Does Freedom of the Media infer Media Freedom?
On the surface, it seems to be one and the same thing, but is it? We are brought up to believe that truthful people, if given the opportunity to be truthful, will adhere to that policy. But is that the way it plays out? Or wishful thinking? Most folks, trusting to a fault, would probably agree that a free media reports the truth! Because there’s no disincentive to do so. But evidence shows that you can have a media that is not controlled by a police state or other forms of say governmental coercion, but that media enterprise could still be a subdivision, let’s say, of a conglomerate that may have special interests/agendas that might lead to suppression, under-telling the truth or some alternative to an expression of the full truth. While that may be a hard truth to learn, we should have learned that right out of the box when GWBush was elected to lead the country and journalism took a hit that even today damages the reputation of some very well-known names..
What we did learn, in a painfully hard way, was that some of the media took inexcusable liberties with the truth, suppressing either the news altogether or coloring the outcome to make it favorable to some other of their interests or so as not to lose a close relationship with the parties involved. Well, if you think that’s a dereliction of a commitment to all the news fit to print, you’re right! But the definitions of our rights and options under the changed laws governing the use and the misuse of journalistic rights are still mainly untested and untried.
What was worse, we discovered in our probes that one of the leading newspapers that laid claim to report “all the news fit to print,” had a leading staffer who instead of fulfilling her commitment to journalistic truth, instead wound up representing several of her clients in her reporting, serving, instead, as a PR shill with the backing of a leading media empire, misleading the people who thought that they were getting the truth!....Unfortunately, were she the only isolated case, it could be overlooked, but journalistic integrity has suffered mightily in the decades since WWII when most journalists felt that their integrity was unassailable and the majority of the population felt no qualms about supporting that hypothesis. Were we all naïve, hypocrites or have conditions so changed that we need to re-examine journalistic standards for the protection of all?
To make matters worse, two things have happened to journalism that have thrown objective, honest writing into turmoil. One was the result of Newt Gingrich’s arrangement with Murdoch and Powell, then at the FCC, to upturn the guiding principles of the FCC, allowing fewer competitors to increase their span of control in violation of original guiding principles.
This has had the effect of allowing fewer and fewer communications resources to control more and more of the marketplace, allowing the newspapers in a market area, for example, to control regional TV, affecting diversity and limiting the point of view in that specific geographic area.
Thusly, if the media, with its freedom, decides not to cover a subject, it may not be covered by anyone within a geographic area, denying knowledge to the public or coloring the information to suit what might be veiled interests, and with no one to dispute the facts, that the citizenry would be hard pressed to find a more objective view.
The second blow to journalistic objectivity came with the pressures that the White House under Bush exerted on the media. First, when Ambassador White failed to play ball with the administration’s attempts to justify going to war with Iraq by claiming that Iraq was making nuclear weapons, the White House got even by revealing Ambassador White’s wife’s name, a station chief for the CIA in the Middle East, a clear violation of the law and the information was released by the media knowing that it was against the law, endangering the Ambassador’s wife and the many people she was involved with in representing the CIA’s oversea’s mission.
While Cheney’s Chief of Staff went to jail ostensibly protecting others, he was eventually pardoned by the president, someone who had a vested interest in the information released and proved it is possible to get away with crime at the highest levels of government.
The other way the White house manipulated journalistic standards was to issue information that the WH might deny access to an uncooperative media, or one that didn’t see things the White House’s way. It should be clear that a media with “access” denied, is a media with a particularly uncertain future. Secondly, the White House, through channels, let the media world know that it had plenty of tools it could draw upon and that the media needed to show the appropriate deference in its reporting.
One channel, most powerful, was the power invested in government to conduct licensing of all media venues which allowed the Administration the power to deny a license to a media company that failed to somehow meets its obligations…. Another tool in their bag of tricks was the fact that if they didn’t like their treatment, they could always employ power such as the ability to use the IRS to investigate their books. With only those three tools, licensing, the IRA, and “access,” the media could be influenced and controlled .
So, what have we got? We have fewer and fewer independent media to service the public, with more and more of the available media covering all facets of services to some markets, from TV to broadcasting to newspapers. We have a White House exploiting its powers to control what the public sees and hears. Add to this equation the fact that one of the political parties has learned how to frame the issues and set the agendas and possesses the mechanics to assure that they have utter and virtually complete control of what is issued, seen by the masses and believed, because the other party has surrendered the opportunity to stay equal and competitive in the game of communications resulting in the fact that the one party is in pretty much control of the dialog, whether it meets journalistic standards for accuracy, honesty, factuality, and content could be legitimately argued in a court of law.
For example, we now know that the Murdoch empire was in cooperation with the Bush government in supporting the misleading information that the Global Warming was unproven and that scientists were using this as power to confuser and mislead the people in order gain acceptance for their points of view despite the facts. This kind of media control and domination of the airwaves to reinforce a point of view served to support Bush’s friends on the radical right, like the Koch brothers, who gave money to the government to further their interests in producing profits from their ventures in coal and other toxic enterprises that impact air and water quality, which are patently against EPA regulations and the law of the land.
Clearly, ‘Americans have ignored these issues for too long and we need to change the FCC regs once again to better reflect the needs of the people and stay vigilant to continuing abuses to control the dialog.
.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
The Inevitable Comparisons are Unavoidable
Why is it that this president reminds me so much of WWII's General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Commander of US Forces and the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces.
Eisenhower was a very unusual man, not a battlefield commander but still chosen to lead the American forces by his mentor and superior, George Marshall, in the greatest war of all time, the War to decide the future of mankind.
After the successful culmination of the War, Eisenhower presided as the president of Columbia University for a time, a job for which he felt amazingly ill-suited. Not an intellectual by nature or a fund raiser, Eisenhower was compelled to wear many hats as Columbia's president. Eventually, the party focused on him to become its candidate for president.
To me, both men were good men, who found their cores early and who set a rigorous path for themselves, Eisenhower, in the military, and Obama in Law and education.
But both were also reserved and careful about how they doled out their accolades. Eisenhower, as a general, chose his generals for their acumen; Obama, perhaps for their credentials and their loyalties. Each had their own yardsticks for performance. Eisenhower was task oriented but could also be tougher on those he appointed; Obama, on the other hand, doesn't seem to like the nitty-gritty of managment and tries to pick the top people by specialization and then tends to leave them to their own devices. In this, both men differ.
and this is where the comparisons begin.
Eisenhower was the most well=intentioned, perhaps, of all presidents, he was skilled in his specialty, finding common ground with his other generals, and delivering a good speech on the occasions where they were warranted. Other than that, he turned out to be a rather indifferent president, someone who preferred to keep a low profile rather than get into the trenches, someone considered to be possessed of little vision as to where to take the country and no stomach for fighting off McCarthy or putting Nixon into his place when he overstepped.
Eisenhower, as president, was a man who took pleasure in small things and perhaps he was happiest away from his desk and on the golf course; afterall, he had never wanted a desk career. Yet, when he had to, he came forward with the words that touched men's souls and while not the best crafter of words, he earned the respect and gratitude of the American people for protecting America's values in the War.
His leadership ability oftentimes gave him more traction than he might have gained otherwise.
Having come into office with great promise and the hopes of his many ardent admirers, Eisenhower accomplished surprising little for his time in office and is perhaps best known for the Interstate Highway System which in its original iteration was the implementation of a design for providing a means for transporting military and equipment via high-way across the continent, in a way, reminiscent of what President Obama is advocating for in the way of streamlined transportation today.
Eisenhower and Obama also seem to share something else; almost a studied indifference to the day to day task of of keeping the country moving in the right direction,some might say, it was akin to almost a form of indifference to the demands of office.
Eisenhower gave little thought, it seemed, to policy leaving that mostly to others.
If Obama is a policy wonk, it is not totally clear.
Neither did Eisenhower use the bully pulpit to advantage to build support among the voters although that is rather mystifying because he has the talent to do so; only, unlike FDR, Obama seems more like the college professor talking to his class.
Of course, I realize that these judgments come after only two years in office in comparison to Eisenhower's successful terms in office; nontheless, the comparisons seem eerily acute at this early stage. We shall see how things shape out; but for now that's my assessment based upon my observations of both presidents....
Eisenhower was a very unusual man, not a battlefield commander but still chosen to lead the American forces by his mentor and superior, George Marshall, in the greatest war of all time, the War to decide the future of mankind.
After the successful culmination of the War, Eisenhower presided as the president of Columbia University for a time, a job for which he felt amazingly ill-suited. Not an intellectual by nature or a fund raiser, Eisenhower was compelled to wear many hats as Columbia's president. Eventually, the party focused on him to become its candidate for president.
To me, both men were good men, who found their cores early and who set a rigorous path for themselves, Eisenhower, in the military, and Obama in Law and education.
But both were also reserved and careful about how they doled out their accolades. Eisenhower, as a general, chose his generals for their acumen; Obama, perhaps for their credentials and their loyalties. Each had their own yardsticks for performance. Eisenhower was task oriented but could also be tougher on those he appointed; Obama, on the other hand, doesn't seem to like the nitty-gritty of managment and tries to pick the top people by specialization and then tends to leave them to their own devices. In this, both men differ.
and this is where the comparisons begin.
Eisenhower was the most well=intentioned, perhaps, of all presidents, he was skilled in his specialty, finding common ground with his other generals, and delivering a good speech on the occasions where they were warranted. Other than that, he turned out to be a rather indifferent president, someone who preferred to keep a low profile rather than get into the trenches, someone considered to be possessed of little vision as to where to take the country and no stomach for fighting off McCarthy or putting Nixon into his place when he overstepped.
Eisenhower, as president, was a man who took pleasure in small things and perhaps he was happiest away from his desk and on the golf course; afterall, he had never wanted a desk career. Yet, when he had to, he came forward with the words that touched men's souls and while not the best crafter of words, he earned the respect and gratitude of the American people for protecting America's values in the War.
His leadership ability oftentimes gave him more traction than he might have gained otherwise.
Having come into office with great promise and the hopes of his many ardent admirers, Eisenhower accomplished surprising little for his time in office and is perhaps best known for the Interstate Highway System which in its original iteration was the implementation of a design for providing a means for transporting military and equipment via high-way across the continent, in a way, reminiscent of what President Obama is advocating for in the way of streamlined transportation today.
Eisenhower and Obama also seem to share something else; almost a studied indifference to the day to day task of of keeping the country moving in the right direction,some might say, it was akin to almost a form of indifference to the demands of office.
Eisenhower gave little thought, it seemed, to policy leaving that mostly to others.
If Obama is a policy wonk, it is not totally clear.
Neither did Eisenhower use the bully pulpit to advantage to build support among the voters although that is rather mystifying because he has the talent to do so; only, unlike FDR, Obama seems more like the college professor talking to his class.
Of course, I realize that these judgments come after only two years in office in comparison to Eisenhower's successful terms in office; nontheless, the comparisons seem eerily acute at this early stage. We shall see how things shape out; but for now that's my assessment based upon my observations of both presidents....
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Maybe the Biggest Lie Ever Perpetrated on the American People
Feb 11, 2011, Lewes, DE: What had happened on Wall Street, the so-called “meltdown” that left most of us shocked and without answers, was treated from the very beginning as virtually an Act of Nature, like an earthquake or a volcano, for which there could be no blame, no punishment; it was deemed as “something” beyond the purview of man that could literally happen to anyone, and, thusly, it was treated as if no one was really responsible for its consequences; that is, until the Commission formed to look into what happened during the “meltdown” completed its investigation and revealed its conclusions.
What the investigation revealed, was that the entire financial disaster that brought America to its knees, in the opinion of the investigators, could have been avoided.
It is only now that the pieces are starting to fall into place, and for that, we must thank Michael Lewis for his new book, “The Big Short”
Lewis is the first one to give credit to those still standing who saw it coming and acted in opposition to what they saw as impending disaster to preserve their holdings. They, for one, provided the backgrounder that allowed Michael Lewis to write his revealing book explaining to what really happened leading up to the disaster on Wall Street and afterwards.
If anything, now pundits are asking themselves if we were not all subjected to a massive cover-up of the events that actually took place making it look as if there were no crime that took place, and no intent.
In effect, because of the unknown quality of events leading up to the breakdown of our economy, no one in particular was thought to be to blame. This attitude was reinforced by then Secretary of the Treasury. Paulson, and Fed Reserve Chief, Greenspan, later inherited by Bernanke, his successor, who conspired among themselves to put out the fire with borrowed taxpayer funds before the truth would be revealed.
At the time, Paulson set the tone by working with then president Bush and others to prop up the very firms who were responsible for what happened in the first place. As a result, these now restored firms, restored because of hand-outs of taxpayer monies by Paulson, another insider and former president of Goldman Sachs, are now resisting any attempt at reforms suggesting that we might face the very same conditions again at some future time.
It is Author Lewis’ view that CITIBANK, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and the other culprits, should have been allowed to lapse into bankruptcy and receivership, allowing the government to nationalize them. That didn’t happen. And the problems were never addressed. No one went to jail in the wake of this disaster that has created massive unemployment, dislocation and instability and is yet to be resolved. By the same token, these very same companies are at it again, making deals, and giving big bonuses with no indication of contrition or interest in changing their ways. In some respects, a case could be made that Paulson and the Federal Reserve, by issuing the bail-outs, actually rewarded their bad judgment, selfishness, and collusive behavior.
Investigators, who were part of the Commission convened by the government to get to the root of the problem, after 700 interviews and countless dispositions, have independently come to the conclusion that because we didn’t address the causes, it could in all probability occur again. In other words, it just may be that we learned nothing from this terrible misadventure that has literally changed the lives of the majority of this country and none of that has even been discussed or investigated which, by itself, not only seems incredulous, but against the best interests of the citizenry, and an offense, itself.
In the mind of this writer, it is not too late to conduct a full investigation of the impact of this canard on the American people or to penalize those who, with knowledge, led this misadventure to make money on the backs of the American people.
# # #
What the investigation revealed, was that the entire financial disaster that brought America to its knees, in the opinion of the investigators, could have been avoided.
It is only now that the pieces are starting to fall into place, and for that, we must thank Michael Lewis for his new book, “The Big Short”
Lewis is the first one to give credit to those still standing who saw it coming and acted in opposition to what they saw as impending disaster to preserve their holdings. They, for one, provided the backgrounder that allowed Michael Lewis to write his revealing book explaining to what really happened leading up to the disaster on Wall Street and afterwards.
If anything, now pundits are asking themselves if we were not all subjected to a massive cover-up of the events that actually took place making it look as if there were no crime that took place, and no intent.
In effect, because of the unknown quality of events leading up to the breakdown of our economy, no one in particular was thought to be to blame. This attitude was reinforced by then Secretary of the Treasury. Paulson, and Fed Reserve Chief, Greenspan, later inherited by Bernanke, his successor, who conspired among themselves to put out the fire with borrowed taxpayer funds before the truth would be revealed.
At the time, Paulson set the tone by working with then president Bush and others to prop up the very firms who were responsible for what happened in the first place. As a result, these now restored firms, restored because of hand-outs of taxpayer monies by Paulson, another insider and former president of Goldman Sachs, are now resisting any attempt at reforms suggesting that we might face the very same conditions again at some future time.
It is Author Lewis’ view that CITIBANK, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and the other culprits, should have been allowed to lapse into bankruptcy and receivership, allowing the government to nationalize them. That didn’t happen. And the problems were never addressed. No one went to jail in the wake of this disaster that has created massive unemployment, dislocation and instability and is yet to be resolved. By the same token, these very same companies are at it again, making deals, and giving big bonuses with no indication of contrition or interest in changing their ways. In some respects, a case could be made that Paulson and the Federal Reserve, by issuing the bail-outs, actually rewarded their bad judgment, selfishness, and collusive behavior.
Investigators, who were part of the Commission convened by the government to get to the root of the problem, after 700 interviews and countless dispositions, have independently come to the conclusion that because we didn’t address the causes, it could in all probability occur again. In other words, it just may be that we learned nothing from this terrible misadventure that has literally changed the lives of the majority of this country and none of that has even been discussed or investigated which, by itself, not only seems incredulous, but against the best interests of the citizenry, and an offense, itself.
In the mind of this writer, it is not too late to conduct a full investigation of the impact of this canard on the American people or to penalize those who, with knowledge, led this misadventure to make money on the backs of the American people.
# # #
Saturday, January 22, 2011
To Curry Favor with Independents, is Obama Willing to
Jeopardize His Relationship with the Liberal/Progressive Base?
Upon first glance, the Democrats erratic behavior seems incomprehensible.
And from an historical perspective, this iteration of a party that's been out in the cold as long as this one has, quite extraordinary in the way it acts first one way and then another, resulting in the feeling that it had operated all along in a vacuum that owes no allegiance to its base.
Does the left, the progressives, the liberals seem so out of touch that even the so-called “mainstream” avoids the "left" as if it were the verifax appendage of a party that ostensibly does not need its base, nor does it hold possible that the base even has anything to contribute to the dialogue.
Odd as that all appears, what could it mean?
Those who are good at reading the ciphers seem to voice mixed views.
As for myself, an involved onlooker who had responded to the Obama call early on, I find it mystifying. I’ve been mulling this inescapable observation over for some time now, thinking that it must be a misperception on my part, but it continues with no attempt by the president to try to explain it away; thusly, I have come to the point of view, that I really no longer believe that the Chief of Staff when he insulted “the left” did so without the imprimatur of the president.
Now, that's hard for me to say knowing that Obama went out of his way to recruit and encourage we members of the left early on.
And that is a sad commentary because it is only we of the "left" who remain committed to liberal and progressive causes while the rest seem willing to “negotiate” away everything that seems to separate us as parties.
The danger of course being that it seems there is only a mild veneer of feeling separating us at this point and for many, the perceived willingness of democrats to sacrifice their young for the harmony of the group is less than satisfying and tends to leave the rest of us feeling cheated and ignored.
And while the Media continues to call Obama everything from Socialist to “leftist,” the reality is that he identifies more with the right wing of the other party than he does with his own party.
This suggests that he intentionally avoided clearing his true allegiances up long before the election but it was not in his best interests to do so…. Thus, it becomes easy to let the misconception stand with the result that the rest of us no longer seem to have influence in the new White HOuse of Obama's making. I really don’t think that any careful observer would argue with that assessment.
And the proof is reinforced every day.
And while he may not have had an ostensible reason for “dissing” the left before, the midterm seems to have given him all the justification he needs, his misreading of the results, has only reinforced his antipathy towards the left and exacerbated our relationship with a president who doesn’t seem to have the gumption to stand tall for his own party, blaming his fall in the election results on his failure to compromise enough with the right; not on his willingness to fight for what he believes.
The right of course has been quick to acknowledge that Obama has come around to seeing the light faster than Clinton and they see Obama as being born again into the role of someone who has re-discovered the lessons of Jesus, implying that the rest of us are unholy and unfit to hold views of our own that could possibly contribute to the betterment of the democratic purpose of our society, to look out for the majority. MOreover, it seems that in this the majority has received short-shrift as the two warring and not so warring parties haggle over the finer points while fundamentally lining up on the major issues. Of course, this comment does not apply to the only hold-outs, the liberal and progressive wing of the party, that has stood tall despite the White House's rush to surrender. And kudos to them for their courage!
But the unholy alliance the president has struck with the Right may come back to haunt him. It is clear, that if a sacrificial goat is needed to win over Independents, it is the left wing of the democratic party; only, what Obama fails to integrate into his thinking is the fact that the so-called Independents were Bush hold-outs who hated how recklessly he spent but are now ready and willing to return to the party. Only Obama doesn’t understand that aspect of the Election.
Obama’s original strategy was to get all of us lined up and supportive before the campaign reached a take-off point. If you were on the list, you were cajoled every day with messages to get on board, do this, do that. And part of that message was to volunteer your time and effort to the cause.
After the election, the entire army of free-lance volunteers was forgotten in about as long a time as it takes to say “thank you for the win,” which they didn’t say.
The fact remains, that a lot of people feel as if they are strung out there, ignored and abandoned, as they watch the democratic party morph gradually into the other party as if in reality they are all partners in some exclusive insider’s club who never bothered to tell the rank and file what was really going on.
Only, that cuts both ways. It is the estimate of those who know, who tell us that the poll numbers of lately which look good for Obama now, could change in a hurry if the economic picture does not improve; nor do the figures account for the fact that many democrats feel disenchanted and ignored and are seeing their simplest goals transmuted in tangible ways. The prospect of losing that which separates us from the other party is real and it could mark a gap between elements of the party that may not be bridged.
We do not know where this is going, except from where I sit, there seems to be a lot of inconsistencies with this government and utterances and decisions that hardly seem compatible with a democratic party trying to right the wrongs of eight long years. This is most evident in the fact that there have been few changes in the Bush government of the past and that the Attorney General, at the behest of the president, has shown little interest in restoring traditional notions of justice to these hallowed halls, which I would think would be an essential step in restoring faith and confidence in our government.
Monday, January 17, 2011
The Snookering of America
The Classic “Snookering of America!”
Wake up, America. We have been played.
And 98% of us are the victims.
Despite what our leaders may swear to you up and down, the reason for this deception is clear: Their continuity in office depends on the fact that the people don’t recognize that they have little or no say in what happens on a day to day basis in government and that government, as we know it, bears little relationship to the way the Framers perceived government during the last Continental Congress. Instead, what we have before us is a set piece, a “Let’s Pretend” canard that passes for government that we accept blandly and with little criticism as we continue to cling to the popular romantic notions of what a Constitutional Democracy is all about.
Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton and Washington would be turning over in their graves if they knew that one of the few liberties we see practiced in Washington today is the liberty to manipulate government to meet the needs of the “haves,” the special interests, the corporatists, and others who through their lobbies and other devices actually influence what happens in these hallowed halls.
How is this mythology maintained? Through communications and smoke and mirrors. Today, most of our information comes from what we see and hear added to what we already believe. The “influentials” who influence what we see and hear through a down-sized, manipulated media empire, aim at maintaining the status quo and repeating the old shibboleths of rumor and innuendo; it is in their interest to focus on stability and conformity and in order to do so, find convenient scapegoats in those who have always been the scapegoats. The media they influence no longer pries into the depths of how government is run or what is best for the people or the clichéd notion of protection of the rights of all citizens. With lessened competition and ten or so media empires dominating, they make comfortable profits without having to engender the risk that they will alienate the powers that be.
Who are these great panjandrums of the media who have changed the rules as we sat back nonchalantly, not recognizing that we’ve been hoodwinked into believing that we still are a democracy that is indebted to the people.
But for the rest of us, the fact that ten media companies control the “news,” poses a constant and irrevocable challenge to the truth and objectivity.
What most don’t realize is that there are no controls, no monitoring in force. In fact, the big media players, the Saladins of communications, who are ostensibly guided by the FCC, actually enjoy carte blanche to say and do as they please…or, more likely, to curry favor and be responsive to their sponsors and benefactors. Even Rush Limbaugh, the voice of the angry and the self-interested, in clear violation of every pretension of morality, can say what he wants virtually without penalty, kind of a sleight to the original guiding regulations of the FCC.
But the real power behind the throne are those who constitute the 2% of the population who control 80% of the country’s wealth. These “haves” interface with the “influentials” who control what is said and done inside the halls of power.
Part of the problem is language, itself. In point of fact, these communications gurus have contributed to widening the gap between democrat and republican by reinforcing commonly held biases and perceptions. Unfortunately, in this, the media is influenced by the power brokers who employ whatever it takes to get its way, and that means Segretti-like tactics to frame the argument that allows the powers that be to control the debate and the use and ‘misuse’ of language. Even if they wanted to, most of the “Talking Heads” not sufficiently educated or trained to take issue with statements of policy or history. They are news readers; not experts in policy or history. While some might suggest otherwise, the fact remains that the arguments posed play to historical biases that change the perceptual landscape and serve to perpetuate the status quo, an environment where the “haves” dominate the “have-nots!” What is lacking on both sides is total objectivity but it is more pronounced by the special interests on the Right simply because they exercise more clout in the use and misuse of power.
The long and short of it is, that their biased perspectives only serves to reinforce the status quo because the status quo always favors the “haves.” . Keeping the public separated and distracted from the real issues allows the “haves” to move forward with their own agendas, at the expense of the majority.
To understand how this works, let’s backtrack for a moment. If you think about it, most Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that it is the radicalized elements of our society, the extremists, who account for virtually all of our problems. This has become almost visceral, in the sense that it is repeated frequently and nobody challenges that assumption. . We see that over and over again in all of the media. In its convenient code, the targets for the most part are the extremists on the right and the left. Mostly, however, it’s focused against the so-called “Left Wing” of the democratic party. Placing blame is part of the continuing campaign to predispose the citizenry to the dangers of the Left in true Goebbels-like fashion. This refocuses attention away from the power brokers, the corporations, the banks, Wall Street and other “influentials” who move their special interests forward. By pointing to the radicals as the nexus of the problem, we tend to be distracted from the real issues and their causes.
The real issues deal with things like jobs, the economy, Main Street, the cost of food, healthcare, and fuel. They are not the special interests that make more money for the “haves.”
If we accept their arguments, we play into their hands, and we allow ourselves to be manipulated to believe that the problem is one of political parties and extremism and thus avoid dealing with those who ultimately steer and influence policy and legislation.
The truth is that we face off against a consortium of those who want to keep the truth under a bushel basket, including those of the “Right Wing” who aide and abet such motives, helping to obscure the fact that, today, America is more like Dicken’s London in the 1800’s than the government of FDR.
The concealed truth, that if revealed, would contribute to further angst for the government and the “haves” is the fact that we now inhabit a two tier economy that has been in the process of formation since the 70’s, an economy where 40 million cannot afford insurance, works for low wages, and just manages to get by. (If you don’t believe that, I suggest you read the National Award Winning Study done on the Redistribution of Income written in 1984, originally run as a series in the Philadelphia Inquirer. It explained why those holding the top rungs of the economic ladder controlled 60% of the wealth of this country! And it has only gotten worse since.)
As James Carville said, “This is no 50-50 match, it is the bottom 98% of the Economy facing off against the top 2% of the population,” this tiny segment of the population has received all of the benefits of recent tax laws and other legislation approved by the GOP at the expense of the Middle Class….
Such disparities obviously do not mirror the true intent of the framers of the Constitution who were seeking equality of hope, expectation and opportunity as they designed the first government of the people and for the people.
So what about the “whipping boys” of the left, the nexus of all that we have been led to believe are wrong with our society. Certainly, they have become an easy target for every hate group in the country and pointed to as the ones to blame for everything that goes wrong in America.
Let us delve into that for a moment. In point of fact, it does not take a brain scientist to realize that for the past ten years, the left has had only marginal influence on politics and has mostly been sidelined or considered a “non-player.” The left has even been ignored by the last two democratic presidents, Clinton and Obama. Under Clinton, the party was moved to the right of the party of Rockefeller and Javits virtually negating those who were considered politically “on the left.”. Under Obama, the protests of the Left have been either dismissed or ignored, even though it was the Liberal/Progressive wing that helped him get elected. But you would never suspect that that from the dialogue that permeates our culture. Like a magician that has mastered sleight of hand, government has effectively labeled this segment of the political landscape as to blame for destabilizing society and contributing to democracy’s downfall than any serious audit might even begin to suggest. It is one of the biggest lies and used general to distract concerned elements of the society from looking at real causes.
The truth is that the liberal left has very little power because it lacks the cohesion and common ground required to unify its goals, and objectives. And everybody knows that no two liberals or progressives can get together on anything; yet, undeservedly, they have become the emotional outlet for the real deal-makers behind the scenes who benefit from the public’s ignorance, misguided thinking and concentrated antipathy for things they don’t understand. It is smoke and mirrors to the extreme.
What we’ve discovered is that those who influence the “influentials, ” are the economic elite, “the corporatists” the economic “haves,” and the “special interests.” The economic elites have the money and the power. The “influentials” represent them, not the common good. By obfuscating or misleading the people as to how the government actually works now, the system goes into a kind of default that allows the “haves” to get their way while conveying the belief that the GOP and the “haves” have the people’s best interests in mind, despite the evidence that shows otherwise.
To do their bidding, the power brokers employ an arsenal of tactics and tacticians that completely dominate all conversation as it pertains to issues and what should be deemed as what the people want, mostly this little to do with what the people see or want, but fundamentally what the “haves” and the special interests want.
These enablers include the partisan Think Tanks—which violate the rules governing think tanks non-tax status-- conservative interest groups, the pseudo-organizations that pose at being equal on both sides, and are not, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, all focused on one thing, policies and legislation that will allow bigger and bigger profits for corporate America with very little concern focused on the needs of the people for dependable infrastructure, decent low-cost transportation, the economy, housing, jobs, etc. They are the quasi-official influences who control the money and the thought processes—no matter who is in power.
How and why does this work so well?
Folks, it’s all about the money and what money buys… George Bush when he took office began on Day One pushing through the legislation sought by special interests. In recounting virtually all of the legislation moved through the Congress in those years, and as near as I can estimate, more than four hundred laws, policies, and pieces of legislation were enacted by the end of term one—yet, it is virtually impossible to find a single act that might be construed as having the best interests of the majority in mind. The legislation flowed smoothly because both sides benefited, money flowed into Republican coffers, and the agenda of special interests was satisfied. It had little to do with the public’s interests.
.
But why didn’t anyone speak out.
We don’t know, maybe it was survival, ambition, fear, who knows. But when someone digs through the remains of this culture, that question will be raised over and over again, one suspects. That silence was somehow reminiscent of what went on when Hitler decided to create a Union with Austria, or when he moved west to take over disputed land bordering on Germany, or East into Poland. Those who best represented the people did not speak out, so the abuses became worse.
For the most part, the average American, the 98% of the rest of us, has suffered as a result of legislation for special interests and, at the very same time, the disinterest of this segment of government in actually running the government successfully for all the people.
At the same time, the new corporate elites were buying into and leveraging corporations to represent their own personal interests, not that of America, and earning 400% of the wages of an average line worker. America’s resolve was bought off with a book called the Greening of America that suggested it was okay to get away from manufacturing; okay to move off-shore in anticipation of the Information Age. Only, the Information Age came and is dominated by India. And the companies that moved off-shore cost jobs and did not pay taxes. Something was wrong in America. Off-shoring” and “down-sizing, ” two biased, self-aggrandizing schemes designed to shelter corporations off shore and to to lower costs through cuts in overhead and staffing gave corporations the power they needed to do whatever it took to build profits on the false assumption that that would be better for everyone. It wasn’t.
What made such pervasive changes possible?
The conspiratorial fix was made possible by TV’s power, it was proven no longer necessary to press the flesh to win an election; not when you can get into bed with business that would provide the money for advertising, in return for a few legislative favors. Like the time Hitler first moved into neutral territory bordering on France, the good people did not interfere, and as a result, condoned the marriage of business and industry, changing once and for all our fragile with our Democracy.
It has been downhill ever since, from business sponsored legislation to influence.. And the rules changed to downplay the influence of the majority on national elections and to further minimize the wishes of people in a free society ( a role further diminished with the approval of the SC of the Citizens United ruling that allowed corporations to give anonymously towards the party of their choice with no upward restrictions. Under the SC, corporations have it both ways, the protection of individuals, and the right to do whatever is necessary to produce profits.)
Today, the power of money and influence runs everything and most especially Congress, and that works equally for both sides, where the people’s representatives are reminded that without large donors, they would never have the ability to advertise and win elections. Increasingly, it is not surprising, considering the “influentials” operate on both sides of the desk contributing to a growing “sameness” between both parties and strong political support for business and corporations with the exception of the Liberal Wing, which by itself stands in unique opposition to that trend line and represents a true distinction between parties.
Now, with business firmly in bed with government, the canard is complete.
None of this closeness between government and the people it is supposed to protect and represent, augers well for the 270 million plus people who occupy the rest of the positions on the economic ladder and constitute both the needy and the Middle Class for it is clear that representatives elected by big donor dollars cannot have two masters: the people and their corporate sponsors inasmuch as their interests are very different.
And therein lies the problem.
To characterize the problem as one of “left” or “right” miscasts the problem and does a disservice to honesty. The real problem is the interests of the “haves” is incompatible with the interests of the “have nots,” and they are mutually exclusive.
The real problem is the power of money to influence the candidate to make decisions that are not necessarily in the best interests of the American people and do so because that representative—from either side of the desk, has an obligation to the benefactor, not to those who elected him/her.
As a potential solution, it seems that there are really only two practical courses of action, either we take the money out of elections by having government and the people underwrite elections and return to the old standards and a commitment to oversight and regulation and, thereby, lessen the influence of the rich and the corporatists to change the political landscape so that it favors them; or we can, alternatively, agree to come together to change our form of government because most assuredly under the present conditions, it is very hard to call America today a democracy that represents the interests of the majority, including the poor and the needy.
For the last ten years, we have seen America go only one way, the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, a template that suggests that if we are not already, we are moving increasingly towards an oligarchic form of government of corporatists and the very rich and the threat of slavery and Serfdom or anarchy and chaos.
It is time for those among us who are honest and understand the critical point we are at in deciding the fate of our country ask ourselves in the process whether the noble experiment deserves to be continued or whether we begin the search for another form of government that will do a better job of representing the interests of all the people.
But first, we must recognize the situation for what it is not a question of right or left, but the rich and powerful running our government without monitoring or control by the people and without concomitant justice for the people as envisioned by the original Founding Fathers. All made possible by the unlimited and uncontrolled use of TV and corporate advertising.
To answer these questions of monumental import, we must enter into a national dialogue to confront the challenge head on without being misguided by the mis-characterization of what has happened in an effort to keep the people distracted and confused as to the cause. Wiser heads must prevail if America is to continue as a democratic form of government.
Respectfully submitted,
Les Aaron
Wake up, America. We have been played.
And 98% of us are the victims.
Despite what our leaders may swear to you up and down, the reason for this deception is clear: Their continuity in office depends on the fact that the people don’t recognize that they have little or no say in what happens on a day to day basis in government and that government, as we know it, bears little relationship to the way the Framers perceived government during the last Continental Congress. Instead, what we have before us is a set piece, a “Let’s Pretend” canard that passes for government that we accept blandly and with little criticism as we continue to cling to the popular romantic notions of what a Constitutional Democracy is all about.
Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton and Washington would be turning over in their graves if they knew that one of the few liberties we see practiced in Washington today is the liberty to manipulate government to meet the needs of the “haves,” the special interests, the corporatists, and others who through their lobbies and other devices actually influence what happens in these hallowed halls.
How is this mythology maintained? Through communications and smoke and mirrors. Today, most of our information comes from what we see and hear added to what we already believe. The “influentials” who influence what we see and hear through a down-sized, manipulated media empire, aim at maintaining the status quo and repeating the old shibboleths of rumor and innuendo; it is in their interest to focus on stability and conformity and in order to do so, find convenient scapegoats in those who have always been the scapegoats. The media they influence no longer pries into the depths of how government is run or what is best for the people or the clichéd notion of protection of the rights of all citizens. With lessened competition and ten or so media empires dominating, they make comfortable profits without having to engender the risk that they will alienate the powers that be.
Who are these great panjandrums of the media who have changed the rules as we sat back nonchalantly, not recognizing that we’ve been hoodwinked into believing that we still are a democracy that is indebted to the people.
But for the rest of us, the fact that ten media companies control the “news,” poses a constant and irrevocable challenge to the truth and objectivity.
What most don’t realize is that there are no controls, no monitoring in force. In fact, the big media players, the Saladins of communications, who are ostensibly guided by the FCC, actually enjoy carte blanche to say and do as they please…or, more likely, to curry favor and be responsive to their sponsors and benefactors. Even Rush Limbaugh, the voice of the angry and the self-interested, in clear violation of every pretension of morality, can say what he wants virtually without penalty, kind of a sleight to the original guiding regulations of the FCC.
But the real power behind the throne are those who constitute the 2% of the population who control 80% of the country’s wealth. These “haves” interface with the “influentials” who control what is said and done inside the halls of power.
Part of the problem is language, itself. In point of fact, these communications gurus have contributed to widening the gap between democrat and republican by reinforcing commonly held biases and perceptions. Unfortunately, in this, the media is influenced by the power brokers who employ whatever it takes to get its way, and that means Segretti-like tactics to frame the argument that allows the powers that be to control the debate and the use and ‘misuse’ of language. Even if they wanted to, most of the “Talking Heads” not sufficiently educated or trained to take issue with statements of policy or history. They are news readers; not experts in policy or history. While some might suggest otherwise, the fact remains that the arguments posed play to historical biases that change the perceptual landscape and serve to perpetuate the status quo, an environment where the “haves” dominate the “have-nots!” What is lacking on both sides is total objectivity but it is more pronounced by the special interests on the Right simply because they exercise more clout in the use and misuse of power.
The long and short of it is, that their biased perspectives only serves to reinforce the status quo because the status quo always favors the “haves.” . Keeping the public separated and distracted from the real issues allows the “haves” to move forward with their own agendas, at the expense of the majority.
To understand how this works, let’s backtrack for a moment. If you think about it, most Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that it is the radicalized elements of our society, the extremists, who account for virtually all of our problems. This has become almost visceral, in the sense that it is repeated frequently and nobody challenges that assumption. . We see that over and over again in all of the media. In its convenient code, the targets for the most part are the extremists on the right and the left. Mostly, however, it’s focused against the so-called “Left Wing” of the democratic party. Placing blame is part of the continuing campaign to predispose the citizenry to the dangers of the Left in true Goebbels-like fashion. This refocuses attention away from the power brokers, the corporations, the banks, Wall Street and other “influentials” who move their special interests forward. By pointing to the radicals as the nexus of the problem, we tend to be distracted from the real issues and their causes.
The real issues deal with things like jobs, the economy, Main Street, the cost of food, healthcare, and fuel. They are not the special interests that make more money for the “haves.”
If we accept their arguments, we play into their hands, and we allow ourselves to be manipulated to believe that the problem is one of political parties and extremism and thus avoid dealing with those who ultimately steer and influence policy and legislation.
The truth is that we face off against a consortium of those who want to keep the truth under a bushel basket, including those of the “Right Wing” who aide and abet such motives, helping to obscure the fact that, today, America is more like Dicken’s London in the 1800’s than the government of FDR.
The concealed truth, that if revealed, would contribute to further angst for the government and the “haves” is the fact that we now inhabit a two tier economy that has been in the process of formation since the 70’s, an economy where 40 million cannot afford insurance, works for low wages, and just manages to get by. (If you don’t believe that, I suggest you read the National Award Winning Study done on the Redistribution of Income written in 1984, originally run as a series in the Philadelphia Inquirer. It explained why those holding the top rungs of the economic ladder controlled 60% of the wealth of this country! And it has only gotten worse since.)
As James Carville said, “This is no 50-50 match, it is the bottom 98% of the Economy facing off against the top 2% of the population,” this tiny segment of the population has received all of the benefits of recent tax laws and other legislation approved by the GOP at the expense of the Middle Class….
Such disparities obviously do not mirror the true intent of the framers of the Constitution who were seeking equality of hope, expectation and opportunity as they designed the first government of the people and for the people.
So what about the “whipping boys” of the left, the nexus of all that we have been led to believe are wrong with our society. Certainly, they have become an easy target for every hate group in the country and pointed to as the ones to blame for everything that goes wrong in America.
Let us delve into that for a moment. In point of fact, it does not take a brain scientist to realize that for the past ten years, the left has had only marginal influence on politics and has mostly been sidelined or considered a “non-player.” The left has even been ignored by the last two democratic presidents, Clinton and Obama. Under Clinton, the party was moved to the right of the party of Rockefeller and Javits virtually negating those who were considered politically “on the left.”. Under Obama, the protests of the Left have been either dismissed or ignored, even though it was the Liberal/Progressive wing that helped him get elected. But you would never suspect that that from the dialogue that permeates our culture. Like a magician that has mastered sleight of hand, government has effectively labeled this segment of the political landscape as to blame for destabilizing society and contributing to democracy’s downfall than any serious audit might even begin to suggest. It is one of the biggest lies and used general to distract concerned elements of the society from looking at real causes.
The truth is that the liberal left has very little power because it lacks the cohesion and common ground required to unify its goals, and objectives. And everybody knows that no two liberals or progressives can get together on anything; yet, undeservedly, they have become the emotional outlet for the real deal-makers behind the scenes who benefit from the public’s ignorance, misguided thinking and concentrated antipathy for things they don’t understand. It is smoke and mirrors to the extreme.
What we’ve discovered is that those who influence the “influentials, ” are the economic elite, “the corporatists” the economic “haves,” and the “special interests.” The economic elites have the money and the power. The “influentials” represent them, not the common good. By obfuscating or misleading the people as to how the government actually works now, the system goes into a kind of default that allows the “haves” to get their way while conveying the belief that the GOP and the “haves” have the people’s best interests in mind, despite the evidence that shows otherwise.
To do their bidding, the power brokers employ an arsenal of tactics and tacticians that completely dominate all conversation as it pertains to issues and what should be deemed as what the people want, mostly this little to do with what the people see or want, but fundamentally what the “haves” and the special interests want.
These enablers include the partisan Think Tanks—which violate the rules governing think tanks non-tax status-- conservative interest groups, the pseudo-organizations that pose at being equal on both sides, and are not, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Tri-Lateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, all focused on one thing, policies and legislation that will allow bigger and bigger profits for corporate America with very little concern focused on the needs of the people for dependable infrastructure, decent low-cost transportation, the economy, housing, jobs, etc. They are the quasi-official influences who control the money and the thought processes—no matter who is in power.
How and why does this work so well?
Folks, it’s all about the money and what money buys… George Bush when he took office began on Day One pushing through the legislation sought by special interests. In recounting virtually all of the legislation moved through the Congress in those years, and as near as I can estimate, more than four hundred laws, policies, and pieces of legislation were enacted by the end of term one—yet, it is virtually impossible to find a single act that might be construed as having the best interests of the majority in mind. The legislation flowed smoothly because both sides benefited, money flowed into Republican coffers, and the agenda of special interests was satisfied. It had little to do with the public’s interests.
.
But why didn’t anyone speak out.
We don’t know, maybe it was survival, ambition, fear, who knows. But when someone digs through the remains of this culture, that question will be raised over and over again, one suspects. That silence was somehow reminiscent of what went on when Hitler decided to create a Union with Austria, or when he moved west to take over disputed land bordering on Germany, or East into Poland. Those who best represented the people did not speak out, so the abuses became worse.
For the most part, the average American, the 98% of the rest of us, has suffered as a result of legislation for special interests and, at the very same time, the disinterest of this segment of government in actually running the government successfully for all the people.
At the same time, the new corporate elites were buying into and leveraging corporations to represent their own personal interests, not that of America, and earning 400% of the wages of an average line worker. America’s resolve was bought off with a book called the Greening of America that suggested it was okay to get away from manufacturing; okay to move off-shore in anticipation of the Information Age. Only, the Information Age came and is dominated by India. And the companies that moved off-shore cost jobs and did not pay taxes. Something was wrong in America. Off-shoring” and “down-sizing, ” two biased, self-aggrandizing schemes designed to shelter corporations off shore and to to lower costs through cuts in overhead and staffing gave corporations the power they needed to do whatever it took to build profits on the false assumption that that would be better for everyone. It wasn’t.
What made such pervasive changes possible?
The conspiratorial fix was made possible by TV’s power, it was proven no longer necessary to press the flesh to win an election; not when you can get into bed with business that would provide the money for advertising, in return for a few legislative favors. Like the time Hitler first moved into neutral territory bordering on France, the good people did not interfere, and as a result, condoned the marriage of business and industry, changing once and for all our fragile with our Democracy.
It has been downhill ever since, from business sponsored legislation to influence.. And the rules changed to downplay the influence of the majority on national elections and to further minimize the wishes of people in a free society ( a role further diminished with the approval of the SC of the Citizens United ruling that allowed corporations to give anonymously towards the party of their choice with no upward restrictions. Under the SC, corporations have it both ways, the protection of individuals, and the right to do whatever is necessary to produce profits.)
Today, the power of money and influence runs everything and most especially Congress, and that works equally for both sides, where the people’s representatives are reminded that without large donors, they would never have the ability to advertise and win elections. Increasingly, it is not surprising, considering the “influentials” operate on both sides of the desk contributing to a growing “sameness” between both parties and strong political support for business and corporations with the exception of the Liberal Wing, which by itself stands in unique opposition to that trend line and represents a true distinction between parties.
Now, with business firmly in bed with government, the canard is complete.
None of this closeness between government and the people it is supposed to protect and represent, augers well for the 270 million plus people who occupy the rest of the positions on the economic ladder and constitute both the needy and the Middle Class for it is clear that representatives elected by big donor dollars cannot have two masters: the people and their corporate sponsors inasmuch as their interests are very different.
And therein lies the problem.
To characterize the problem as one of “left” or “right” miscasts the problem and does a disservice to honesty. The real problem is the interests of the “haves” is incompatible with the interests of the “have nots,” and they are mutually exclusive.
The real problem is the power of money to influence the candidate to make decisions that are not necessarily in the best interests of the American people and do so because that representative—from either side of the desk, has an obligation to the benefactor, not to those who elected him/her.
As a potential solution, it seems that there are really only two practical courses of action, either we take the money out of elections by having government and the people underwrite elections and return to the old standards and a commitment to oversight and regulation and, thereby, lessen the influence of the rich and the corporatists to change the political landscape so that it favors them; or we can, alternatively, agree to come together to change our form of government because most assuredly under the present conditions, it is very hard to call America today a democracy that represents the interests of the majority, including the poor and the needy.
For the last ten years, we have seen America go only one way, the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, a template that suggests that if we are not already, we are moving increasingly towards an oligarchic form of government of corporatists and the very rich and the threat of slavery and Serfdom or anarchy and chaos.
It is time for those among us who are honest and understand the critical point we are at in deciding the fate of our country ask ourselves in the process whether the noble experiment deserves to be continued or whether we begin the search for another form of government that will do a better job of representing the interests of all the people.
But first, we must recognize the situation for what it is not a question of right or left, but the rich and powerful running our government without monitoring or control by the people and without concomitant justice for the people as envisioned by the original Founding Fathers. All made possible by the unlimited and uncontrolled use of TV and corporate advertising.
To answer these questions of monumental import, we must enter into a national dialogue to confront the challenge head on without being misguided by the mis-characterization of what has happened in an effort to keep the people distracted and confused as to the cause. Wiser heads must prevail if America is to continue as a democratic form of government.
Respectfully submitted,
Les Aaron
Friday, January 7, 2011
Recently, the History Channel brought together six of the leading futurists in the world to discuss America’s leading challenges and what can be done to address and, hopefully, resolve them.
At the end of the meeting, there was a degree of consensus and the good news was that the solutions do not have to be all bad and perhaps the lesson was that the best answer was to rethink what we have been doing and consider what we should have doing all along. Nor do the solutions, as discussed, necessarily involve pain or unnecessary hardship but a willingness to deal with change.
But while this was the good news, these experts all had dire warnings about what was happening around us and our failure to prepare ourselves for the dangers ahead.
These experts in various fields who’s concern for the future caused them to come together, talked about a diverse range of subjects, their own spheres of interest and concern, that ranged from the economy, the threat of economic dislocation, the prospect of terrorism and nuclear weaponry, the prospect that the solutions we come up with to address these needs, the prospect for intelligent devices that could perhaps turn on us as they grow in capacity, to the shortages we shall face of oil, food, and, perhaps the most threatening challenge of all, the absence or pollution of the one resource we cannot do without, water .
What’s more, each warned that we were much further along in crisis than anyone might have imagined and as the leading expert on finances suggested, there is a kind of “cognitive dissonance” that tends to shut off a person’s mind when encountering difficulties that would force changes in behavior triggering a kind of reluctance to change that lulls us into apathy, and an unwillingness to perform corrective action. In other words, a kind of resistance, a form of malaise, takes hold that impedes our ability to save ourselves in the face of pending disaster.
The first lesson was that we must learn how to overcome this cognitive dissonance if we want to survive the present range of crises we are confronted with.
That being said, each of the Prophets of Doom entered into a dialog that explained their concerns in their particular province of interest.
The financial guru, who left the management of a hedge fund, quit one day when he realized that the whole economic system was in critical danger of collapse and realized that it was impossible to try to resolve a credit problem with more credit.
The reality of the depth of the challenge we face could leave us in deep water without recourse. We could find ourselves confronting an end to the money supply, with the option of creating more money with lessening value as a poor solution; and no potential solutions on the horizon that are palatable; nonetheless, our Prophet of Doom and guru of the financial world also suggested that at the same time, this dire scenario didn’t spell the end of the world, that there were measures that could be taken to improve the outcome and that man could live under a different set of circumstances but it was the chaos that preceded the new order of things that might impose the greatest hardship and contribute to the greatest disequilibrium.
As was suggested, the story of every Empire is rise and fall. And the analogy to ancient Rome was singled out in the dialog where Rome was overextended, trying to maintain its presence around the world as its economy fell into disrepair; much of that is very similar to what we face today and understanding the challenges that faced Rome at that time might be useful in helping mankind change the outcome with purpose and resolve.
One of the speakers indicated that man’s tendency to ignore problems of the first magnitude suggested that perhaps we all needed some kind of environmental cue to alert us to oncoming dangers that threaten our way of life. The example cited, was toilet paper. If it is learned that the supplies of toilet paper were being exhausted, we could take corrective measures. If we were alerted, however, after the fact, we would need to come up with more complex alternatives or just settle for the condition imposed by our own inability or unwillingness to meet the challenge.
Another one of the prophets, John Cronin, who heads up the Beacon Institute of Water and Energy, a group that is in the process of developing a network of professionals for monitoring and reporting on water quality, said that the biggest challenge we may face may be the unavailability or contamination of water; that there is only so much water and the fact that we have been very wasteful with ours, not unlike the ancient Sumarians who’s culture literally disappeared because of their wasteful practices with water. For without water, no society or culture can long survive.
As John Cronin points out, we are a water economy because everything is more or less dependent on the quality and volume of water. But in truth, water is at a crisis level around the world.
We already find signs around many cities that suggest that having fish for dinner more than once a week may prove hazardous to your health. Consider that in San Francisco alone, fish are being hauled in that are already poisoned by caffeine. Why? Because the processing plants do not have a way to process out the caffeine that enters into the water system; nor for that matter, do they have the ability to remove the exotic chemicals that we introduce into the water from our drugs and other chemicals we routinely introduce in a variety of ways into our existing sources for fresh water.
I will continue this discussion in my next blog edition.
At the end of the meeting, there was a degree of consensus and the good news was that the solutions do not have to be all bad and perhaps the lesson was that the best answer was to rethink what we have been doing and consider what we should have doing all along. Nor do the solutions, as discussed, necessarily involve pain or unnecessary hardship but a willingness to deal with change.
But while this was the good news, these experts all had dire warnings about what was happening around us and our failure to prepare ourselves for the dangers ahead.
These experts in various fields who’s concern for the future caused them to come together, talked about a diverse range of subjects, their own spheres of interest and concern, that ranged from the economy, the threat of economic dislocation, the prospect of terrorism and nuclear weaponry, the prospect that the solutions we come up with to address these needs, the prospect for intelligent devices that could perhaps turn on us as they grow in capacity, to the shortages we shall face of oil, food, and, perhaps the most threatening challenge of all, the absence or pollution of the one resource we cannot do without, water .
What’s more, each warned that we were much further along in crisis than anyone might have imagined and as the leading expert on finances suggested, there is a kind of “cognitive dissonance” that tends to shut off a person’s mind when encountering difficulties that would force changes in behavior triggering a kind of reluctance to change that lulls us into apathy, and an unwillingness to perform corrective action. In other words, a kind of resistance, a form of malaise, takes hold that impedes our ability to save ourselves in the face of pending disaster.
The first lesson was that we must learn how to overcome this cognitive dissonance if we want to survive the present range of crises we are confronted with.
That being said, each of the Prophets of Doom entered into a dialog that explained their concerns in their particular province of interest.
The financial guru, who left the management of a hedge fund, quit one day when he realized that the whole economic system was in critical danger of collapse and realized that it was impossible to try to resolve a credit problem with more credit.
The reality of the depth of the challenge we face could leave us in deep water without recourse. We could find ourselves confronting an end to the money supply, with the option of creating more money with lessening value as a poor solution; and no potential solutions on the horizon that are palatable; nonetheless, our Prophet of Doom and guru of the financial world also suggested that at the same time, this dire scenario didn’t spell the end of the world, that there were measures that could be taken to improve the outcome and that man could live under a different set of circumstances but it was the chaos that preceded the new order of things that might impose the greatest hardship and contribute to the greatest disequilibrium.
As was suggested, the story of every Empire is rise and fall. And the analogy to ancient Rome was singled out in the dialog where Rome was overextended, trying to maintain its presence around the world as its economy fell into disrepair; much of that is very similar to what we face today and understanding the challenges that faced Rome at that time might be useful in helping mankind change the outcome with purpose and resolve.
One of the speakers indicated that man’s tendency to ignore problems of the first magnitude suggested that perhaps we all needed some kind of environmental cue to alert us to oncoming dangers that threaten our way of life. The example cited, was toilet paper. If it is learned that the supplies of toilet paper were being exhausted, we could take corrective measures. If we were alerted, however, after the fact, we would need to come up with more complex alternatives or just settle for the condition imposed by our own inability or unwillingness to meet the challenge.
Another one of the prophets, John Cronin, who heads up the Beacon Institute of Water and Energy, a group that is in the process of developing a network of professionals for monitoring and reporting on water quality, said that the biggest challenge we may face may be the unavailability or contamination of water; that there is only so much water and the fact that we have been very wasteful with ours, not unlike the ancient Sumarians who’s culture literally disappeared because of their wasteful practices with water. For without water, no society or culture can long survive.
As John Cronin points out, we are a water economy because everything is more or less dependent on the quality and volume of water. But in truth, water is at a crisis level around the world.
We already find signs around many cities that suggest that having fish for dinner more than once a week may prove hazardous to your health. Consider that in San Francisco alone, fish are being hauled in that are already poisoned by caffeine. Why? Because the processing plants do not have a way to process out the caffeine that enters into the water system; nor for that matter, do they have the ability to remove the exotic chemicals that we introduce into the water from our drugs and other chemicals we routinely introduce in a variety of ways into our existing sources for fresh water.
I will continue this discussion in my next blog edition.
The Prophets of Doom
Part I
Recently, the History Channel brought together six of the leading futurists in the world to discuss America’s leading challenges and what can be done to address and, hopefully, resolve them.
At the end of the meeting, there was a degree of concensus and the good news was that the solutions do not have to be all bad and perhaps the lesson was that the best answer was to rethink what we have been doing and consider what we should have doing all along. Nor does the solution necessarily involve pain.
But while this was the good news, these experts all had dire warnings about what was happening around us and our failure to prepare ourselves for the dangers ahead.
They talked about a diverse range of subjects, their own spheres of interest and concern, that ranged from the economy, the threat of economic dislocation, the prospect of terrorism and nuclear weaponry, the prospect that the solutions we come up with to address these needs, intelligent devices, turn on us, to the shortages we shall face of oil, food, and, perhaps the most threatening, water.
What’s more, each warned that we were not further along in crisis than anyone might have imagined and as the leading expert on finances suggested, there is a kind of cognitive dissonance that tends to shut off a person’s mind when encountering difficulties that would force changes in behavior triggering a kind of reluctance to change and a form of apathy that lulls us into apathy, and an unwillingness to perform corrective action.
The first lesson was that we must learn how to overcome this cognitive dissonance if we want to survive the present range of crises we are confronted with.
That being said, each of the Prophets of Doom entered into a dialog that explained their concerns in their particular province of interest.
The financial guru, who left the management of a hedge fund, quit one day when he realized that the whole economic system was in critical danger of collapse and that you couldn’t solve a credit problem with more credit.
And the challenges we face could result in an end to the money supply, the creation of more money, or other solutions—none of which addresses the problem; nonetheless, he also suggested that at the same time, this dire scenario didn’t spell the end of the world, that there were measures that could be taken to improve the outcome and that man could live under a different set of circumstances but it was the chaos that preceded the new order of things that might impose the greatest hardship.
As was suggested, the story of every Empire is rise and fall. And the analogy to ancient Rome was proferred where Rome was overextended, trying to maintain its presence around the world as its economy fell into disrepair; much of that is very similar to what we face today and understanding the challenges can help mankind change the outcome with purpose and resolve.
One of the speakers indicated that man’s tendency to ignore problems of the first magnitude suggested that perhaps we all needed some kind of environmental cue to alert us to oncoming dangers that threaten our way of life.
Another one of the prophets, John Cronin, who heads up the Beacon Institute of Water and Energy, a group that is in the process of developing a network of professionals for monitoring and reporting on water quality, said that the biggest challenge we may face may be the unavailability or contamination of water; that there is only so much water and the fact that we have been very wasteful with ours, not unlike the ancient Sumarians who’s culture literally disappeared because of their wasteful practices with water. For without water, no society or culture can long survive.
As John Cronin points out, we are a water economy because everything is more or less dependent on the quality and volume of water. But in truth, water is at a crisis level around the world.
We already find signs around many cities that suggest that having fish for dinner more than once a week may prove hazardous to your health. Consider that in San Francisco alone, fish are being hauled in that are already poisoned by caffeine. Why? Because the processing plants do not have a way to process out the caffeine that enters into the water system; nor for that matter, do they have the ability to remove the exotic chemicals that we introduce into the water from our drugs to other chemicals we routinely introduce in a variety of ways into our existing sources for fresh water.
I will continue this discussion in
Part I
Recently, the History Channel brought together six of the leading futurists in the world to discuss America’s leading challenges and what can be done to address and, hopefully, resolve them.
At the end of the meeting, there was a degree of concensus and the good news was that the solutions do not have to be all bad and perhaps the lesson was that the best answer was to rethink what we have been doing and consider what we should have doing all along. Nor does the solution necessarily involve pain.
But while this was the good news, these experts all had dire warnings about what was happening around us and our failure to prepare ourselves for the dangers ahead.
They talked about a diverse range of subjects, their own spheres of interest and concern, that ranged from the economy, the threat of economic dislocation, the prospect of terrorism and nuclear weaponry, the prospect that the solutions we come up with to address these needs, intelligent devices, turn on us, to the shortages we shall face of oil, food, and, perhaps the most threatening, water.
What’s more, each warned that we were not further along in crisis than anyone might have imagined and as the leading expert on finances suggested, there is a kind of cognitive dissonance that tends to shut off a person’s mind when encountering difficulties that would force changes in behavior triggering a kind of reluctance to change and a form of apathy that lulls us into apathy, and an unwillingness to perform corrective action.
The first lesson was that we must learn how to overcome this cognitive dissonance if we want to survive the present range of crises we are confronted with.
That being said, each of the Prophets of Doom entered into a dialog that explained their concerns in their particular province of interest.
The financial guru, who left the management of a hedge fund, quit one day when he realized that the whole economic system was in critical danger of collapse and that you couldn’t solve a credit problem with more credit.
And the challenges we face could result in an end to the money supply, the creation of more money, or other solutions—none of which addresses the problem; nonetheless, he also suggested that at the same time, this dire scenario didn’t spell the end of the world, that there were measures that could be taken to improve the outcome and that man could live under a different set of circumstances but it was the chaos that preceded the new order of things that might impose the greatest hardship.
As was suggested, the story of every Empire is rise and fall. And the analogy to ancient Rome was proferred where Rome was overextended, trying to maintain its presence around the world as its economy fell into disrepair; much of that is very similar to what we face today and understanding the challenges can help mankind change the outcome with purpose and resolve.
One of the speakers indicated that man’s tendency to ignore problems of the first magnitude suggested that perhaps we all needed some kind of environmental cue to alert us to oncoming dangers that threaten our way of life.
Another one of the prophets, John Cronin, who heads up the Beacon Institute of Water and Energy, a group that is in the process of developing a network of professionals for monitoring and reporting on water quality, said that the biggest challenge we may face may be the unavailability or contamination of water; that there is only so much water and the fact that we have been very wasteful with ours, not unlike the ancient Sumarians who’s culture literally disappeared because of their wasteful practices with water. For without water, no society or culture can long survive.
As John Cronin points out, we are a water economy because everything is more or less dependent on the quality and volume of water. But in truth, water is at a crisis level around the world.
We already find signs around many cities that suggest that having fish for dinner more than once a week may prove hazardous to your health. Consider that in San Francisco alone, fish are being hauled in that are already poisoned by caffeine. Why? Because the processing plants do not have a way to process out the caffeine that enters into the water system; nor for that matter, do they have the ability to remove the exotic chemicals that we introduce into the water from our drugs to other chemicals we routinely introduce in a variety of ways into our existing sources for fresh water.
I will continue this discussion in
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)