Op-Ed
President Obama has not lived up to his promises about curtailing global warming, the engine at the center of disruptive climate change. He and his administration acknowledge the problem exists, though they don’t stress the scientific evidence on trends that show that temperatures and greenhouse concentrations in the atmosphere in the U.S. and across the world are rising at an accelerating rate. At the same time, there were some notable but not-trend-breaking achievements during Obama’s first four years like new fuel efficiency standards for cars and small trucks, $36 billion allocated for renewable energy, the weatherization of one million homes owned by low-income homeowners, and the doubling of renewable energy from wind and solar partly supported by Department of Energy investments. Unfortunately, there are reasons to expect that the President will not do nearly enough in the next four years of his presidency to prevent further catastrophic climate changes or to prepare the society and world to cope with it all. This is certainly not his fault alone. There are significant constraints that limit what he can do.
Chicago is in a state of emergency. Lives are being lost. Fear is growing. Local officials, ministers and community activists are working diligently but cannot break the cycle. We’re seeing more than one funeral a day. Our children are traumatized. Many are afraid to go to school.
In this crisis, we need the president’s leadership. President Obama can provide the knowledge, vision and inspiration to bring us together to address the crisis. He can speak to the children to calm their fears.
Mr. President, as you know, last week, 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, an honor student who performed in your inaugural ceremonies as a majorette, was murdered, slain when a gunman shot randomly into a group of kids gathered in a neighborhood park less than one mile from your home.
In this crisis, we need the president’s leadership. President Obama can provide the knowledge, vision and inspiration to bring us together to address the crisis. He can speak to the children to calm their fears.
Mr. President, as you know, last week, 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, an honor student who performed in your inaugural ceremonies as a majorette, was murdered, slain when a gunman shot randomly into a group of kids gathered in a neighborhood park less than one mile from your home.
How ironic is it that on the ten-year anniversary (Tuesday Feb 4th, 2003) of when Bill Moss banged his shoe at a Columbus School Board meeting to bring attention to the rampant deception and corruption taking place within the district, a Columbus City Schools official responsible for the recent data rigging scandal announces his resignation.
But to those of us who listened intently to what Moss, Bob Fitrakis, Jerry Doyle, Ivy Featherstone, Jim Whitaker and Bernadine Kennedy Kent were telling us, this is nothing new. Unlike the mainstream who sought to villify and castigate them for speaking up and out, we didn't.
Part of the reason Moss banged his shoe was because no one seemed to care about the corruption. And no one seemed to listen when he would explain in depth with documented facts and personal insight what was happening and what was on the horizon (see The FREE PRESS article from 3/'03 "Why Moss Banged His Shoe." by Bob Fitrakis). Recall that this was just a few months after the citizens of Columbus approved a bond/tax levy to improve and/or build new schools despite Moss' warning of what would come of it if we allowed it to pass.
But to those of us who listened intently to what Moss, Bob Fitrakis, Jerry Doyle, Ivy Featherstone, Jim Whitaker and Bernadine Kennedy Kent were telling us, this is nothing new. Unlike the mainstream who sought to villify and castigate them for speaking up and out, we didn't.
Part of the reason Moss banged his shoe was because no one seemed to care about the corruption. And no one seemed to listen when he would explain in depth with documented facts and personal insight what was happening and what was on the horizon (see The FREE PRESS article from 3/'03 "Why Moss Banged His Shoe." by Bob Fitrakis). Recall that this was just a few months after the citizens of Columbus approved a bond/tax levy to improve and/or build new schools despite Moss' warning of what would come of it if we allowed it to pass.
Shortly after 11 p.m. on Monday, February 4th, the City Council of Charlottesville, Va., passed what is believed to be the first anti-drone resolution in the country. According to my notes, and verifiable soon on the City Council's website, the resolution reads:
"WHEREAS, the rapid implementation of drone technology throughout the United States poses a serious threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of the American people, including the residents of Charlottesville; and
"WHEREAS, the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia have thus far failed to provide reasonable legal restrictions on the use of drones within the United States; and
"WHEREAS, police departments throughout the country have begun implementing drone technology absent any guidance or guidelines from law makers;
"WHEREAS, the rapid implementation of drone technology throughout the United States poses a serious threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of the American people, including the residents of Charlottesville; and
"WHEREAS, the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia have thus far failed to provide reasonable legal restrictions on the use of drones within the United States; and
"WHEREAS, police departments throughout the country have begun implementing drone technology absent any guidance or guidelines from law makers;
Perhaps in your innocent youth you heard a parent or older sibling mumble those words in your direction after you pointed out a mistake they made, an error on their part that fell below the standard you were told to observe?
“Actions speak louder than words” and “We teach by example” are two truisms that have stood the test of time. But that doesn’t make them any easier to practice.
As a nation we mourn with the families and loved ones of those so frightfully killed and wounded in Connecticut last week. But as grief is joined by reflection on how this could happen again, I believe we do those close to the victims as well as ourselves a disservice unless “all options are on the table” as we examine Americans’ predilection for killing en masse.
“Actions speak louder than words” and “We teach by example” are two truisms that have stood the test of time. But that doesn’t make them any easier to practice.
As a nation we mourn with the families and loved ones of those so frightfully killed and wounded in Connecticut last week. But as grief is joined by reflection on how this could happen again, I believe we do those close to the victims as well as ourselves a disservice unless “all options are on the table” as we examine Americans’ predilection for killing en masse.
The Keystone XL Pipeline proposed to move tar sands oil from northern Canada to the Caribbean gulf coast would result in great risk to our fresh water supply. It would not increase the supply of fuel for the U.S. Big oil companies would sell it on the world market at several times the price of U. S. oil. They would make many billions of dollars in profit.
Tar sands oil is heavy. It sinks to the bottom of water. It would contaminate the fresh water in aquifers, and the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. The only way to remove it is to rile it to the surface so it can be skimmed. After two years of work, clean up had not been completed of a small spill in the Kalamazoo river.
A Canadian plan is to pipe the heavy tar sands oil to the Pacific coast for sale on the world market. Officials in the provincial government of Alberta object because of the risk to their water supply.
The tar sands oil is a valuable asset which will be harvested.
Tar sands oil is heavy. It sinks to the bottom of water. It would contaminate the fresh water in aquifers, and the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. The only way to remove it is to rile it to the surface so it can be skimmed. After two years of work, clean up had not been completed of a small spill in the Kalamazoo river.
A Canadian plan is to pipe the heavy tar sands oil to the Pacific coast for sale on the world market. Officials in the provincial government of Alberta object because of the risk to their water supply.
The tar sands oil is a valuable asset which will be harvested.
The president negotiates our withdrawal from Afghanistan, proclaims mission accomplished — and the wars of the last decade continue winding down to nothing.
We’ll be leaving behind an unstable country with one of the world’s highest infant mortality rates and hundreds of armed insurgent groups. We haven’t rescued or rebuilt the country or accomplished any objective that begins to justify the human and financial cost of this adventure. We just lost.
But we’re the most powerful nation on the planet. How is that possible? And, as Tom Engelhardt asks, “who exactly beat us? Where exactly is the triumphant enemy?”
He goes on, in an essay that ran this week on Common Dreams: “Did we in some bizarre fashion fight ourselves and lose? After all, last year, more American servicemen died from suicide than on the battlefield in Afghanistan; and a startling number of Americans were killed in ‘green on blue’ or ‘insider’ attacks by Afghan ‘allies’ rather than by that fragmented movement we still call the Taliban.”
We’ll be leaving behind an unstable country with one of the world’s highest infant mortality rates and hundreds of armed insurgent groups. We haven’t rescued or rebuilt the country or accomplished any objective that begins to justify the human and financial cost of this adventure. We just lost.
But we’re the most powerful nation on the planet. How is that possible? And, as Tom Engelhardt asks, “who exactly beat us? Where exactly is the triumphant enemy?”
He goes on, in an essay that ran this week on Common Dreams: “Did we in some bizarre fashion fight ourselves and lose? After all, last year, more American servicemen died from suicide than on the battlefield in Afghanistan; and a startling number of Americans were killed in ‘green on blue’ or ‘insider’ attacks by Afghan ‘allies’ rather than by that fragmented movement we still call the Taliban.”
Ten years ago, Katharine Gun, then a 28-year-old British intelligence officer, saw an e-mailed memo from the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) that confirmed for her in black and white the already widespread suspicion that the U.S. and U.K. were about to launch war against Iraq on false pretenses.
Doing what she could to head off what she considered, correctly, an illegal war of aggression, she printed a copy of the memo and arranged for a friend to give it to the London Observer. "I have always ever followed my conscience," she said, explaining what drove her to take such a large risk.
Those early months of 2003 were among the worst of times – and not just because the U.S. and U.K. leaders were perverting the post-World War II structure that those same nations designed to stop aggressive wars, but because the vast majority of U.S. and U.K. institutions including the major news organizations and the nations' legislatures were failing miserably to provide any meaningful check or balance.
Doing what she could to head off what she considered, correctly, an illegal war of aggression, she printed a copy of the memo and arranged for a friend to give it to the London Observer. "I have always ever followed my conscience," she said, explaining what drove her to take such a large risk.
Those early months of 2003 were among the worst of times – and not just because the U.S. and U.K. leaders were perverting the post-World War II structure that those same nations designed to stop aggressive wars, but because the vast majority of U.S. and U.K. institutions including the major news organizations and the nations' legislatures were failing miserably to provide any meaningful check or balance.
A lot of what we say and do becomes habit-forming. Groundhog Day 2013 could serve as a reminder that some political habits should be kicked. Here are a few:
** “Defense budget”
No, it’s not a defense budget. It’s a military budget.
But countless people and organizations keep saying they want to cut “the defense budget” or reduce “defense spending.”
Anyone who wants to challenge the warfare state should dispense with this misnomer. We don’t object to “defense” -- what we do oppose, vehemently, is military spending that has nothing to do with real defense and everything to do with killing people, enforcing geopolitical control and making vast profits for military contractors. And no, they’re not “defense contractors.”
President Eisenhower’s farewell address didn’t warn against a “defense-industrial complex.”
The fact that there’s something officially called the Department of Defense -- formerly the Department of War, until 1947 -- doesn’t make its huge budget a “defense budget,” any more than renaming the Bureau of Prisons “the Bureau of Love” would mean we should talk about wanting to cut the “love budget.”
** “Pro-life”
** “Defense budget”
No, it’s not a defense budget. It’s a military budget.
But countless people and organizations keep saying they want to cut “the defense budget” or reduce “defense spending.”
Anyone who wants to challenge the warfare state should dispense with this misnomer. We don’t object to “defense” -- what we do oppose, vehemently, is military spending that has nothing to do with real defense and everything to do with killing people, enforcing geopolitical control and making vast profits for military contractors. And no, they’re not “defense contractors.”
President Eisenhower’s farewell address didn’t warn against a “defense-industrial complex.”
The fact that there’s something officially called the Department of Defense -- formerly the Department of War, until 1947 -- doesn’t make its huge budget a “defense budget,” any more than renaming the Bureau of Prisons “the Bureau of Love” would mean we should talk about wanting to cut the “love budget.”
** “Pro-life”
In the absence of state or federal laws, localities around the United States are proceeding to put unmanned aerial vehicles in our skies as they see fit. The federal government has authorized the flight of 30,000 drones, and the use of drones up to 400 feet by police departments, at least 300 of which already have surveillance drones in operation.