He Ignores US... Should We Ignore Him?

He Ignores US... Should We Ignore Him?


"US"

He Ignores

We Must Not Ignore Him

We Must Incarcerate Him
~~~

He Who Cries, Chants & Sneers "I AM PRO LIFE" When Death is His Trademark...

... Must be Stopped!

~ He Ignores Facts that Could Save the very Lives He is Destroying ~

He Vetoed Highly Regulated Stem Cell Research
(His Only Veto Since Taking Office)

He ignores facts that will save lives as he rushes into war.

He ignores facts that will save lives as he brazenly perpetuates war.

He ignores facts that will save lives as he rushes into his own blissful oblivion.

He ignores facts that will save lives as he kills to steal, for himself, God's own moral authority.

He ignores facts that will save lives as he rushes humanity back to the dark ages.

He does not like facts.

Facts make him nervous.

He is George W. Bush.

Please Take the Following Gut Check Seriously

"Bush might be a Joke... but the horrific Consequences of His Actions are Not A Joke... they are Deadly Serious"

I am, ____________________________________,
an ordinary citizen with more intelligence in my pinky
(one I hope never need be replaced)
than "W" has in his brain, assuming he has one.

I offer "W" these facts

I do not fear as he wishes me to fear.

I do not acquiesce as he wishes me to acquiesce.

I do not keep silent as he wishes me to keep silent.

I scream aloud...

"Why is this foolish son of a president, still president?"

George Bush is a madman. I ____________________________________, am going to Do Something!

But where do I begin?
|
V
Uphold the Constitution and
Hold Those Who Violate It Accountable

Four Reasons

Vote to Impeach Bush

Contact your Congressional Reps


Not a Letter Writer?
~ Cut and paste Four Reasons to Impeach ~

Get More News!
Boycott U.S. Mainstream Media


West Point Graduates Against the War


Iraq Body Count
~~~
WITH NO END

In Sight

History of the Green Movement

To better understand my perceived need for a form of politics I call "Realitics," I recommend one consider the History of the Green Movement.

This chronology is an excellent quick reference to some of the major events that have shaped the present global mindset as it pertains to environmental policy. What is made clear is that the United States of America is not quite the leader it has claimed to be concerning the global effort to bring greater environmental responsibility into the political process.

Elim Papadakis authored Historical Dictionary of the Green Movement in 1998. Papadakis ignores several eastern religions and ancient philosophies that have enduringly embraced principles of harmony with and conservation of nature and its resources. This is not an oversight but a practical approach for addressing the influence of the Green (Environmental) Movement on modern political systems in industrialized and developing nations around the world. His chronology focuses on the Green Movement’s political and social influence in the twentieth century.

I strongly recommend Papadakis for those wishing to better frame a picture of major events leading to Today’s State of Green Politics in the USA. Here, I am offering Papadakis’ chronology of historical events as a backdrop for sharing thought provoking concepts. Your Realitics Host has created numerous links to provide a deeper and broader base of information concerning each event and individual Papadakis highlights in his Chronology.

CHRONOLOGY

1798 Publication of An Essay on the Principle of Population by Robert Malthus

1849 Establishment of the U.S. Department of the Interior

1863 Enactment of the Alkali Act in Britain represents a novel attempt to curb emissions on a large scale

1864 Publication of Man and Nature by George Perkins Marsh; Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove of Big Trees are assigned by act of U.S. Congress to the state of California for public use, resort, and recreation

1865 Formation of the Commons, Opens Spaces, and Footpaths Preservation Society in Britain

1867 Foundation of the East Riding Association for the Protection of Sea Birds in Britain

1870 Foundation of the Association for the Protection of British Birds

1872 Creation of Yellowstone National Park in the United States; *Robert Angus Smith introduces the concept of acid rain

1879 Creation of the Royal National Park in Australia

1881 Foundation of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Britain

1883 Formation of the Natal Game Preservation Society in in south Africa; foundation of the American Ornithologists Union

1885 Creation of Banff National Park in Canada

1886 Foundation of the New York Audubon Society

1889 Foundation of the Society for the Protection of Birds in Britain

1892 John Muir and his associates form the Sierra Club

1894 Creation of the Tongariro National Park in New Zealand

1895 Foundation of the National Trust in Britain

1900 Endorsement of the Convention for the Preservation of Animals, Birds, and Fish in Africa

1903 Formation of the Society for the Preservation of wild Fauna of the Empire of Britain; establishment of the first U.S. wildlife refuge on Pelican Island, near Florida

1905 Formation of the National Audubon Society in the United States

1906 Enactment of the U.S. Pure Food and Drug Act

1907 Establishment of the Inland Waterways Commission in the United States

1908 Conference of Governors on Conservation held at the White House, Washington D.C.

1909 Foundation of the Wildlife Preservation Society in Australia; creation of the Swiss League for the Protection of Nature; formation of the Swedish Society for the Protection of Nature; North American Conservation Congress for the Protection of Nature held in Washington, D.C.; International Congress for the Protection of Nature convened in Paris

1913 Formation of the Consultative Committee for the International Protection of Nature in Switzerland; foundation of the British Ecological Society

1914 Establishment of the Swiss National Park; formation of the Mountain Trails Club in Australia

1919 Foundation of the National Parks and Conservation Association in the United States

1922 Foundation of the International Committee for Bird Protection (later named International Council for Bird Preservation (later named BirdLife International)

1926 Foundation of the Council for the Protection of Rural England

Work in Progress ~ More Links will be Added ASAP ~ Thanks for Your Patience!

1930 Creation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

1933 International Conference for the Protection of Fauna and Flora held in London

1934 Creation of the International Office for the Protection of Nature

1936 Foundation of the National Wildlife Federation in the United States

1942 Completion of the first atomic reactor at the University of Chicago

1945 The United States drops atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan

1948 Formation of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (now known as the The World Conservation Union)

1949 Publication of A Sand County Almanac, by Aldo Leopold; UN Scientific Conference on the conservation and Utilization of Resources, Lake success, New York

1951 The United States begins testing nuclear weapons

1952 Britain begins testing nuclear weapons

1954 The United States conducts a hydrogen bomb test on Bikini Atoll and radioactive dust falls on the population of the Marshall Islands

1956 Enactment of the clean Air Act in Britain

1957 Creation of the National Council for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons Tests and of the Emergency Committee for Direct Action Against Nuclear War in Britain in response to the conduct of nuclear tests on Christmas Island; publication of an article by J.B. Priestley entitled “Britain and the Nuclear Bombs” in the New Statesman; foundation of the International Atomic Energy Agency

1958 Formation of a committee to launch the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND); the first of a series of marches organized by the CND between Aldermaston and London

1959 Signing of the Antarctic Treaty with a view to using the territory for peaceful purposes only

1960 Formation of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)

1961 Around 150,000 people assemble in Trafalgar Square at the end of a CND march from Aldermaston to London; foundation of the World Wildlife Fund; Arusha Conference on Nature Conservation in Africa; first compensation payments to victims of mercury poisoning at Minamata, Japan

1962 Publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson; first World Conference on National Parks held in Seattle, Washington

1963 Signing of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

1967 Collision of the oil tanker Torrey Canyon with rocks off the southwestern coast of England leads to oil pollution on the shores of Cornwall and of Brittany; foundation of the Environmental Defense Fund in the United States

1968 African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources signed by 33 African states that were member of the Organization of African Unity; convention of the Biosphere Conference in Paris to discuss the impact of human beings on the environment; creation of the Club of Rome to examine the interrelationships between factors like economic growth, the environment, population, resources, and industrialization; publication of the Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich and of the Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin

1969 David Brower leaves the Sierra Club to form Friends of the Earth; formation of the Don’t Make Wave Committee in Vancouver, Canada, as a precursor to the foundation of Greenpeace; foundation of the Union of Concerned Scientists

1970 Establishment of the Friends of the Earth in London and Paris; first Earth Day attracts 20 million people to protests held around the United States; creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States

1971 Creation of Save the Whales; founding of the Gaucha Association for the Protection of the Natural Environment and the emergence of a green social movement in Brazil; publication of the Closing Circle: Nature, Man and Technology by Barry Commoner; creation of the Greenpeace Foundation following protests against nuclear tests off the coast of Alaska by the U.S. government; establishment of the Department of the Environment, Canada

1972 Publication by The Ecologist magazine of A Blueprint for Survival by Edward goldsmith and his collaborators and of The Limits to Growth by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III; protests by Greenpeace against nuclear weapons tests by the French government in the Mururoa Atoll; UN Conference on the Human Environment, convened in Stockholm; formation of the UN Environment Programme, the first UN agency with headquarters located in a developing country; signing in Paris of the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage; ratification in London of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and Other Matter (London Dumping Convention) foundation of Negative Population Growth; ban on DDT in the United States; citizens of NeuchItel in Switzerland oppose the building of a new highway, contest the communal elections, and win eight of the 41 seats in the local parliament; formation of the United Tasmania Group in response to the destruction of Lake Pedder in Tasmania in order to promote hydroelectric system; foundation of a Citizens’ Initiative umbrella organization, Bundesverband Burgerinitiativen Umweltschultz, in the Federal Republic of Germany; formation of the Values Party in Wellington, New Zealand, the first party to be established at the national level that champions both environmental protection and participatory democracy.

1973 The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) initiates a steep increase in the price of oil, which leads Western countries to consider rapid expansion in the construction of nuclear power plants; the declaration by the electricity industry that it would build a nuclear power station near the village of Brokdorf in Schleswig-Holstein, Federal Republic of Germany, signals the beginning of a dispute that was crucial in the development of Antinuclear Protests in Europe; the emergence of the Chipko Andalan protest movement involving mainly women in Indian villages; Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild Flora and Fauna; formation of Ecologie et Survie, which went on to contest elections to the National Assembly in Alsace, France; foundation of the party called People in Britain, which later became the Green party; publication of Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered by E.F. Schumacher; enactment of Endangered Species Act in the United States; foundation of The Cousteau Society

1974 Rene´Dumont, as the representative of environmental groups, contests the French presidential elections on an environmental platform; death of Karen Silkwood, a worker at the Kerr-McGee plutonium plant, Oklahoma, in mysterious circumstances; foundation of the Environmental Policy Institute in the United States; F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina present the argument that the release of CFCs into the atmosphere destroys the ozone layer

1975 Mass protests against the proposals to construct a nuclear power station at Kaiseraugst, Switzerland; publication of the Monkey Wrench Gang by Edward Abbey; foundation of the Worldwatch Institute

1976 Mass protests against proposals to develop nuclear power stations at Brokdorf, and at Wyhl, Federal Republic of Germany; formation of the Swedish Miljoverbund

1977 Mass protests against proposals to develop nuclear power installations at Grohnde, kalkar, and Brokdorf in the Feseral Republic of Germany and at Creys-Malville in France; publication of Soft Energy paths: Towards a Durable Peace by Amory Lovins; formation of the Groupement pour la Protection de l’Environnement in Switzerland; foundation of Sea Shepard Conservation Society; emergence of the Green Belt Movement in Kenya; discover of contamination by chemicals of Love Canal in Niagra Falls, New York; Amoco Cadiz oil spill off the French coast

1978 U.S. ban on the use of CFCs in nearly all aerosals; formation of the Grune Partei Zurich in Switzeland; mass protests against the nuclear power reporcessing plant at Gorleben, Federal Republic of Germany; foundation of Sahabat Alam Malaysia (Friends of the Earth in Malaysia)

1979 In protests against government policies on nuclear energy around 100,000 people assemble in hanover and around 150,000 in bonn, Federal Republic of Germany, and discussions are held in Offenbach over the possibility of establishing a new political organization; in Switzerland, election of the first green parliamentarian to a national legislature; a green list (political party) in Bremen is successful in gaining the first seats ever won by a green party in a state parliament in Germany; green parties or lists participate in the first elections to the European Parliament ; accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution is signed by 33 countries including Britain , Germany, and the United States; in Luxembourg green groups form an umbrella organization, the Alternative Leescht: Wiert Ich, to compete at elections; formation of the Citizens’ Committee in the United States; around 75,000 people gather in Washington D.C., to take part in a demonstration against nuclear power; publication of Gaia: A New Look at life on Earth by James Lovelock; beginning of the campaign against the construction of the Franklin Dam in Tasmania; signing in Bonn of the Convention of the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

1980 Formation of Die Grunen in the Federal Republic of Germany, of Ecolo in Belgium, and of the Citizens Party in the United States; around 80,000 people participate in an Antinuclear Protest rally at Trafalgar Square in London; Canada and the United States sign a Memorandum of Intent Concerning Transboundary Air Pollution; publication of the Global 2000 Report to the president by the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality; publication and widespread dissemination of the World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource for Sustainable Development; creation of the Earth First! radical environmental group in the United States

1981 Brice Lalonde contests the French presidential elections on a green platform; formation of the Swedish Green Party, Miljopartiet de Grona, and of the Ecology Party of Ireland

1982 In Belgium Agalev detaches itself from Anders gaan leven and formally becomes a political party; formation of the Vereinte Grune Osterreichs in Austria; signing of the UN convention of the Law of the Sea

1983 Die Grunen in Germany gains 28 seats in the federal parliament; formation of Dei Greng alternativ in Luxemborg, De Grønne in denmark, Comhaontas Glas in Ireland, and De Groenne in the Netherlands; formation, following a resolution by the UN General Assembly, of the World Commision on Environment and Development

1984 Inaugural meeting of the World Commission on the Envirnment and Development; accidental release of poison gas from the Union Carbide pesticide lant in Bhopal, India; congress of European green parties at Liege in Belgium advoctes a “Europe of the regions”; founding of Les Verts in France; green parties acquire 12 seats in the European Parliament and call themselves the Green-Alternative European Link; publication of Fighting for Hope by Petra Kelly and of Seeing Green: The Politics of Ecology Explained by Jonathan Porritt; formation of the Thirty Percent Club to tackle long-range transboundary air pollution; formation of the Committees of Correspondence in the United States

1985 Scientists at the Villach Conference draw attention to the increase in the average temperature across the world over the past century (the greenhouse effect); endorsement of the Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer in Vienna; release of pesticides into the Rhine River following a fire in a Basel chemical storage facility destroys living things on a vast scale; death of a member of Greenpeace following the bombing by the French intelligence service of the Rainbow Warrior while it was moored at Aukland harbor in New Zealand; Die Grunen becomes of a coalition government with the Social Democratic party in Hesse between 1985 and 1987; Rudolf Bahro quits Die Grunen over the issue of animal rights; the British Ecology party becomes the Green Party

1986 A federation of green groups form a national Swiss Green party ( Grune Partei der Schweiz), and in Italy green groups form a Federation of Green Lists, Federazione delle Liste Verdi; explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant near Kiev in the Soviet Union

1987 Die Grunen gains 42 seats in elections to the federal parliament; in election to the national parliament green groups in Italy receive around on million votes (2.5 percent) and gain 13 seats in the lower hause and two in the senate; Agalev gains 7.3 percent of the vote and six seats in the lower house in Flanders; signing of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer; publication of Our Common Future by the World Commission on the Environment and Development

1988 Miljopartiet de Grona becomes the first new party in 70 years to gain representation in the Swedish parliament; Antoine Waechter contests the French presidiential elections on behalf of environmental groups; several candidates of the Green party in Brazil gain seats in municipal elections in large cities; formation by the intellectuals, scientists, and artists of the Ruse Committee in Bulgaria; scientists and policymakers at the Toronto Conference call for a 20 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000; murder of the Brazilian environmental activist Chico Mendes

1989 Award to the victims of Bhopal of $470 million in compensation; formation of Brontosaurus in Czechoslovakia and later, of a Green Party; Exxon Valdez oil tanker runs aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska; green independent candidates gain 17 percent of the vote in Tasmania, gain 5 out of 36 seats in the state parliament and form an accord with a government led by the Australian Labor Party; green parties achieve their best-ever results in elections to the European Parliament, gaining 32 seats; dissolution of the Green-Alternative European Link and formation of the Green Group in the European Parliament; the Green Association is formed in Finland, though this subsequently divided into two separate strands, Vihreat (the Greens) and Vihrea Liitoo (the Green Association); formation of the Independent Union Ekoglasnost in Bulgaria; formation of the Ecologists-Alternatives Party and of the Federation of Ecological Organizations in Greece; publication of Blueprint for a Green Economy by David Pearce and his collaborators; ban on ivory trade by the Convention on International Trade in endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

1990 Die Grunen fails to gain seats in the federal parliament, though a new group from East Germany, Bundnis 90, does gain eight seats; formation of Groen Links (Green Left) in the Netherlands and of the Green Party in Prague, Czechoslavakia; formation of Generation Ecologie under the leadership of Brice Lalonde as a competing party to Les Verts in France; signatories to the Montreal Protocol meet in London (London Conference of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol), and 80 countries now agree to phasing out, by year 2000, of CFCs and other chemicals that contribute to the depletion of the ozone layer

1991 Die Grunen becomes member of a coalition government with the Social Democratic Party (as senior partner) in Hesse; green groups in Italy win 16 seats in the lower house and four in the Senate; formation of the Green Party USA; signing of an Environmental Protocol to the Antarctic treaty ( the Madrid Protocol) by 39 nations agreeing to a moratorium on mining in Anarctica; severe pollution of the gulf region in the wake of the Gulf War due largely to oil well fires and oil spillage

1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro laeds to signing of the Framework Convention on Climate change by 153 nations and by the European Union; most nations attending the conference also support the Convention on biological Diversity, the Declaration on Environment and Development, and the enactment of Forest Principles; formation of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development; signing of the Basel Convention by 20 countries in order to prevent the illegal dumping or transportation of waste; 93 nations that signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer agree to meet their targets by 1996 rather than 2000, the date set in the original agreement; Petra Kelly and Gerd Bastian are found dead in their home

1993 European Federation of Green Parties agrees on a set of guiding principles at a conference held in Masala, Finland; the Green Party in the United Kingdom fields 566 candidates in local elections, who gain, on average, 5.7 percent of the vote; membership of the Sierra Club numbers over 550,000; signing of the north American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation; signing of an agreement to safegaurd the Black Sea by six European nations; World Bank permits public inspection of any authorizations linked to environmental assessment of intended projects

1994 Die Grunen, in coalition with Bundnis 90, gains 7.3 percent of the vote and 49 seats in the federal parliament and displaces the Liberal Free Democrats as the third largest party; in elections to the European Parliament the number of seas won by green parties drops to 22; Die Grunen Alternative in Austria secures 7 percent of the vote in national elections and 13 seats; Miljopartiet obtains 5 percent of the vote and 18 seats in the Swedish Parliament; green candidated poll over a milion votes in local elections in the United States; the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany is amended to include a specific commitment to environmental protection; UN Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo, Egypt; declaration by the International Whaling Commission of Anarctica as a permanent sanctuary for whales

1995 In sweden Miljopartiet de Grona gains four seats in elections to the European Parliament; Virhrea Liitoo secures 6.5 percent of the vote and nine seats in the Finnish Parliament; Agalev secures 4.4 percent of the vote in national elections; Die Grunen Alternative obtains 4.8 percent of the vote in the Austrian national elections and 6.8 percent in elections to the European Parliament; die Grunen becomes member of coalition governments with the Social Democratic Party in hesse and in North Rhine Westphalia; first conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany; membership of the World Wildlife fund numbers well over five million; plan by the World Bank and internationall consevation groups to protect marine biologicall diversity in 155 Marine Protection Areas; ratification by over 100 countries of UN global fishing Pact to curb the decrease in fish reserves

1996 Formation of the austrailian Greens and election of Bob Brown to the Senate in federal elections; green independent candidates gain 11 percent of the vote and four seats in Tasmania; Vihrea Liitoo attracts 7.6 percent of the vote and gains a seat in the European Parliament; first presidential convention of the U.S. Green Party; second Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Geneva

1997 Les Verts in France gains seven seats in elections to the National Assembly; membership of the European federation of Green parties consists of 28 political organizations from 24 countries, and seven other political associations comprise a group of applicants to join the federation; UN Convention on Climate Change held in Kyoto sets new targets for green house emissions


END Chronology


Papadakis credits Robert Malthus’ 1798 publication of An Essay on the Principle of Population as one of the earliest attempts to create a political consciousness of human population and its relationship to natural resources and, in effect, the political governance of environmental matters.

Scientific assurance of perpetual environmental integrity must be the litmus test for the viability of all political decisions. The first question asked and satisfactorily answered, in the affirmative, during legislative debate is: “is it good for the global environment or does this piece of legislation have no detrimental impact on the environment, now and forever?” All legislation must, as far as science can determine, pass this test before being introduced into any form of governmental legislation, whether that form be democratic or otherwise.

Contemporary wisdom is promoting a global economy. This state of affairs demands special emphasis that all legislation consider global environmental effects. Good environmental policy in a specific location may be bad for another or many other locations. This reality must be accepted by all.

It is, of course, the collective hope of environmentally minded individuals and organizations that, in the not-so-distant future, effective teaching of scientific thought processes will filter through educational systems and ultimately into general mainstream consciousness. Until that future arrives and there is no cause for concern that society may retrogress into a greedy, power hungry and negligent mindset we must assume the responsibility to develop a rather rigid sphere of governance that is capable of addressing local and global environmental issues with great speed and efficiency.

Clearly, we cannot model such a form of governance after democratic rule. Whatever system and framework is ultimately developed, Realitics must honor as its final word, a form of consensus among highly respected, independent scientists representing their appropriate discipline(s) and whose conclusions are derived and defended, solely, on well-established scientific data that clearly supports any given course of legislative action. It cannot be emphasized enough that speculation, popular opinion, economics, and politics have absolutely no absolute place in Realitics decision-making processes. Because environmental integrity is the most fundamental physical need of humanity, pure and unbiased scientific thought must be demanded as the process of developing sideboards for all physical political issues commences.

END

Two Party Politics: A Failed System

Mascots and Symbols Don't Solve Problems

Over-running Washington DC with political parties that have evolved into these nondescript, nebulous sort of creatures (Donkeys and Elephants) cannot solve our problems. Even these parties' own offspring/constituents no longer recognize them.

How many times must we be disappointed before we try something different? Something has to be done. I am not even sure what "taking back" a political party means... but that's been tried for the last 40+ years.

For having written some very deep, long thought out thoughts, and then sending them out at this time, I know I will be suspected to be a Republican shill (because I am Democrat more than anything else). If I was a Republican, I truly believe I could send out this same message with few changes. Remember, when I say Democrat (D) and Republican (R) I am speaking of your run-of-the-mill Rs and Ds. If I was a Republican, I would be called a shill for the Democrats, no doubt.

I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, Independents and I have voted for Greens.

Looking back, the votes I am most proud of are those that most closely reflected my true conscience, regardless of party and regardless of whether or not those votes were winning votes.

The notion that some might suspect to me be a Republican shill truly makes me smile. I know few who have a greater distaste for today's Republican party (as a whole) than myself.

The suspicious will have overlooked the possibility that there are many Republican voters who, like me, are not party loyalists. Some Republican voters have brains too. Recent polls (finally) indicate such. There are many Republicans looking for alternatives to our nation's primarily two-party system status quo.

American voters are beginning to feel like a child in a custody battle. First jerked this way and then jerked that way... back and forth over and over again... all the while the child is beginning to distrust both parents.

Millions of people are searching for alternatives to the choices a two-party system has offered even though leaving the familiar comfort of the two-party system make them feel uncomfortable. Old worn-out boots are often quite comfortable... but they might no longer protect your feet. New boots can be quite uncomfortable but... they protect your feet.

So, in case this message makes you uncomfortable, first of all - good... it should. I say this, not be a smart ass but because learning one has alternatives is sometime uncomfortable. The process of learning can cause one to feel quite uncomfortable.

---
"The art of learning is in the learning to be become comfortable with being uncomfortable."
George "Ted" Goslow, Evolutionary Biologist. The best professor I ever had. Northern Arizona University & Brown University, Emeritus
---
Secondly, give my message a chance... to digest. This message calls for a drastic change, not necessarily in one's immediate votes but in one's mindset. The sad truth is... there are just not enough good third party candidates out there... yet.

No one, more than me, wants to see Republicans lose control of both house and senate (and NOW!)... but to be more accurate... I should say, "No one, more than me, wants to see hubris, conservatism, an air of entitlement, fear and hate lose control of both house and senate.

I would vote for any individual, regardless of the uniform he or she wears, if they demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, they abhor those attributes above and replace them with something I call a "bleeding heart full of love." And yes, the hopeful candidates I'm seeking need brains too. They need above all, to recognize the most universal common denominator to humankind and all other living species on the planet. That commonality is contained in this axiom:

"When no longer remains fresh air to breathe, clean water to drink, and healthy food to eat... nothing else matters."

I refer to as REALITICS the process of basing all political decisions on their ultimate effect upon this triad of life's necessities. The leaders I am seeking will trace every decision they make back to the truism that "When no longer remains fresh air to breathe, clean water to drink, and healthy food to eat... nothing else matters." Every political consideration must ask the question, "how will this decision affect the ground humanity walks on, the air humanity breathes and the water humanity drinks?"

Merely having a "job" cannot provide these basic needs of life. On the other hand, a mere "job" can have a part in destroying these very sources that provide these basic and critical needs for all life on the planet.

The leaders I seek will not stop short. Our present body politic stops short of basing the integrity of their decisions on REALITICS. Our present leaders seem to agree, the commonality that binds all humans, all life on earth is embodied in "economy." They fail to recognize money cannot directly supply oxygen to, quench thirst for, or nourish the human body.

With 9,346,399,468 humans projected to be consuming in the year 2050 what little resources are left from the consumption of 2,556,000,000 humans in the 1950s and 6,082,966,429 humans in year 2000, politics cannot continue the real bottom line to human survival. Economic concerns must begin to address survival concerns. This suggested shift in focus is not a projection a gloom and doom as one might first suspect. To the contrary. This suggested shift in focus is bright look into human progress toward true equality.

When it is estimated that 6% of the global population possess 59% of the entire world’s wealth, and all 6% are from the United States, equality is clearly an issue.

I likely agree with most of the ideas and values associated with your politics. However, I likely disagree with your politics per se. I certainly agree, we must "wrest" Congress from Republican control. But what success is that if we do not gain a REALITICS mindset?

The world and its resources are shrinking as human population grows exponentially.

If you have broadband go to: Ecological Footprint between 1961 and 2001 worldwide

Once there click on the small map showing Africa.

The intensity of human consumption is no less than startling. When you view the animated map (above) keep in mind these changes have occurred in a mere 40 years of human history.

There is no economy where there are no resources.

To reiterate and then twist the phrase, it's "NOT the economy, stupid!" It is no longer good enough (never has been, in reality) to pretend a given nation's economy is the bottom line to the politics that govern it.

In today's world the bottom line, no matter the nation, is resources; their conservation, use and a proper sharing of them (domestically and abroad) at the grass roots level. To ignore this fact is no less than an open declaration of war... humanity against itself.

If one believes human's can get vicious over oil, just wait until water is the resource up for grabs. One cannot breathe, drink or eat oil. One not only can, but must drink water.

I cannot stress strongly or often enough, it is time to change the human mindset. United States brand of Capitalism has infected the entire planet. On one level, it is understandable that those nations who have been plagued with perpetual poverty "grab as grab can" their piece of capitalism. The problem is... the U.S. brand of capitalism teaches (brainwashes actually) that "more is never enough." The United States of America has been teaching doctrine everywhere is goes.

Teaching foreign nations our brand of consumption increases our exports. But what happens when all developing nations become as consumptive as they possibly can be, like us? The, once, uniquely western mindset of "bigger is better" and "more is never enough" has gone global.

Comments expressed in my earlier message, "Minority No More," are also about mindset... more than politics. I included, following this message, my original piece "Minority No More." On the surface, my comments may seem to counter this common plea to "Vote Democratic Party." My comments could, in certain cases take a seat from a Democrat but only if embraced by oh... say a million times more readers than will read these comments. Should this happen, a Democrat losing a seat would be a consequence but not a motive.

I hear from others, Duane, your ideas have merit... but, but, but... now is not the time. I have to ask, if not now, when is the best time for one to vote one's conscience?

Just vote your conscience. I say "conscience" because I still believe in the basic goodness of humanity. I believe one's conscience is best defined in how they would deal with diminishing supplies of air, water and food. If only enough of anything was left for the survival of one and you are one of two in the end, would you share these resources or would you kill for them. Would your answer remain the same regardless of race, nationality, sex, age, political affiliation and etc. of the other individual? We Democrats value equality, do we not? We certainly preach it enough.

I know the above hypothetical is just that, but I believe how individuals (and collective humanity) would truly respond, if subjected to the above scenario, defines the course of human progress, lack thereof or even human regression into barbarism. It is clear the course of today's Republican party. It is less clear the course of the Democrats.

I have heard and read plenty of third party candidates thoughts on the scenario above. Friends, I find my conscience more and more in tune with their messages than either of the two major party candidates rhetoric, and rhetoric is basically all I hear from them.

Vote your conscience. To me, conscience includes heart and mind.

That's all I am suggesting. I could just stop right here... but I won't. Sorry, I can't.

Given present circumstances I understand this plea to "just vote Democrat." It always, however, seems to be the same old plea.... now is not the time to shake up the two party system.

If for no other reason, numbers and common sense should compel everyone to desire at least a three party system.

In almost any other setting, organizations are certain to have an odd number of principals who must cast votes on important issues. Their reasoning is obvious. A committee of "two" always ends in either a tie or a unanimous consensus. This sets up an "either or" situation. You remember how this situation manifested itself not so long ago... "you are either with me or you are against me!" Having only two votes means... one cancels the other and essentially nothing gets done or that every decision is declared unanimous. Granted the two party system isn't exactly a two vote situation but if you try, you can extrapolate to see my point. Is it any wonder this so-called "Middle America" is not represented in the halls of Congress? The "middle" has been treated in DC as the "fringe element" for decades.

There is this saying. "Perception is everything."

I say the truth is, "Perception is everything... but reality."

Now this gets deep.

If you're not into the more personal, philosophical, abstract kind of discussion I recommend you skip down now to the Heading, "It's Not My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To"

One must realize, our political spectrum is routinely represented as a linear scale. It is a colossal mistake to accept this premise. Our political spectrum is not a mere right or left situation. People (voters) are not merely "either or."

Real people must not be reduced to two-dimensional paper dolls.

I see, what has historically been called "the two extremes," to be more of an apex to a pyramid of collective ideas and social mindsets. The perceived "broader base" is made of shared or common ideas. Yet, these ideas are base, unrefined. These ideas do not aspire to anything. They accept status quo... until, as history proves time and time again, it is too late to rise up and actually challenge the resulting powers that be. It becomes difficult to challenge those that gain their power via their appeal to apathy... rather than aspiration.

I believe this so-called base is basically too tired, hopeless, fearful and/or distracted to attempt to make a difference... thus the voter turn-out our two party system has "inspired" is abysmal. Our expectations are so low, a 60% voter turnout in a national election is applauded.

The U.S. ranked 34th of 36 democracies in a voter turnout study that spanned 35 years from 1960 to 1995.

Voter Turnout

Source: Wikipedia

Toward the apex, the perceived "fringe" elements make noise. That would be those grassroots sort of folks - folks like us, Patriots for Peace, environmentalists and your run-of-the-mill ne'r-do-wells (As so-oft called). To me, this apex, only represents the masses in terms of their silent support for our efforts and that is a sad, but true, fact and a fact attributable to the reasons stated above; hopelessness, fear and etc.

The apex, to me, is an apex of social justice. A high point of ideas promoting human dignity. Surrounding the visible apex is this curiously invisible support of the masses typically thought to be existing only below, down near the base with no thoughts in their heads. But the down-trodden are right here with us, if only in silent spirit. They are too oppressed and or distracted to voice or show their support but you and I know they are there.

If and when you have the rare opportunity to sit down to a heart to heart with these folks you find out many of them share in a longing for social justice and other ideas that lift human dignity and account for future generations' well-being. These quiet bodies have desires and spirits quite akin to the rebel's own. I believe the few, in terms of body count, that can be seen at the apex are the activists willing to be seen as the embodiment of ideas that actually arise from the base. Those small numbers attending Iraq war protests surely must understand this pyramid of which I speak. Supportive drive-by horns are blown by thousands who dare not stop and park their cars, get out and "stand" on the sidewalk.

This brings up the three-dimensional (3-D) aspect of the "idea pyramid" or the "pyramid idea" however you wish to think of it. People are at least 3-D in their thoughts, hopes and dreams (i.e., politics). Multi-dimensional best describes people (voters) who have been squeezed into our two-party system's linear cattle chute of sorts. I say "chute" with intent. A chute channels things from a higher to a lower level.

Our voters have been chuted all the way down to this level... "Rs" on the right - "Ds" on the left.

Republicans on the right and Democrats on the left: Think about this. This right /left mindset has become the chute. In spite of all the ingredients in the collective soup of Democratic politics folks are placed in one of two categories. Republican & Democrat or Right & Left. What a course distinction, indeed. Most sale barn cattle receive greater respect with greater distinctions of their qualities and characteristics.

This cattle chute two-party system is a convenient set up for pollsters and politicians but a nightmare for voters and all citizens really, voting or not.

Any given voter may hold values on the so-called right in one sense and on the so-called left in another sense. In fact, such a voter may hold extreme values on both left and right ends of this contrived and over-simplified linear political spectrum. This fact does not make the voter crazy but our two-party culture has its way of making a voter like this feel totally insane for having such a strange mix of right/left views. In reality its necessarily a strange mix at but a rather healthy assembly of values. Our two-parties , however want to make you feel absolutely crazy however. This is their quite effective way of making one choose "R" or "D" or "right" or "left."

Why are not voters offered more latitude to "be" multi-dimensional. What about front and back and/or high and low? Noooo! Cries the two-party machine... make them choose... Right or Left!!!

Voters are confused and understandably, alienated. Some feel it is them... that they are just incapable of making an intelligent decision. Others, hanging on to their self-confidence know better and simply choose not to participate in what they correctly perceive as a flawed system.

Those tired, confused, and oppressed masses, perceived to be content with status quo, I am convinced, are not content and generally feel much like the rebels at the apex feel... but the fatigue and general fear of life allow them to delegate the rebels to assume the risks inherent in the dangerous business of change. This is not an indictment of those who are content to vote the party line, in the absence of thought concerning the individual candidate. We must recognize and be sympathetic to the fact that life can and does beat folks down... physically, emotionally, and mentally. This resulting oppression (depression) of thought is often taken into the voting booth if, that is, the individual is even physically or emotionally able to get to the polls. Others like us, for reasons unique to each, choose to fight it out to the end.

I hope you continue to indulge my deeper, more personal expressions. After all, they say "all politics is local." It does not get much more local than the individual. Most individuals, in this so-called free society dare not express deep feelings or convictions unless they are in line with capitalistic expectations or other so-called social norms. We all know this to be true. We know we dare not regularly go into our workplaces and denounce rogue capitalism. We simply dare not... even some of the most dedicated activists dare not.

My conscience.. and perhaps a healthy bit of insanity, drives me. I truly feel compassion for those too tired to battle the fruits of status quo... fruits like poverty, fear, injustice, prejudice, war and you know the list. They are the ones most oppressed by status quo, yet least equipped to fight it. I have been one of those "too tired to fight." Only in the last 15 or so years have my eyes been opened and my spirit been freed to act. I still fight this fatigue... every day of my life. But for some reason, I cannot seem to shut the hell up. I suppose this fact irritates more folks than I'll ever know.

In fact, the fight has become one of my few motivations for carrying on. For this mostly unexplained turn of events in my life, as painful and time consuming as it has been, I am truly thankful for the change. Perhaps having kids of my own has a great deal to do with my need to keep fighting for justice.

~
Beyond the Doorstep ~ So what... if I provide my children a loving and opulent home yet do nothing to better the world I must, inevitably, deliver them to.
Duane Short ~ June 3, 2001


It's Not My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To

The politics of Democracy is not simple... but, the complexity of politics is precisely my point. Simply introducing a third significant party will not solve Democracy's dilemma.

Below is my take on how to simplify and more importantly purify, not so much the process, but the essence of Democracy's politics.

Following is an examination of our present national "two-party" political mindset and a peek into a no-party option. If we simply must label things we could call it the One Earth Party. What more unifying common ground is there?

Our present political reality dictates we are forced, in far too many cases, to choose "the lesser evil" when our choices are limited to Republican (R) & Democrat (D) candidates.

Our dilemma occurs when a third, clearly superior choice, is out there but is "perceived" to have little to no chance of winning (only because enough voters to get this candidate elected are silently thinking, in error, this candidate has little to no chance of winning).

Think of how sad this is for the third party candidate not to mention the majority that defeated him or her, in their heads, before the polls ever opened.

Like I said... the truth is, "Perception is everything... but reality."

On the surface and in terms of immediate gratification, "who wants to throw away their vote(s) on candidate(s) who will not win?" This is sad for everyone concerned... except for those devoted to R & D party perpetuation.

Perhaps, more than any other time in recent history, our nation is in serious trouble and we have serious problems that need to be solved immediately.

We cannot solve our problems "immediately" by voting for excellent, intelligent candidates we know can't win. But what we don't really know is that they cannot win. We have been programmed to assume they cannot win.

So here we are again, left with the choice who, in far too many cases, is merely the "lesser of two evils."

I subscribe to the axiom, "the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and each time expect a different result."

Since the 60's progressives have been trying to "take back" the Democrat party, have we not? In almost 50 years what has been accomplished? What progressives have accomplished in their effort to "take back" the Democrat Party is the Bush Administration, a dozen years of Republican control of congress, and the well known litany of domestic and international disasters we now face.

Our mindset has to be... at least, to get in our Democratic candidates faces, with a finger up their nose and tell them they had better represent the majority that elects them or they are out the door. Our mindset at best, must be to vote our conscience. We must keep front and center in our consciousness that when there is a third party candidate who we know would vote more consistently in line with Democratic values than do most "Democrats," we must vote for that "scary" third party candidate.

Grandpa, grandma, great-grandpa and ... oh wait, great-grandma was not permitted to vote... may do a 360 in their graves but I am confident this conscientious vote will be a breath of fresh air and step forward for humanity, even if the footprint is not a mule's or elephant's.

There are two issues that never seem to go away and these serve, well, the long-term political security of the R & D parties.

1) Time & Turmoil: As full and mid-term elections approach our nation seemingly is always in a state of turmoil. As now, the turmoil is quite real. Often the chaos is little more than political hoopla inherent at election time. The more chaos perceived by voters the more like they are to keep their incumbents. The old flawed adage, "don't change horses in the middle of the stream" mentality kicks in.

Both R & D parties know this. They know it well. Today's Iraq war and all the trouble around the globe favors Democrat incumbents as much (if not more) as it favors the Republican incumbents. Both parties know this.

Yet, incumbents led us into this mess, both R & D.

The plea... "this is not the time to introduce other alternatives" is heard during every election cycle. So far, this plea has worked quite well to maintain status quo and to keep the Republicans and Democrats secure in their bubbles.

2) Party Loyalty: Loyalty has its place. It offers some measure of stability in society. It also offers some measure of complacency among recipients of the loyalty. Loyalty offers our (essentially) two party system a great deal of security and creates an atmosphere of complacency, an atmosphere of power, an atmosphere of invincibility.

I make it a point to "extend the logic" of whatever idea I contemplate for its merit.

The full extension of party loyalty is seen in nations like N. Korea.

--
Those who are enslaved to their sects are not merely devoid of all sound knowledge, but they will not even stop to learn.
Galen, Claudius (c.130-c.200) Greek physician, writer. On The Natural Faculties
--

One-way loyalty, is a circumstance best suited for abusive masters of dogs. The notion is quite convenient... unless you're the abused dog.

I remained loyal to my childhood religious "affiliation" for many years beyond my conscience's voice compelling me to make a change... remember that definition of insanity? My dilemma was, I refused to stop learning but continued to remain affiliated. I could have simply stopped learning and have swept the pain of change under the cloak of "staying the course."

I could have chosen willful ignorance and the bliss of status quo. I chose to accept the change my living heart, mind, and soul presented me. I chose to allow my heart, mind and soul to continue to live and grow, in spite of the pain and other costs accrued.

Change requires letting go.

Maybe we forget, we are not electing men and women to represent a party. We elect them to represent "we the people." People are mere flesh and blood vehicles and mouthpieces through which we expect representation. If a given elected official dies... the greatest tragedy would be if the ideas this official stood for, in representation of his constituents, died as well.

We should be voting for ideas, not pretty faces, party pride, or Daddy Morebucks. So many do just this sort of voting.

I am quite certain, I embrace very nearly the same social ideals as most of you receiving this missive. It is these ideas I embrace, not a given party label or candidate that proclaims sole ownership of these ideas and an exclusive ability to deliver them to the masses.

So why parties at all? I know why, at least according to R & D incumbents; to maintain status quo. So again, I ask, "why?"

My torment is this. Do I keep doing what has not been working for progressives since the 1960s?

Do I ignore the definition of insanity which is "to do the same thing over and over again and each time expect a different result?"

I must confess, I (perhaps inherently) am not a party loyalist. Never have been. For various reasons, I have been all over the political map in my life. I doubt there is a party I have not voted for. Hold on there Negroponte, I have never vote for a "commy."

Yes, I voted for Reagan! Once. Reagan, certainly brought me out of my political stupor. I try to give credit where credit is due.

Folks, I know the change I am suggesting is much easier for me than for party loyalists.

Folks can feel free to use my fickle voting record, if they choose, to discount my thoughts.

In short, all of us must vote our conscience. Until we do, pure Democracy is never going to even approach being a reality.

We must vote, period.

I am sure you realize the United States of America, a supposed Democracy, has not had a majority rule federal governance once in its entire existence. To have a true majority every eligible voter must vote. That has never happened, at the national level, in our nation's history.

At best, the majority of those that choose to vote determines who will govern. With exceptions of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, recent decades have seen a slip in the percentage of eligible voter turnout. True majority rule in the USA is a myth.

Pure Democracy requires every eligible voter to vote.

Pure Democracy is predicated on a majority rule premise.

Pure Democracy requires every eligible voter to vote their conscience.

Pure Democracy requires every eligible voter to vote their conscience, not to strategize their vote.

When strategizing, one's conscience necessarily becomes compromised with, well... with politics.

For example, a political vote could be:

- Voting for an incumbent, in time of war, when one knows another candidate better represents one's conscience. This is an example of compromising one's conscience in capitulation to one's politics or political mythology.

- Voting for a party, when one knows another candidate better represents one's conscience. This is yet another example of compromising one's conscience in capitulation to one's politics.

Resisting the urge to compromise one's conscience and convictions actually produces the purest form of collective compromise. If everyone votes one conscience the best possible compromise is reached. If everyone votes political strategy who knows how the stew of politics will taste. Purity begets purity. Politics beget politics.

When politics becomes the "majority" (as it has) we achieve what we now have in Washington DC. We have, in essence, two parties doing what they were elected to do, represent two parties. A party hell-bent to represent their party is a snake eating its tail. We have two such examples coming into ever sharper focus since the elections of 2000. Fully 96% (an interesting irony.. 96, 69) of CNN viewers recently stated they felt the Bush Administration and Congress had left them worse off than they were in 2000.

This current state of the nation is of course not as simple as blaming it solely on a two party system... or is it? Toss in corporate funding of elections, Diebold, voter intimidation, a deceit incited preemptive war and you know the litany and the state of the nation is seen to be a web of deceit and corruption... and all of these problems developed under the watch of... two major parties.

What? Who would suggest that if we continue to enable these two parties to rule, in perpetuity, the above sorts of problems go away. I must confess, my conscience thinks not.

I heard once upon a time, "there's no real revolution... just power changing hands." I believe this to be true. The answer to this dilemma is to make sure power keeps changing hands before those hands gain enough power to invoke their political will and war... at will.

I am including the entire Badfinger Perfection lyrics (as I have done before) because the words ring true with each new generation. But is humankind destined to repeat these lyrics? Cannot humankind honor the latter part of its own name? I will die believing we can at least do much better than we are doing on this date, July 15, 2006. I don't care if it takes two parties or two billion parties, I know we humans can do better. It is purely a matter of will to find a way.


Perfection

Lyrics

by

Badfinger

There is no real perfection
There'll be no perfect day
Just love is our connection
The truth in what we say

There's no good revolution
Just power changing hands
There is no straight solution
Except to understand

CHORUS:
So listen to my song of life
You don't need a gun or a knife
Successful conversation will take you very far

There is no real perfection
There'll be no perfect man
Just peace is our connection
Forgiving all you can

There's no good kind of killing
Just power taking life
It's all good blood that's spilling
To make a bigger knife

CHORUS

Successful conversations will take you very far

CHORUS

Successful conversations will take you very far
Successful conversations will take you very far


Surely some of you recall these Badfinger lyrics.

I believe our Democracy is at a crossroads. My intellect and heartfelt conviction is that it is time to vote conscience... and conscience only.

Call Me a Party Animal Cracker but...

I say, forget party labels. They mean so little at this point in our history.

Wearing a label or not, one voted into office still votes in local, state and national governing bodies... and we all hope she or he votes consistent with the collective conscience and ideas of those who voted her or him in office. Sadly, we know this often not the case. Once in office, Corporate America, has their ear and their vote.

Wearing no label might sound a bit anarchist. Think about this.

Voting conscience instead of politics? Politics obscures conscience... and I would argue that this assertion is a given... an irrefutable law of nature.

A candidate voted into office by voters voting in an atmosphere of truly fickle political shenanigans cannot truly know who his or her constituents are.

Voting a party ticket, folks, is the most aggressive form of political voting. Corporate America (CA) loves this sense of ambiguity created by predominantly political voting. Why? CA, having financed the winner (no matter the party - since they donate to both campaigns) become the only identifiable constituent of the elected official. Those voting a party ticket are telling the candidate, I don't give a rat's ass what you stand for or how you will vote... dammit, you're a gol'darn Republican / Democrat and that is good enough for me.

Is it any wonder DC is a "Bubble" about to pop?

If Americans will begin to simply vote conscience, a collective conscience of the majority will emerge.

As long as voters continue to epitomize the definition of insanity i.e., "to do the same thing over and over again and each time expect a different result" we will get what we vote for... insanity.

Elected officials in Washington DC... Springfield, Illinois... Frankfort, Kentucky... and etc. (48 times over) are as their constituents' voting habits would indicate... utterly, irrefutably insane.

My own fallen hero (psst... I really don't have heroes), Illinois Senator, Barak Obama (D) is rallying Democrats to embrace evangelicals. My hero is (un)clearly thinking... if it worked for the Republicans maybe it will work for the Democrats. Obama might still be considered a hero by and for the Democrats.

He is no longer my hero Democrat. My heroes do not pander for votes. My heroes speak their conscience and allow the voters to choose the winner. They then graciously accept the results, win or lose. Maybe this is just Obama stubbing his toe... I hope so but I am nervous about him now. What are they putting in the water there in Washington? Whatever it is it kills the brain except for Broca's Area (the speech area of the brain).

Vote your conscience... not your party.

END

Duane Short
July 17, 2006
============================


Friends,

In case you did not receive the missive that preceded the one above here it is (below).

Duane
--------


If you are an Independent, Libertarian, Populous or Green Party member it is time to stop thinking of yourself as a minority or fringe element of the electorate, of society. You are not.

Registered Republicans (R) and Democrats (D), though most find it personally painful to admit it to themselves, are thinking (collectively) more like Independent, Libertarian, Populous or Green Party members than they care to recognize.

Concerning those R & D leaders we have faithfully voted for and, in some cases, worked diligently to help get elected:

Rs & Ds:

Now recognize the war on Iraq was a huge mistake, on every level, and that their party overwhelmingly endorsed it and just keeps feeding it 100's of billions of dollars.

Now recognize Iraq and Al Qaeda were enemies, not one in the same.

Now recognize that Saddam Hussein, (who was once endorsed by R & D leaders as Iraq's go to guy) dictatorial as he was, did at least maintain some sense of order in the region.

Now recognize Bush's "war on terror" is not a war on terror at all, but rather a precursor to terror.

Now recognize the Patriot Act, cute name notwithstanding, is no less than a shoehorn into everyone's living room, workshop, bedroom, car, computer, cell phone, grocery lists, spending habits, medical records, finances (including bank transactions), religious activities, civic activities and just about everything else.

Now recognize (in the same context as above) one finds it nearly impossible to freeze one's own credit, move large sums of one's own money without scrutiny, find information about one's personal records, collect damages for harm done by heartless corporations that are immune to the same laws individuals are held to, with rigor, by the government.

Now recognize an unregulated Insurance Industry WILL NOT honor years of "paid" premiums, especially in the Delta Region.

Now recognize as an R & D government's rights to penetrate one's life expand, one's right to information about government affairs and activities is diminishing.

Now recognize the Freedom Of Information Act is being repealed, slowly but surely.

Now recognize when the chips are down, they can expect Federal Bureaucracies like FEMA to perform like Keystone Cops.

Now recognize a policy of "preemptive war" is no less an "act of aggression" just because Bush (Karl Rove, actually) changed its name.

Now recognize illegal immigration problems were created by R & D politics and that R & D politics will not solve problems they love to debate.

Now recognize R & D parties cannot play the game unless they have a political football like immigration to toss back and forth.

Now recognize when one R & D political football deflates, there are plenty more in the equipment room.

Now recognize that if new footballs are not yet inflated they can be quickly inflated with ever-ready hot air provided by the press.

Now recognize the protection and preservation of a monstrous industrial-military-congressional complex has taken over all other national considerations.

Now recognize an R & D enabled Corporate America has stolen our democratic process i.e., our elections.

Now recognize the R & D parties agree on one thing... protecting incumbency.

Now recognize that R & D parties have a pact... stated best by Washington DC's own Chris Arthur, a long time Democratic Congressional Advisor/Assistant, "if you mention a 3rd party to a Congressman - Republican or Democrat, they will squash you like a bug!" *Sage, advice given Wilderness Society lobbyists in DC prior to our efforts.

Now recognize the environment is NOT an "optional" consideration at the voting booth.

Now recognize our civil liberties have been eroding and that the process is gaining momentum, not in spite of but because of an entrenched R & D leadership.

Now recognize Rs care about issues like abortion and gay marriage only because they become "excellent" wedge issues AT ELECTION TIME.

Now recognize Ds are also enslaved to Corporate Interests and have lost touch with those ("we the people") whose well-being they historically championed.

Now recognize Rs are not, one bit, fiscally responsible.

Now recognize Ds really don't stand for much of anything any more.

Now recognize Rs & Ds put global corporate interest ahead of the people's national interests.

Rank and file R and D members now recognize nothing about the party they, and likely their parents and grandparents supported, and with conviction.

It is time for a truly "Democratic" coo in These United States of America. It is time to fight for the best of what Democracy can be. There are exceptions, in both parties, to those generalities I mention above. I will likely vote for some Democrats that I believe truly retain values I typically assign to democrats. But in cases where I find little difference between the R & D choices, I will not hesitate to vote against both if I have that option.

My hope is that Independent, Libertarian, Populous and Green Party candidates will work together to oust the Rs & Ds.

"R & D (...as in Research & Development, ha!) is a good thing... but when R & D becomes the goal and not the means... well, it's time to try a new experiment!"

If given a fair chance and a 3rd Party also fails the people... we the people can (if we will) replace them too.

Duane Short
July 10, 2006
----------

Do We Need Nature?

A Poignant Satire

Paul Kingsnorth has worked in an orang utan rehabilitation centre in Borneo, as a peace observer in the rebel Zapatista villages of Mexico, as a floor-sweeper in McDonalds and as an assistant lock-keeper on the river Thames. He studied history at Oxford University between 1991 and 1994, was arrested during the Twyford Down road protests of 1993 and was named one of Britain's 'top ten troublemakers' by the New Statesman magazine in 2001.

Paul is an award-winning poet, an adviser to Mark Rylance, former artistic director of Shakespeare's Globe, and an honorary member of the Lani tribe of New Guinea. He has worked on the comment desk of the Independent, as commissioning editor for opendemocracy.net and as deputy editor of The Ecologist, the world's longest-running environmental magazine, for which he writes a monthly column. He is a director and co-founder of the Free West Papua Campaign.

Paul has written for or contributed to the Guardian, Independent, Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, Le Monde, New Statesman, Ecologist, New Internationalist, Big Issue, Adbusters, BBC Wildlife, openDemocracy, BBC Radio 4, BBC Radio 2, BBC4, ITV and Resonance FM. He is the author of Your Countryside, Your Choice, a major report on the future of the countryside, published in 2005 by the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

Paul's first book, One No, Many Yeses (Simon and Schuster, 2003), an investigative journey through the 'anti-globalisation' movement, was published in six languages in thirteen countries. He is currently writing a book on the destruction of landscape and community in England, which will be published by Portobello in 2008.Monday 17 July 2006
==================================================

Do we need nature: a modest answer
An entry for an irresistible essay competition

New Statesman, 9th June 2003

Who would say no to $20,000? Not me. So I was recently thrilled to come across an advertisement inviting me to submit an entry for this year's Shell-Economist essay prize. All I need to do is write 2,000 words addressing the subject chosen by the magazine and, if I win, the money's mine. So here goes.

This year's question is simple: "Do we need nature?" Yes, at last someone has had the balls to ask what many of us have been thinking for so long, but have been prevented by the PC police from saying out loud. It's a vital and complex question, but the answer can nevertheless, I think, be summed up thus: "mostly, no."

To explain this, let's look ahead to the challenges that await us as we move into the 21st century. The key task, as ever, is growth. Growth is good. Growth works. Growth is what happens when we do what economists call creating value - turning things that are worth nothing into things that are worth lots. We can then trade the things that are worth lots, and all grow rich together.

This helps us all, especially poor people. True, many of the things that are worth nothing are "owned" by poor people, whereas the task of creating value from them is done by rich corporations. But that's just a matter of using the correct expertise; utilising what economists call comparative advantage. Poor people are usually ill-equipped to exploit their resources fully, so it's only sensible that those who are more able do it for them. True, some poor people occasionally disagree with our economists' definitions of "value", saying unhelpful things like "but that's my land you've just stolen for your gold mine", and "just because we haven't patented and commodified the things that grow on our common land doesn't mean they're worthless". But I would simply say to such people: look at the statistics.

In 1960, gross world product was US$10tr. By 2000, it was US$43tr - all thanks to a great expansion of growth through trade. Back in 1960 the 20 per cent of the world's population living in the rich industrialised countries had 30 times the income of the world's poorest 20 per cent; today, we have 74 times as much. This is because we are better at growing. Why do 2.8 million people in the world live on less than $2 a day? Why, according to the World Bank, is that figure 10 per cent higher than it was in the late 1980s? The answer, surely, comes down to one thing: these people have too much nature, and not enough growth. Our job is to help them understand this, and to help them change.

In our quest to continue growing, we need to continue finding worthless things to turn into money. And when you look around you, wherever you are in the world, what do you see? That's right, a whole load of worthless, green, messy, wet, dirty stuff - nature - just crying out to be turned into value and added to the GDP. Perhaps, then, my earlier answer needs some clarification: we do need nature, but not in its current form. We need it dug up, cut down and turned into money. And in an increasingly competitive global economy, all of us, all over the world, need to make sure that it's us who does the digging up and cutting down, before someone else does.

At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to influence the judges unduly, I'd like to say how appropriate it is that this competition is organised by Shell and the Economist. These are two of the institutions in our society which best understand this crucial point - and have done an enormous amount to put it into practice. Take the Economist, a principled and unflinching champion of capitalist globalisation. Who would have thought, 30 years ago, that a hotchpotch of unfashionable ideas developed by a little-known economist named Milton Friedman and a few of his chums in a couple of smoky rooms in Chicago would become an all-pervasive global ideology? Yet today, Friedman's idea - neoliberalism - is all-consuming. This is in no small way thanks to the Economist's influential cheerleading.

Friedman and the Economist have been proved right: neoliberalism is the best and most efficient way of getting rid of worthless nature and replacing it with valuable money. Again, the statistics bear this out. As restrictions on trade and financial flows have been removed in recent decades, untold amounts of worthless natural things have become, as if by magic, valuable. Here in the richest countries, it takes 300 kilograms of natural resources to generate $100 of income. In the US - an example which the Economist urges us all to follow - just 5 per cent of the world's people turn a heartening 30 per cent of all the natural resources consumed in the world each year into profitable consumer goods. By the time a baby born in the US in the 1990s reaches the age of 75, he or she will have consumed 43 million gallons of water, produced 52 tons of waste and used 3,375 barrels of oil. Just think of the profits! And revel in the good news that, as we all follow the same development path, we will all be able to play our part in the transforming of nature into money that has for so long been a part of the American dream.

It's not just in the US that this heartening process is going on. All over the world, energy use has increased by nearly 70 per cent since 1971, all due to oil drilling, coal mining and gas exploration, turning worthless black muck into valuable greenhouse gas-creating fuel. Deforestation continues apace (though we can surely do better than a global rate of just 2.4 per cent since 1990), as unproductive trees are converted into productive dollars. Nitrogen fertilisers and other agricultural chemicals continue to replace worthless soil, insects and micro-organisms with vital cash crops for our supermarkets. In the past century, we have replaced half the world's wetlands with more profitable habitats, and driven 12 per cent of the world's least productive birds and a quarter of its most useless mammals to the edge of extinction. Thirty-four percent of the world's fish species are about to go under (excuse the pun) - a sure sign that they are being converted into value at a stunning rate. The news is good wherever you look.

Look to the future and it keeps getting better. According to the UN, over 70 per cent of the Earth's land surface could be affected by the impact of roads, mining, cities and other developments in the next 30 years, as wasted green spaces become economic powerhouses. Climate change will provide us with golden economic opportunities for profit-making techno-fixes, developed by the same companies that gave us the climate-changing fossil fuels in the first place. All these trends will be locked into place by a global economic system which has its priorities exactly right. The World Trade Organisation has already forced the US to modify its growth-restricting Clean Air Act. It has instructed Japan to raise the legal level of pesticide residues in imported foods and declared illegal an obstructive EU ban on hormone-injected beef. We can expect more of the same in future, for the WTO dares to say what all of us secretly know: in the battle between trade and nature, we cannot afford to take prisoners.

Then there's the shining record of Shell, whose contribution has been, in many ways, even more valuable. For while the Economist has provided the intellectual framework for the campaign to replace nature with growth, Shell's unflagging efforts have put theory into practice, and come up trumps every time. In 2001, Shell's global sales were $150bn. In February it announced profits of $2.78bn - up almost 50 per cent on the previous year. None of this could have happened without Shell's expertise at transforming nature into something much more useful.

In the Niger River Delta, for example, Shell continues sterling work, despite ill-informed opposition from local people. Shell Nigeria is producing about 900,000 barrels of oil a day, and this doesn't include the plentiful oil and gas it donates to local people in the form of leaks, spillages, pollution and burst pipes, all of which provide fisherfolk and farmers with valuable oil rather than considerably less profitable clean air, water and land. In Argentina, Shell still struggles to convince backward-looking people in the town of Magdalena to make the most of the economic benefits it provided them with in 1999, when one of its tankers thoughtfully donated 5,300 cubic metres of crude to their local Unesco biosphere reserve. Sadly, the company is currently under orders from a judge to clean up the mess or spend some of its valuable profits paying fines.

But Shell is unbowed. It understands that replacing nature with money is not always an easy task. It knows that people will try and slow progress - people like those in Durban (South Africa), Port Arthur (Texas) and Xinjiang province (China) who continue to call on Shell to remove the oil lakes and spills it has only recently provided for them, to remove itself from their land or "clean up" the air it has filled with toxic chemicals.

But there will always be doubters. Some people persist in arguing that the separation of "humanity" from "nature" is half the problem in the first place, and won't stop going on about how this "mechanistic, industrial, post-Enlightenment view" was not shared by any of the world's traditional cultures. Others say things like "but what about the majesty and wonder of the natural world?" But when we have the complete works of David Attenborough on DVD, what need is there for the real thing? Sure, we all like elephants, but are they productive? Yes, trees "grow" in one sense, but statistically, it means nothing. Let's get real.

Sadly, some people still don't get it. Somebody said to me just the other day, for example, that perhaps the real question I should be answering was "does nature need Shell or the Economist?" or "do we need neoliberals?" But I am not going to waste my time answering stupid questions.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Blue Moose Films

Blue Moose Films and Director Christine Rose have delivered the to world two prophetic documentaries in Liberty Bound and Internationally Speaking.

"Internationally Speaking (IS) is a historically significant and wonderfully presented wake-up call to Americans who refuse to see America from a global perspective. Christine Rose dares to tread where America's arrogant angels will not. "IS" is an unspun character witness of prior and, in particular, this Bush administration's foreign policy. Rose asks simple questions of ordinary citizens around the planet. She asks regular folks, what do you think of America? These folks, in return, offer profound commentary worthy of consideration by ALL Americans."

View Director, Christine Rose's documentary films Liberty Bound and Internationally Speaking. It took a "Rose" to remove the "rosy" colored glasses from the stories our mainstream media kept feeding us. Only one determined to listen to what the world was thinking and, in many cases, saying loud and clear three years ago is not surprised by today's violent and war-torn world.

Christine Rose is one film director who did listen. Now it is our turn to listen.

Blue Moose Films and Director Christine Rose

******************************************