part of the reason the 2^nd Amendment was created. 

Today, the 2^nd Amendment is an open question.  Since the War of 1812 the United States has had a standing army and therefore no need for a militia.  The amendment seems irrelevant.  And certainly gun advocates rationale that they need to stockpile large caches of weapons to defend their liberty from the potentially tyrannical government is a hollow sham.  In the first case, it is inconceivable that any individual or group, no matter how committed and diligent, could amass enough weaponry to match that of  the U.S. military.  Also in doubt is the notion that these rabid gun owners will protect me and you (non-gun owners) from government tyranny.  There has been no greater assault on the Constitution and our precious “god-given” liberties than over the past 25 years.  I’ve not seen any of these “freedom fighters” out in the streets.  In fact, if (retired) General David Petraeus were to appear on television tonight and announce that he was now in charge of the government, the gun owners would most likely be out in the streets shooting the protestors rather defending them.

The NRA of course has a vested interest in perpetuating the “gun culture”; it sells more guns to an ever shrinking gun-owning population and is therefore good for its own board members bottom line.  Steven Rosenfeld provides an excellent history of the NRA and its surprising philosophical shift in the 1970’s in his AlterNet article.

Regardless of the history of the 2^nd Amendment, gun possession, or culture, the facts are that guns are epidemic in this country (more that 300 million in the hands of 70 to 80 million people) and that the level of violence in this country is extreme by any measure.  Even if true that most shootings in this country are “criminal-on-criminal”, the level of violence here is greater than in any other wealthy nation.  This culture of violence is a societal problem that requires more than just changes in gun laws.

The military bears considerable responsibility for this culture of violence as well.  With an unlimited budget for the development of weaponry, expansion of influence and involvement around the globe, the militarization of intelligence-gathering agencies, and the growth of intelligence-gathering within the military has unleashed an arrogant, violent, uncontrollable force on the world; a force every bit as predatory and violent as its economic counterpart.  From the military’s financing of violent video games to its backing of violent, propagandist films and pseudo-documentaries, it glorifies killing, cruelty, and indifference to all living things outside its military “unit”. 

None of this belies the fact that something must be done to protect our communities and to change the culture.  One of the first things to do, of course, is to take control of the mechanism of cultural definition out of the hands of the elites.  Culture, or the guiding principles of a civilized community needs to be defined by that community.  It’s not easy, or perhaps not even possible to replace the current “ritualized” modes of thinking with a return to a moral, civilized society.  There needs to be that interceding step of returning to the “rule of law” first.  Restrictions on the types of firearms allowed within a community, how many rounds can be loaded into each weapon, rules for possession and use all must be decided on by the community.  It may be true that no law can guarantee that someone with a mental illness will not acquire a weapon, but such sensible restrictions on weapons and ammunition will reduce the number killed. 

We must recognize also that among the leading decision makers within the wealthy elite are the drug manufacturers.  Drugs to treat mental illness, ADHD, depression, insomnia, and even epilepsy are known to have serious and dangerous side effects.  There are more than 22 international regulatory warnings about psychiatric drug side effect that include mania, violence, and homicidal and suicidal thoughts.  In case after case of violent mass shootings and killings, there is evidence that the shooter was either taking or withdrawing from psychotropic drugs.  From 2004 through 2011, the US FDA Medwatch system received more than 11,000 reports of violent acts related to these drugs.  For example, the SSRI (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor) drug Luvox is often prescribed for children diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder.  It is also often prescribed for children for depression.  The manufacturer of Luvox reports that up to 4% of children developed mania in their own short-term clinical trials of the drug.  In a similar controlled clinical trial, Prozac produced the same symptoms in 6% of the children tested.   These statistics highlight the fact that not only must we as a society address the issue of mental illness, but we must also address the issues around the testing and approval of medications used in its treatment.  Clearly, as in so many other aspects of our society, corporations, in this case drug manufacturers wield inordinate power and control.  We must make the manufacturers of these drugs responsible for the consequences of the side effects.

It’s foolish and dangerous to grab onto any simple, one-size-fits-all answer to the culture of violence stamped into this society.  Single answers like armed school guards, gun bans, mental health testing and the like will not resolve what is a complex, societal problem.  Nor is the answer in more and more heavily armed civilians. 

Sandy Hook Promise has the right idea.  Part of their Promise reads:

To have the conversations on ALL the issues
Conversations where listening is as important as speaking.
Conversations where even those with the most opposing views
can debate in good will

This is the place where all positive change begins; exploring all the issues, and coming together as a community to develop comprehensive solutions.  The only way to reach deeply into culture is for people to come together and determine for themselves what they want their community to look like.  The separation, the collective sense of aloneness, the pain and fear ingrained in the collective psyche can only be overcome by reconnecting with each other.  By connecting with our neighbors we will see how alike we are and how much we truly need each other.  That is the beginning of creating just communities.

Frederick County Needs A New Form of Government

A great deal has been written about the proposed charter for Frederick County.  I’ve read most of it from the daily and weekly papers.  Jan Gardner observed, “I think it's always better when government is closest to the people,".  As an active Green Party member, I agree.   I’m committed to grassroots democracy and working for decision making to be as close to the people as possible. 

But this charter doesn’t do that.  Government under charter is just another version of the same top-down, control by an “elected” elite system that we already have.  Charter does nothing to bring decision making closer to the people. 

Take a look at the people and organizations supporting the move to charter government and you’ll see where the benefits lie.  Establishment career politicians, both Democratic and Republican support it.  The Chamber of Commerce, developers and their cronies support it.  Why is a land and commercial real estate salesman, Rocky Mackintosh on the charter writing board?  What special expertise has he in governmental affairs?  One just has to go back to his real estate newsletter and to The Tentacle articles of his of 2 years ago.  There he tells us that Frederick is living in the “horse and buggy era” and should be in the “BMW 5 Series” world of the modern America. 

So, even then, charter was seen as a way to give more authority and power to the “Beemer” set as opposed to those ancient “horse and buggy” types (perhaps referring to the life-long residents of this county, traditionally farmers).  As Rocky and his friends worked diligently to transform the county from its rural roots into the faceless and soulless gentrified suburban wasteland it has become, he worked as well to ensure government continued to evolve in a way to protect and support that transformation.

The calls for a “more streamlined and effective” county government are widespread and seemingly popular.  Under charter, we’re told, county legislators will be able to “move quickly” to enact laws and have “broad power” and authority.  Are those truly good things in what is supposed to be a democracy?

Look at what Ken Coffey and Robert Kresslein, both members of the charter writing board and supporters of the move to charter government had to say.  They observe that the current commissioner form of government is what they refer to as “collective leadership”.  Although they acknowledge that this form of governance has some merit, as in the fact that it honors “our commitment to democratic process”, apparently that’s not important enough to preserve.  That commitment lets us down, they conclude, in making government less efficient and effective.  I have a very different view of our commitment to “democratic process”.  That commitment must outweigh all other considerations, especially ones as insignificant and dangerous as “efficiency”, “streamlined government”, and the like.  There is an apparent fixation on the part of charter supporters on idea that our current process is too slow, too cumbersome, too much in danger of not allowing “quick” decisions.  Obviously, if you’re a developer or big businessman, or other one-percenter, having local government move quickly to approve your development, or other big business venture is quite important. For me, not so much; I’m quite content to take part in a democratic process, even if it is time consuming that includes all voices, considers all concerns, and comes to a decision that addresses all needs.  And yes, such a process exists within a democratic framework.  It’s called consensus.

Critics of charter claim government will cost more, that it will make the cost of running a campaign for office much more expensive and that will invite outside, big money to influence campaigns.  As one critic pointed out, it’s cheaper to bride one official (the county executive, for example) than to have to influence 3 of the current 5 county commissioners.  All this is no doubt true.  Commissioner David Grey observed that the low salary for councilmen ($22,500), and the part-time nature of their service would skew the balance of power, giving too much of it to the county executive.  But I would agree with charter supporters that there is nothing inherent in charter government that makes it any more corruptible or less democratic than the commissioner form.  It is not as Blaine Young suggested that it “strictly depends on who you elect”.  On the contrary, it becomes a question of who runs for the various offices and who controls the election process. 

Dividing the county into “districts” does not increase citizen participation and will not give all geographic areas of the county equal representation.  All we need to do to see that is to look at the state of Maryland, divided into counties and election districts.  A common complaint from Frederick County legislators is that the bigger, wealthier counties get a better hearing in Annapolis and more state funding.  The same will be true here in Frederick County with charter government.  Will residents of Rocky Ridge have the same clout in Winchester Hall as Urbana?  Will more funding go to roads where development is planned than to needy schools in the more rural parts of the county?  I know where I’d place my bet.  Currently a community has 5 representatives they can contact for support and help; under charter, they’ll have one. 

This in no way brings government closer to the people.

But local and county government certainly does need to be changed; not reformed or “updated”, but completely revised.

The charter needs to start at the closest point to the people; your neighborhood, the street on which you live.  Communities working together to bring about the changes they see as important to them are where democracy begins and ends. 

A good charter needs to specify how elections are conducted: publicly financed campaigns; all state-recognized political parties included; a voting system that gives equal access to all candidates.  Ideally, our political system should be some form of Proportional Representation.  In the interim, a system of Ranked Choice (also called IRV, Instant Runoff Voting), must at a minimum, be implemented. 

I understand that conservatives in this county and around the country do not believe we live in a democracy and strongly resist any move to bring us closer to one.  But these 3 simple changes: public financing of campaigns, inclusion of all political parties, and IRV will go a long way to bringing the county closer to a democratic process. 

I will be voting NO on the charter question this coming Tuesday. 

Decision making (that is, government) must be at the individual and local level, not embodied in one person, elected, appointed, or anointed. 

People have a voice in decision making when they are not only included in the discussion, but initiate and lead the discussion.  Dividing the county into voting districts will not increase citizen input nor amplify communities’ voices.

Community is the center of all economic and political power and social justice.  This charter widens the gulf between the people and the economic and political decisions made.  The county executive alone will interact with the “leaders” of Frederick County and the “leaders” in Annapolis.  This is not democracy.

Civilized society can only exist when rights, opportunity, and resources are equally shared by all.  This charter will serve only to further entrench the grotesque inequality that enslaves us.

I will vote NO to this and any charter written by the privileged few for their own benefit and the benefit of Establishment supporters.

It’s time for the people to write our own charter,

The Time Has Come

 

The gaudy spectacles called political conventions are mercifully over.  Delegates cheered their candidate; political operatives careened from lies to bombast and back again.  They were at once strong, caring, individualistic, and uniting.  The choirs were preached to on both sides.  We heard about it on the evening news shows. Pundits analyzed nearly every word; from fact-checkers to fashion experts, nothing was omitted.  It wasn’t possible to not know of the spectacle no matter how hard one tried.

But how many know that this past July another national nominating convention took place right near here, in Baltimore?  Did you see it reported on the local nightly news?  Did you read about it in this paper or in any other, for that matter?  Probably not.  Why?  It was the Green Party National Nominating Convention, that’s why.

The Maryland Green Party’s long, difficult struggle to remain on the ballot has ended successfully and the Green Party’s presidential candidates will be on the ballot in enough states to win in the Electoral College.  And, for the first time in the Greens’ history our presidential candidates have raised enough money to qualify for federal matching funds; no small feat considering Greens do not accept PAC, corporate, or large donations.  Matching funds gives a significant financial boost that Green’s have never had before.

Our presidential candidate, Dr Jill Stein and her vice presidential running mate, Cheri Honkala are not members of the 1%.  They are intelligent, articulate, passionate people who stand side-by-side with the poor, working people, people of color, women, and everyone else marginalized by corporate politics.   Our candidates don’t sit around counting their millions stashed in Swiss banks or promising us change…someday; they are implementing real change, true progress every day in communities around the country.  Cheri is an activist; a single mother who has been homeless and who took refuge with her children in vacant houses.  She pioneered and became a leader in the housing takeover movement.   Jill is a doctor and environmental activist who knows how to deal with Mitt Romney, having run against him for governor of Massachusetts.

Today, as the economic system is at long last unmasked as an unsustainable scheme of unlimited growth with finite resources and the political system stands exposed as a system of corruption and deceit, it’s clear why policies are bankrupt and so few people vote.

The time has come, not for everyone to “play by the same rules” but to implement a new set of rules that are fair to everyone.

The time has come, not to “restore the American (day) dream”, but to embrace the reality that we share life on this planet and we must accept the responsibility to live sustainably if we are to have the resources necessary to live in peace, today and into the future.

The time has come, not for new weapons systems, more wars, and more threats of war but rather to implement the policies that lead the world to peace.

None of these changes can happen overnight.  But neither can they happen at all unless we implement those changes now.  Anyone can hold out the promise of a grand and glorious future; we hear those same empty promises yet again.  And yet, those glorious days elude them and us. 

The time has come to actually implement real change.  And it can start as soon as this November.  There will be many people on that ballot for president in addition to the two candidates selected by the privileged elite.  Rather than vote so that the “other guy” doesn’t win, vote for real, substantive progress.

Let Us Resolve

Let 2012 be the beginning of the end. Let us resolve to never again talk of democracy, reform, or renewal. We know what is wrong; we know the enemy.
Let us resolve to nurture Occupy and let it grow. Let us resolve to Occupy our communities with new social, political and economic structures. We no longer need to be concerned with destroying the established order. That has already been done for us by them, themselves; through their greed, arrogance, and violence. All we need do is ignore them, reject them and proceed on our own path of creation.
Let us resolve to put the RIOT back in patriot. Let us resolve to expose, condemn, and most importantly, reject the systems of the privileged elite; their structures of oppression and their forces of repression.
Let us resolve to have the strength to create new environments of social interaction, implement them, live them, share them, grow them, and change them.
Let us resolve to never forget those responsible for all that has been wrong with and in our lives. Let us never forget that the fault lies, not with us, but with the few.
Let us resolve to never, never again allow the few to rule us in any way.
Let us resolve to truly seek and live in unity, peace, and justice. Let us resolve to return the Zen in citizen.
Let us resolve that 2012 will be the end. The end of all we have known, all we have suffered, all we have caused others to suffer.
Let us resolve this New Year’s Day that 2012 will be a New Year indeed; the birth of a new idea beyond Nation.
Let us resolve to recognize and never forget how we are all connected in all ways.
Let us resolve to never quit, ever, in our creation of a truly new world of love and community

Blaine Young Blasts Democracy at Naturalization Ceremony

There is no universally agreed upon definition of democracy, but most Americans intuitively understand what is meant by the word. Freedom, fairness, equality, popular sovereignty are some of the things that come immediately to mind when someone uses the term.
Several years ago, at a voter registration training session, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett told those of us assembled that democracy is nothing but 'mob rule'.
This past Saturday, President of the Frederick Board of County Commissioners Blaine Young spoke at the swearing in ceremony of America's newest citizens. In his prepared remarks, Young roared from the dais, 'thank god we do not live in a democracy', that we live in, not a democracy but a republic. He went on to explain that he does not want to be dictated to by 'the majority'.
What is going on here?
I'm old enough to remember being told that the United States is the greatest country in the world precisely because of our 'democracy'. Over the 235 years of this 'republic' there has been significant struggle for democratic rights. Women and minorities have marched, petitioned, bled, fought, and died for the right to have their views and desires recognized. A country founded on the principle that only wealthy, white, male, land owners could have a voice in the governing of the republic has moved slowly toward a democracy. The history of the violence and vehement opposition against this movement over that time is terrible to recall.
To be sure, there is much that is wrong with our 'republic' and our 'democracy'. Our electoral system is based on an anti-democratic plurality voting system of 'winner-take-all'. It is worse than a 'tyranny of the majority' in that representatives are often elected with a less than majority of the vote, making it a 'minority rule' system in many cases. The wealthy, both as individuals as well as through their giant, unaccountable corporations, finance candidates and political campaigns, control the media, the political discussion and debate, and the election process itself. Once elected, representatives very often appear to represent that tiny minority of wealth that financed them rather than the people who elected them.

We must take care to not allow this discussion to take place as the Right defines it. We must make it clear: this is NOT an issue of republic vs democracy.
More and more people opt out of the electoral process, voting districts become larger, and those who vote for losing candidates feel their views are not represented. This is not a problem caused by democracy but a crisis of us losing what little democracy we have.
As is so often the case, the Right takes a simple-minded approach to defining critical issues. Slogans like 'we live in a republic not a democracy' attempt to equate two different things; like asking someone if they walk to work or bring their lunch. The Right also implies by that simple statement that all our problems will be solved if we just abandon democracy. It may be tempting to embrace simplistic and vague platitudes as solutions, but in the end, it solves nothing.
The real solution to what is wrong with American politics is not this vague appeal to restore a republic (that does not need restoring), but realistic changes that bring more, real democracy to our representative form of government.
First, public financing of political campaigns is essential. The privileged elite, and the corporations they control cannot be permitted to determine the nature of the debate or the outcome of our elections.
All restrictions on the formation and participation of 'alternative' political parties must be removed. We cannot have democracy, that is a free sharing of ideas and policies when some of those ideas are deemed less valid than others. The notion that all Americans must conform to the ideology of the establishment political dogma is an absurdity that must not only be challenged, but done away with forever.
Finally, we must have an electoral system that treats all parties democratically, that is fairly and equally. Every voter's voice must be heard and every voter's choice must be respected.
That is what democracy is. And there is nothing wrong with it.

Job Creation Myth

Once again local media tout the 'job creation' benefits of attracting businesses, both large and small, into the community at the expense of encouraging local entrepreneurs to start small, local, community-sustaining businesses. The relocation of these testing labs, we are told will bring 70 jobs to Frederick County. Well, I'm not from Missouri, but 'show me'. Show me the want ads in the local paper, the job postings at the Workforce Center, any proof that jobs are being 'created'. The truth is, there will be precious few if any jobs 'created', but rest assured Frederick have have 70 new families to provide services for or 70 more cars commuting from where ever to Frederick. Either way, a cost to the county in dollars but more importantly, a cost of a significant additional negative impact in the community's quality of life. It's time local government and it's media come clean and tell the truth to the people of the community. Every time you read 'xxx jobs will be created', ask: How many jobs will actually be created, how many more commuters, the cost for each, the increases in the maintenance costs and the further stressing of an already stressed infrastructure. I hate that word infrastructure. We're not talking only roads and sewer pipes here, but air, soil, and water; the things on which all life depends. It's said: there's no need to speak truth to power; Power already knows the truth. The necessary thing to do is to speak truth to the People. Local government (pretenders to power) will not tell the people the truth. Find it for yourself.

Time Is On Their Side

Jim Van Der Pol, in a recent column laid out the situation rather starkly, completely, and correctly. The Right Wing, in the employ of the financial, corporate, and military elite are on track to kill any hope of democracy breaking out in this country, or anywhere else in the world for that matter. He makes the point, clear enough already to all who care to look, that jobs, not just good jobs but most jobs, are leaving this country and are not coming back. The unemployment rate will remain high until population growth declines and the baby-boomers at long last pass away. As he says, there are bigger markets and faster growing affluence in China and India; that's where the money has been going since the 1980's when Reagan, claiming 'government is the problem', started the mass transfer of wealth upward and the privileged elite trickled down on the rest of us.

The only thing the Right Wing believes government should do of course, is wage war. Social spending, so-called 'entitlements' are a drain on the transfer of wealth from working people (who don't deserve it) to the elites and must be stopped. There is no concern however about spending on the military contractors.

There's a good reason for this of course. Currently there is no other military in the world that can be trusted to do the bidding of the ruling class unquestioningly and with such brutality. But of course that could all change in a instant. China, the only other nation in the world capable of challenging the enormous spending on war of the United States could become that force. Of course, they would have to be conditioned to support the aims of the ruling class first and that hasn't happened. Yet.

Once the United States is no longer needed to wage immoral wars to steal other nations' natural resources and enrich the ruling class, there will be no need for a United States at all.