Media Disconnect: paper of record fails to record

Dear Washington Post Ombudsman,

While the Washington Post runs a photo of an Oakland Policeman petting a cat [ASK THE POST: Occupy Oakland: What's with the Kitten photo?],
a veteran who survives two tours in the Iraqi war [Scott Olsen] gets critically injured from a projectile fired by the same police force, and this is relegated to the video blog. While this can be viewed merely as unfortunate timing, the placement and presentation leaves little doubt the two incidents exemplify the Post's inside-the-beltway disconnect from what concerns the majority of Americans, both within their city and the nation. Below is a still from a YouTube video showing the explosion of a flash grenade tossed by police at protesters as they attempt to come to the aid of the critically injured veteran serviceman. The irony is increased by links at the bottom of today's Post web-page under Special Reports that include "Faces of the Fallen," and "The Civil War 150," with no update on Scott Olson's condition, which remains critical. Is it any wonder the younger generation abandons newspapers for the internet for their news. Surely this is worthy of ombudsman comment, or has the Post really abandoned all concern for relevancy to the public, and only wishes to reflect to those holding the reins of power views which they find most comfortable. The vacuum created by such professional ineptitude means more suffering must occur before the inevitable course correction by leadership can occur.

Lessons from Fukushima: in search of the Natural Scientist

Charles Fredricks
20 March 2011

“I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds”.
Robert Oppenheimer, quoting the Baghavad Gita, on witnessing the first atomic bomb test, 1945

This, to borrow a phrase the President should appreciate, is a teachable moment. When we engage in disasters waiting to happen as business as usual, how can we be surprised at the results.

So how did we get here? Flush in the excitement of sudden victory over Japan in WWII, through the instantaneous incineration of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki along with most of their inhabitants, President Truman led the nation in thinking (I paraphrase) “we must make some good use of this awful thing.” In the same address acknowledging the first use of nuclear weapons, he outlined proposals for this new technology’s peaceful use for energy, praising to the sky those who’d made its implementation possible.

So with perhaps a bit of guilt in the shadow of our technological exuberance after WWII, soldiers were injected with plutonium as an experiment, and plants were built in this country and sold to friendly countries. Once the huge investment they entail was made, cleanup of waste along with admission of error was placed somewhere out of reach for future generations to deal with.

Interesting thing about, at least some, scientists. Because they invest themselves to the point of identification with a method of inquiry, rather than a dogma or a particular deity, and conceive no possibility of error in their approach, some go so far as to imbue themselves as being free from reproach. They are, after all, only human, proceeding on the best information scientifically available, so if mistakes are made, it is only a necessary part of the learning process in the indefatigable march of progress, nothing personal. No need to question whether a particular avenue should proceed to implementation; like explorers of old, there’s gold and glory in them thar hills. Perhaps mental gifts oriented toward exploration of the external world allows little interest in exploring their internal world, leaving them vulnerable to potential foibles. At any rate, rare is the scientist willing to admit to practices that endanger the public, when those practices are also responsible for their paycheck.

Well, the future has arrived, along with global warming. We are beginning to accept our planet is finite, and will not abide perpetual error. Many scientists are saying we have precious little time to get our !%@# together. Some of these push nuclear as a supposedly safe-r alternative to our addiction to carbon.

Some are lost in the dream of one day traveling to distant Earth-type planets, which on our present course, will happen some time long after our extinction— in other words, never. Better to discover a way of adapting ourselves to living on a very promising planet, one in trouble no doubt, but by far the best available— the one we happen to be on.

Other people seem to be adapting to this information by grabbing all they can for themselves, damn the cost to others or their future progeny. Their institutional bias formed by membership in the exclusive corporate club to which they belong, blinding them to the consequences of their actions. Not a good course for us to assume, collectively.

So, it’s our choice. We can be “the destroyer of worlds,” at least of this one— a real ego rush, though not a vey long ride— or we can accept humiliation, and adapt to what the planet is telling us. Not all things are possible, or rather, all things are possible only according to natural law. Respect for nature, or if you prefer for the possibility that that which we do not know exceeds that which we do, need not mean we cease to believe in gravity or evolution, but rather we accept a place in the cosmos more appropriate to our size, temper our advance, and our population. The implications of such a decision should be obvious.

Any form of energy that creates toxic waste capable of killing generations into the future one would think ought to be avoided. One radioactive by-product of fission with a relatively short life is Cesium137 with a half-life of thirty years, which means half of what has been emitted will have decayed by then, but the other half will be around (in declining amounts) for twenty times that long (six hundred years), in the air and water, messing up the food supply. Strontium90 with a similar half-life, concentrates in dairy products leading to early death from bone cancer. Contamination by a single microscopic grain of plutonium, minimum half-life of 24,000 years (that’s a half million years to complete decay to the point where it is no longer dangerous), is enough to give an individual cancer. The plants in Japan are spewing 200 different isotopes, one of which is Plutonium, due to the brilliant public relations driven decision to re-process spent weapons-grade uranium into reactor fuel, called MOX. Exactly how much do we want to be hated by our kids, grandkids, great-grandkids, their kids, etc.?

A few snapshots: An accident at the aging Indian Point plant near New York City, due for an earthquake, on the order of the one in Japan, would require the evacuation of twenty million people; an impossible task. The Diablo Canyon plant north of Los Angeles lies seventy miles from the San Andreas fault, three miles from the Hosgri fault, and just a half mile from the recently discovered Shoreline fault. This last is said by its discoverer, Thomas Brocher of the Menlo Park Earthquake Science Center, to be capable of a 7.5 quake, putting it at or exceeding the current design limit of the plant. To the south between Los Angeles and San Diego lies the San Onofre plant, designed for a quake not exceeding 7.0, where a similar situation exists. While these faults are not subduction faults like the one in Japan, it is questionable whether they would be able to survive both an earthquake equal or exceeding their design load, and the resulting tsunami.

Logic tells us that every one of our one hundred and four operating plants are a prime target for terrorists, especially considering there is no approved permanent waste facility. Spent fuel, radio-active waste several times more than what’s in the reactor itself, is stored onsite in a less contained situation than that in the reactor, making it more vulnerable to accidental or mechanical failure or attack. In Michigan this is about a hundred yards from the drinking water for forty million people, for the cities of Detroit, Toronto and Windsor. The fire in the spent fuel pool in reactor number Four at Fukushima is potentially more worrisome than the potential meltdown of reactors One, Two and Three.

As the three reactors burn in Japan, I reflect on my lack of surprise. A disaster of this magnitude is something many of us have expected for some time. My use of the word ‘disaster’ rather than ‘accident’ is deliberate. The NRC testified to a Congressional hearing as long ago as 1982 1 that such an “accident” had a probability of occurring, which they put at fifty-fifty in the next twenty years, a mark we passed ten years ago. Internal NRC documents dating from 1972 recommended all Mark I type plants be decommissioned. The recommendation went unadopted for fear it would spell a death knell to the industry. 

Proceeding in the face of such knowledge, the results can hardly be called an accident unless you can’t admit to having a gambling problem. The three reactors burning in Japan and the other three in potential trouble are of Mark I type design. Lest we infer that things are better in the US, twenty three of the one hundred and four nuclear plants operating in the United States are of similar age and design, built to less rigorous standards than those in Japan due to the strength and frequency of Japanese earthquakes.

While cheerleaders for nuclear insist it is the cheapest and cleanest, (even safest when compared against the safety record of coal), I believe they are behaving as ostrich futurists, rather than scientists, externalizing the extremely dangerous waste and other dangers. Fifty square miles near Kiev are now uninhabitable to humans. Now to that we can add a portion of Japan. If the Indian Point plant had a serious accident, we would likely lose New York City, financial capital of the United States and home to twenty million people. If the Diablo Canyon plant went, San Louis Obispo, Santa Barbara and possibly Los Angeles would be contaminated. If both Diablo Canyon and San Onofre were to to melt down, that would be San Diego, Los Angeles and points north. Say goodnight, Malibu and Hollywood.

Let's be clear, Wall Street won’t back nuclear power; the taxpayer is 100% on the hook as the insurer to cleanup and make whole any possible hiccups. I am not privy to the particular political negotiations that have resulted in the continued operation of plants long known to be hazardous, or in President Obama’s recent announcement of $8.3 billion in loan guarantees, with promises of more for two new plants,2 when none have been built in this country since the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979.

Expect the nuclear, defense industry and government to fight tooth and nail, to the last lobbyist's dollar to defend civilian nuclear power against science and common sense, because the civilian and military uses of nuclear are inextricably linked. When we strip away the civilian nuclear program, the military program would be conspicuously exposed, calling into question decades of foreign policy and imperial power based upon disproportionate force. Nevertheless, common sense dictates this is what we must do, to live in a safer, saner world.

Last time I checked my electricity bill was around a dollar a day. A single solar array of eighty by eighty miles in Arizona or New Mexico would supply all the energy needs of North America. Although the cost differential to renewables is not that great, double it, hell, triple it, and give me clean renewable energy and a world that’s not poised on the brink, just so I can make toast in the morning. This means, solar, wind, wave, tide, pumped storage, geothermal, and others I’ve left out.

Carbon in all its forms, and nuclear don’t make the list.

____________
1
http://crocodoc.com/yoz20b accessed 3:19pm PDT, 17 March 2011
2
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/16/obama-backs-nuclear-plants-with-billions-in-loans
_____________

Talking About Science, and the Sacred

Thoughts on reading Discovering a New Sense of the Sacred by Alexander Green


There is much lurking beneath the surface of this seemingly unassailable essay by
Alex Green, forwarded to me by my aerospace engineer father, now retired. It became grist for my mill before I realized that the author is not truly a scientist but a scientifically minded economic technocrat. It is however indicative of what I believe to be an irrational exuberance typical of many scientifically trained, and thus bears addressing. I reproduce Alex Green's essay, footnoting areas I will explore.
Discovering a New Sense of the Sacred
by Alexander Green

Dear Reader,

On March 6, 2009, NASA launched the Kepler Space Telescope to discover planets outside our solar system.

Named after Johannes Kepler - the famous mathematician who devised the laws of planetary motion - it will monitor 100,000 stars similar to our sun for four years, keeping a lookout for habitable, Earth-sized planets.

This week we got exciting news that Kepler has found 15 extrasolar planets (beyond the 510 already known to exist) and identified up to 1,235 other candidates. Fifty-four of these are the right size and orbit a "habitable zone" - the goldilocks region neither too close to a sun nor too distant - where liquid water might pool on the surface of a planet.

It's a fantastic start, especially since Kepler has telescoped only a small part of the galaxy. Scientists believe that if we can find a planet with Earth-like conditions, we may ultimately find signs of extraterrestrial life.

No one can know the odds at this stage, but Dr. Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Science estimates there may be 100 billion habitable planets in the Milky Way. Astrophysicist Duncan Forgan of Edinburgh University suggests there could be thousands of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy alone. And the Hubble Space Telescope has uncovered over 100 billion other galaxies. It's enough to boggle the mind.

I spoke to a neighbor about these developments this week. He was not amazed or elated, however. He was angry.

"They are not going to find life on other planets," he insisted. "I don't care how favorable the conditions are. Life didn't arise 'naturally' on Earth, so it can't arise 'naturally' somewhere else."

"I thought we were talking about science," I said.

"The truth is the truth," he said in a huff - and strode off.

He's right about one thing. Scientists can't yet explain how life arose. What's more, we may never find life beyond our planet. But if I were a betting man...

Four hundred years ago, Galileo's observations through his telescope proved that the earth moved. In his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, he claimed that the sun and the planets did not circle the earth, as was commonly believed. Rather the Earth and the planets revolve around the sun.

This finding did not sit well with the Church. Galileo's pronouncements contradicted official Christian doctrine, specifically Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5.

Galileo was hauled before the Inquisition, forced to recant and found "vehemently guilty of heresy." His offending Dialogue was banned and he was sentenced to formal imprisonment (later commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life). 6

In a letter to Kepler, Galileo complained that many of those who opposed his doctrines refused to look through his telescope, "even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times." 8

The same prejudice persists in certain quarters today. Some don't like what microscopes, particle accelerators, spectrometers and space telescopes tell us about the universe we live in. They huff and puff about the "arrogance" of science. 1

But the scientific enterprise is not just about discovery. It is also about humility. We strive to understand because we know that we don't know.2

Science promotes knowledge and critical thinking. Conclusions are based on observation, experimentation and replication. Beliefs that aren't supported by testable evidence aren't necessarily untrue. They just aren't science.3

A few weeks ago, my grade-schooler brought home a worksheet describing the scientific enterprise. A scientist, it said:

—Shows curiosity and pursues answers to questions about the world. 7
—Maintains a balance of open-mindedness and skepticism by entertaining new ideas and challenging information not supported by good evidence. 3
—Respects the importance of reproducible data and testable hypotheses.
—Tolerates complexity and ambiguity. 4
—Persists in the face of uncertainties.

What is there to oppose here? In science, a fact is something confirmed to such a degree that it would be unreasonable to withhold assent. Conclusions are never final. Findings are always subject to revision.

Albert Einstein said, "All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have." 5

Isaac Newton said, "I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

Conceding what you don't know, admitting when you're wrong; these are strengths, not weaknesses.

Pope John Paul II understood this. During his reign, he made over 100 public apologies for the Catholic Church. In 2000, he apologized for its persecution of Galileo. (Better four centuries late than never.)

Today's Kepler mission is part of the centuries-old quest to expand our horizons and discover new worlds. It has generated intense interest and popular excitement. And why not?

Space exploration gives us a sense of awe and wonder. It is also a reminder that we belong to a planet, a galaxy, a cosmos that inspires devotion as much as discovery.7

Carpe Diem,

Alex

editor@spiritualwealth.com

____________________________


Let us take a closer look at both what is said and implied in this essay.

1) Some don't like what microscopes, particle accelerators, spectrometers and space telescopes tell us about the universe we live in. They huff and puff about the "arrogance" of science.

As presented this is a ‘straw man’ argument. There are those who “huff and puff” about the arrogance of science who deny the findings of science, but are we to conclude all scientists are free from arrogance, and all who fear the transgressions scientists make through misguided arrogance are science deniers?

How then are we to explain a world balanced on the technologically achieved precipice of total nuclear annihilation for three generations now? Scientists eagerly allowed their talents to be used for this purpose, and gloried in their achievement. What science tells us about the danger to humanity from the widespread use of nuclear energy has not stopped renewed calls for its use. Where is the scientific community? Looking for a job in the nuclear industry, many of them. We know of the health dangers in consumption of genetically engineered foods and the dangers of unstoppable cross pollination into the environment, yet biotech firms have successfully lobbied for their acceptance without labeling, a move that will eventually force all non-gmo farmers out of business, and our nation into a process of agriculture that destroys soil, ultimately decreasing yields, leaving genetically non-diverse mono-crops more susceptible to catastrophic failure. Where is the scientific community? Employed, to a great degree, for those same bio-tech companies, placing them in a conflict of interest between scientific findings and their paycheck.

2) But the scientific enterprise is not just about discovery. It is also about humility. We strive to understand because we know that we don't know.

Then again, we don’t know what we don’t know. Let me borrow the jargon of a war criminal and put it in Rummy-speak: “There are known knowns, and known unknowns, and there are also unknown unknowns.” To which I’ll add that the history of scientific inquiry is one of taking our previously “known knowns” and shoveling them onto the trash heap when evidence to the contrary reveals either their limitation or complete falsehood; the flat Earth, geocentrism, two examples. Our “known knowns” are useful but can blind us to new possibilities, regardless of where we draw the moral fence. The degree of humility required to allow new knowledge is always a challenge; we don’t always know what, or that, we do not know.

3) Conclusions are based on observation, experimentation and replication. Beliefs that aren't supported by testable evidence aren't necessarily untrue. They just aren't science.
Tell that to the string theorists.

— Maintains a balance of open-mindedness and skepticism by entertaining new ideas and challenging information not supported by good evidence.

“Minds are like parachutes, they function best when open;” a metaphor rather than science, but one that should guide all inquiry. The ability to conceive in abstract terms, or allow one’s mind to open to as yet inconceivable truths entails running ahead of the tools of scientific verification, yet must always precede it.

“They just aren’t science” smacks of a justification to don blinders leading the scientifically trained to cast aside values arising from areas of experience other than “testable evidence,” leading to potentially disastrous consequences. Let us remember the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, the imprisonment and torture of the mentally ill, enslavement of Africans, Hitler’s eugenics program, all referred to “scientific” understandings of the day, as well as religious ones, for justification of heinous acts. Einstein conceived of the universe working in ways that allowed others to create the A-bomb, but the wisdom to know not to, or refrain from its use, has eluded us. This means our inquiry should be guided by principles that arise from a source other than our method, if we are to maintain balance.

4) Tolerates complexity and ambiguity.

I accept (in fact take delight in) the use of the tool of scientific verification to expand my base of knowledge, as a practical tool for extending my five senses. I also recognize that this is not the only avenue of exploration available to me that, with practice, I may master to expand my knowledge base. There are other systems of using our consciousness that yield results that are repeatable and therefore verifiable but not readily observable to others, except through monitoring brain wave activity, which gives an idea of the experience of the subject, but nothing akin to the subject’s experience.

5) Albert Einstein said, "All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike - and yet it is the most precious thing we have."

Einstein is also known to have said, seemingly contradictory, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” The common thread to these two statements is the recognition that reality is more vast than our abilities to perceive it. Without this understanding, the recognition of new truths would be impossible. Imagination, as Einstein here uses the term, I believe, is the doorway through which all truths make their entry into our consciousness. Sometimes we are led by the evidence, but even then we must allow our minds to open to recognize what the evidence is telling us. Other times it can come as a flash, a revelation of understanding, the deepest coming to us when our mind is most still. Regardless of the limitations of our ability to perceive it, we exist in reality, we are a piece of reality, and are ever the recipient and participant in this complete experience. There are many ways which reality impresses itself on us that are not repeatable for observation, not the least of which is our life itself unfolding, which proceeds moment to moment, each new one different than the last. For proper analysis, in the laboratory one attempts to exclude all possibilities except the one under consideration; yet reality is one and multidimensional, universal and constant, transcending space and time, in each instant of our life. Losing sight of this can lead us not closer to understanding the reality of our existence, but farther from it. We lose sight of the forest for the trees, our sense that the whole of which we are an inseparable part is greater than the sum of its parts.

6) Four hundred years ago, Galileo's observations through his telescope proved that the earth moved. In his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, he claimed that the sun and the planets did not circle the earth, as was commonly believed. Rather the Earth and the planets revolve around the sun.

This finding did not sit well with the Church. Galileo's pronouncements contradicted official Christian doctrine, specifically Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5.

Galileo was hauled before the Inquisition, forced to recant and found "vehemently guilty of heresy." His offending Dialogue was banned and he was sentenced to formal imprisonment (later commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life).

More pertinent and instructive for our historical moment than the findings of Galileo are those of Rachel Carson. When she published her findings in the mid-sixties, she was ridiculed by many scientists and the chemical industry as an “hysterical female.” This was merely the opening salvo in a battle whose outcome is yet to be determined. 



Denying the findings of science fits the definition of ignorance, but this foible is to be found in equal measure among the scientifically trained. There is no arrogance in science, which is merely a tool for verification of proposed knowledge, but there is arrogance in some scientists who identify with their method, resist comprehension of reality from other more or less obvious sources, and resist acknowledging each others’ findings when applying them to their own lives and lifestyles proves inconvenient.

How is this possible, that those committed to the investigative tool of science might themselves be resistant to its application? Because let’s face it, scientists are human. Science for them is not merely the pure pursuit of knowledge, but also provides their sense of self-importance and self aggrandizement. Pride in accomplishment can combine with fears that, if the well is deeper it will mean humiliation, job loss and work to catch up. It is understandable that one might have to confront an institutional bias amounting to resistance to accepting the findings that call for a greater revision to one's personal lifestyle, than did the findings of Galileo centuries ago.

In our moment, most scientists, including those in academia, rely for employment on defense dollars or corporate funds. We find that the fruits of technology that support our vast numbers are at the same time eating away at our planet’s ability to support complex life. This has been allowed to go largely unchallenged by those in the best position to do so. Rare is the brave soul willing to risk their job in order to call attention to:
— petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides polluting the environment with xenoestrogens leading to infertility— loss of two hundred species a day
— a floating island of plastic garbage the size of Texas collected by ocean currents in the South Indian Ocean, choking off marine life
— massive dead zones in the ocean growing at the estuaries, formerly the most abundant areas of life, of every river draining civilization, due primarily to agricultural runoff from industrialized agriculture practices
— global fish populations near collapse from over-fishing— loss of arable land to increasing desertification
— climate change: Most scientists believe we have, at best, less than a generation to move away from carbon based energy production, before the changes to our climate system become unstoppably irreversible, changing the planet in ways that will lead to a massive die-off of most major life forms, with the possibility of human extinction definitely on the table.

If scientists are to be the educators of the public at large on these issues, where is the unanimous outcry?

7) Shows curiosity and pursues answers to questions about the world.

—Space exploration gives us a sense of awe and wonder. It is also a reminder that we belong to a planet, a galaxy, a cosmos that inspires devotion as much as discovery.

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard scientists wax rhapsodic about space exploration and toll its benefits, followed a short time later by “I don’t envy kids today,” I could probably fund my own think-tank. Current science suggests with little doubt, unless we redirect our energies full bore from the course our global civilization is presently on, our species will join the millions in the dust long before we master the technology to visit, let alone colonize, any of those tantalizing, newly discovered planets.

There may yet be time if we turn our attention to understanding the limitations posed in living on our current one. The cosmos may seem nearly limitless, but we are fast approaching the limits of our support system, have already surpassed it in ways that are destroying its ability to sustain us. Our curiosity may be unlimited, but our time is not. I find it particularly aggravating when I attempt to turn the discussion to solving current crises, and find I am confronted by a suddenly very incurious person. As long as we are alive, we have the potential to learn the lessons life has to teach us. If we explore space without reverence for our own planet, and perish leaving our own internal lives unexplored, this will be the greatest failure of our species.

8) In a letter to Kepler, Galileo complained that many of those who opposed his doctrines refused to look through his telescope, "even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times.”

Years ago, with napalm bombs falling on the villages of Vietnam, I left studying chemical engineering to study meditation in India. In the years since, when occasion warranted, I have attempted to share with scientifically trained friends and relations my experiences. “Poppycock!” could suffice to summarize their responses, or at best, some reference to misplaced priorities.

Let us engage in a bit of the abstract conceptualizing that can open the door to new understanding.

Let us suppose for the moment that the greatest instrument for universal exploration is not one created by the human mind, but the human being, itself. That in using our minds to explore the external cosmos we are missing that part of it most open to our exploration, namely our own being. That in examining external nature but not our own internal nature, our efforts are akin to using a microscope as a club to crack walnuts— yielding tangible results, but not the highest use for which the instrument is capable.


Further let us suppose that this is not untrammeled ground. Others going before have left traces, maps— but the map is never the territory because the territory is ours alone, within us, and we are unique to our time, and uniquely, us. Further let us suppose that, in concentrating to reach beyond— a) the shame of what others might think about us spending time and energy in so seemingly a selfish, unproductive, unverifiable, way, or b) particular life pressures and distractions of survival, social advancement, or entertainment— we arrive (because our being is capable of this) at a direct conscious perception of the energy process that gives rise to our being, and not just our being, but all life, and all matter.

How might such experience change our outlook? Our understanding and appreciation of our world, our fellow humans, our selves?

If this experience were, though difficult to master, in fact repeatable, though never in exactly the same way, as no day is exactly like the one before, would we have any reason to deny its credibility or benefits? How might it serve to realign our priorities? How might such an experience change what we view as unchangeable? As worthy of reverence?

Science has made it possible for us to free ourselves of many of our superstitions, but by no means all. Many are yet to be discovered, as fundamental or more fundamental than accepting that the Earth revolves around the sun, rather than the other way around. For example, that that there is more to our lives than our senses reveal. Or, that it has yet to penetrate to humanity in any significant way as regards our behavior, that our life on Earth is a delicately balanced closed system of which humanity is one small part. The Earth does not belong to us. We belong to the Earth. Our demands of the planet, be they economic, social, political, industrial, must be self-limiting within the parameters allowed within the system, or we shall change the system in ways that will lead to our demise, and that shortly. We must learn to be self-limiting, or we will be self-eliminating.

9) Conceding what you don't know, admitting when you're wrong; these are strengths, not weaknesses.

Carpe Diem indeed. Our challenge becomes the greater when through arrogance we separate ourselves from those who reject the scientific view, because they don't see in it their experience. Yet if we are honest about what our current science is telling us, we know we have precious little time to find a solution that will be acceptable to all. 

By all means let us seize our day, the demands of which are calling on us to actualize a greater understanding of both what is within and outside us.

Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find
all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.
— Rumi

Charles Fredricks

empoweredplanet.blogspot.com

Free will is not Free

“I’m not one of these people who says force has no place in international affairs.” —retired General Wesley Clark, in conversation with Amy Goodman

Force has no place in international affairs. The question is, how can we create the world in which this proposition is a safe one to hold not only in principle, but act on as policy. There are those who will immediately label this as hopeless idealism, but I answer it is the ultimate in realism. We cannot contemplate our own security to the exclusion of others without creating enemies, against whom we must then arm ourselves. We have armed ourselves with the ability to destroy the Earth several times over, and still do not feel safe from enemies. In fact, we see them everywhere, even where they do not yet exist. Shall we destroy the world, today, because one day it will turn against us? Apparently.

There are those who say we cannot have freedom without the freedom to trade. Trade means markets, and markets require empire—by any other name, whether by occupation, or foreign military bases, 737 of them currently (not counting many more undeclared) around the world, from which to project power and influence.

In answer, whom does it benefit when we make the world safe for global traders but unsafe for human beings? The lack of consideration afforded to human beings by the rules set forth for global trade fits hand and glove with atrocities committed by use of military force throughout the globe. The two are inextricably linked. Global changes arising from unbridled avarice has resulted in the deaths of millions, pushed many life forms off the planet already, and has humanity poised on the brink of extinction.

The alternative, the only rational alternative, is to work together for collective benefit, considering the Earth as a whole, because it is. This is not dictated by the triumph of an ideology, be it communist or capitalist. This is dictated for our mutual survival. It will not mean the end of trade, but it will mean the end of exploitation, both of human beings and of the Earth. We must come to recognize the ultimate limitations to individual liberty, both social and natural.

The Indigenous and the scientist, the priests, rabbis and imams, the mythmakers and the people, we must all join to chart our course. Some traditions may guide us. Others, it must be recognized, have brought us to the edge of the abyss, and must be abandoned.

The point is not negotiable. Our very survival depends upon it. The Earth will let us know if we succeed.

Don’t pop the champagne just yet..

Obama’s prescription for the auto industry may be too little, too late, unless more’s coming.

Viewed from one perspective, Obama’s mandate to the auto industry to come in line with California’s standard of 35 mpg average vehicle by 2016 is a bold and courageous step. However, if we look globally, many automakers have already shot past this standard and have set their sights higher, so this will not even bring the US into line with its competition. Historically we know Detroit loves to drag its feet and does nothing without being dragged kicking and screaming. If they hold true to their past lethargy and do nothing to dramatically reform their technology, this new standard may be nothing other than a death knell for the industry, in that it does not force them to go far enough.

Add to this the fact that the US is one of three hold-outs, along with Canada and New Zealand, to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Signed by 144 member states, it is the first step toward the international recognition of the rights of
350 million people world-wide on the forefront of ecological destruction from oil exploration and climate change.

A CAFÉ standard of 35mpg by 2016, while a significant improvement over current standards, will not come close to meeting the necessary global reduction to meet the 350ppm atmospheric carbon threshold to avoid catastrophic climate change affecting agriculture and all coastal communities. This will require transition away from coal and oil and non-development of tar-sands and oil shale.

To Sonali Kolhatkar and Joshua Holland; Re: 9/11

It's time to unpack this term "conspiracy theory." I listened with interest to your interview this morning with Joshua Holland of AlterNet, aware of your predilections around 9-11. I thought Holland’s comment “How can you do activism against a bunch of shadowy actors behind the scenes” was particularly telling, smacking of intellectual laziness. Perhaps a  story would help.

On a dark night an individual searches the ground under a lamppost. A good Samaritan passing by offers to help.
“What are you looking for?”
“I lost my keys.”
“Where did you lose them?”
“Over there by the alley.”
“Why then are you looking over here!?”
“The light’s better.”

 I’m not someone who believes in conspiracy theories necessarily; neither do I dismiss them. They are, after all, theories, which means an explanation of certain facts awaiting proof. Often they arise  because the ‘official story’ ignores facts the officials would rather not see examined.

Did the U.S. Navy battleship Maine sink in Havana harbor due to a Spanish conspiracy? Current historians think not, it was the heat combined with improper storage of volatile armaments. Did William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper magnate, use his position and power to push the American population into war with Spain? This is no longer theory but historical fact; a conspiracy involving him and his many employees. Did Orson Wells base his groundbreaking film Citizen Kane on the life of Hearst? Fact: a conspiracy, involving Wells, the actors, the production company, and the exhibitors, to expose Hearst, and make money. Did Hearst use his power to suppress and discredit the film, by running negative reviews in the hundred or so newspapers under his control,  threaten exhibitors, and subsequently attempt to ruin Wells’ career? Conspiracy, yes, theory, no.

We are willing to entertain the idea that figures within our government conspire to kidnap people off foreign streets and torture them at various undisclosed locations throughout the world. We must accept at this point that figures with government sanction have purposefully injected African Americans with syphilis and GIs with plutonium without their knowledge, in order to study them, that viral agents were released in the surf and subways of San Francisco in order to track the spread of disease. Is this indicative of the majority of those who serve in government? No, but that these events occurred is a matter of public record, if one cares to look, exposed in documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, a law which the George W. Bush administration summarily ignored and attempted to dismantle.

Ditto the lie of the Tonkin gulf attack used to justify the war in Vietnam, exposed by the Pentagon Papers. Two million Vietnamese dead, and 60,000 US counting only those killed in direct combat, not the aftermath, so Lyndon Johnson’s friends could make money. Presidential candidate Nixon prolonged the war to help get elected, sending his emissary Kissinger to scuttle Paris peace talks in 1968. Presidential candidate Reagan cut a deal with the Iranians not to release the U.S. embassy hostages in order to ensure Jimmy Carter's defeat.

A million and a half Afghans died as a result of our policies before 2001, and a half million Iraqi children from our sanctions, but that must be okay because Madeline Albright said it was. Do we remember? Do we know? Do we care?

But those are foreign dead, right, not Americans, our government would never do that to its own people, you say. Well what about the Tailwind report from award winning journalist April Oliver that got her fired from CNN in 1998, which according to the book Into the Buzzsaw was confirmed in a sworn deposition by a retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, causing her employers to settle her wrongful termination suit. That story— that the United States targeted defectors in Laos with sarin nerve gas during the Vietnam war.

What about the soldiers— soldiers always die, so they don’t count? Please. If you choose to believe that the murders of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and others were the result solely of the lone gunmen punished for the crime, and conclude that for the most part justice is alive and well, what then of the National Guardsmen at Kent State, Jackson State, or for that matter the Blackwater sharpshooters at New Orleans, none of whom have seen the inside of a courtroom or even been identified. Huey Newton's murder at the hands of the FBI and Which is only to say that bad things happen, especially when people of like mind get together.

The history of our nation is replete with examples of those with power using the means at their disposal to manipulate the public and the government to their bidding. Exceptions (Teddy’s trust busting, FDR) are notable, but serve mainly to prove the rule. The people with power and vested interest are identifiable, but are rarely connected with their actions because they successfully use the means at their disposal to conceal their activities from the public at large. Union leaders and political activists, by contrast, are only capable of performing successfully by attracting public awareness, and they often suffer for their actions with their life. Which might form an argument, subconsciously at least, for not probing too deeply, too publicly.

I am not an architect, engineer, or scientist. Do I think the towers were brought down by Chinese space lasers or an atom bomb? No. Do I think they were brought down solely by aircraft and nineteen hijackers? Possibly; taking into account that their funding came from the CIA redirected through Pakistani intelligence (and some Saudis), and some in a position to know chose to make money off the attack by over-insuring the buildings and placing put options on the airline stocks affected, and putting down the quashing of FBI investigations and the erasure of a vast database of terrorism investigation solely to incompetence and ass covering and currying favor with those in power (sucking up to Bush protecting the Saudis), and I’d need to hear some kind of explanation for those little puffs of smoke that certainly look like ‘squibs,’ the trails of smoke that jut out from sequentially timed explosives in a controlled demolition—possible. Do I think that some in a position to know this attack was coming sought to make it even more sensational, by assisting the demolition of the Towers and loss of life with planted explosives, in order to further political ends they believed would fabulously increase their power and wealth? Possible, taking into account credible eye-witness reports of events from several weeks prior to and including the day of, including firemen in the building reporting explosions, whose reports were omitted when the "official" story was prepared.

Lyndon Johnson himself remarked  he didn’t believe a word of the Warren Report. While still touted as gospel in some quarters with convoluted explanations to support it, it is widely regarded as a whitewash in others. Photographs of the presidential limo taken the day of the incident clearly show the impression of a bullet imbedded in the front of the chrome above the windshield. The limo was later destroyed. Explain that with your single bullet theory.

The 9-11 Commission Report has numerous flaws. I say let those with the expertise who feel motivated to do so pursue their investigations, hopefully one day with government sanction, without the need to prejudice our opinions one way or the other. To which I say good luck, but I mean that. Our track record in this area is not so great. Those of us without such expertise could use our intellect to more accurately make connections in the social realm. Do I think the dark powers who possibly participated but certainly profited from 9/11 are vulnerable on this issue? Absent a whistleblower from within, not really. Forensic evidence remains somewhat inconclusive and eye-witness reports, while compelling, are not enough to prove the issue. So I guess I agree with Holland, but not with his inference, that since we cannot prove it therefore is not true.

There are certainly more obvious, and larger crimes, that lack the emotional resonance of 9/11. Like, all the nasty business that's gone on for years that would make us a target in the first place, which most are content to ignore. Chalmers Johnson predicted such an event in Blowback, written in 1999.

Do I think that keeping photos of torture secret will protect our troops? No. Keeping them secret will protect the torturers, and continue the practice. Being seen as torturers with or without photos to prove it will not protect our troops. Quite the contrary. Exposing the photos to the public would hopefully result in outrage and revulsion at what has been allowed to transpire in our name, resulting in a push for a change of policy, and prosecutions, which by his actions is obviously something Obama fears, perhaps out of concern for his own safety. This would, by the way, do more to protect the troops, but then they're expendable, right? Not so ex-presidents, regardless their crimes.

Exposure dis-empowers the guilty, and forces a change of policy. What we need is more light, but it’s got to be in the right place. There’s plenty of work to go around. Most of the time you do a pretty good job with your microphone, but not always. The original meaning of the word ‘sin’ came from archery, meaning simply, to miss the mark. We all need to improve our accuracy, if we are to resolve our difficulties.

When It Is Torture

Those locked in conversation over Obama’s reversal of his decision to release hundreds (or was it thousands) of photos that depict torture at US hands, probably missed a one paragraph item in the World Briefing section on page A6 of last Tuesday’s New York Times (May 12, 2009); “United Arab Emirates: Sheik Held Over Torture Video.” Seems a video surfaced in which the brother of the ruler of Abu Dhabi, who is also the President of the seventeen-member United Arab Emirates, appears to torture an Afghan grain merchant. He has been detained pending the outcome of a criminal investigation.

Contrast this with the United States, where the CIA erased the videotapes, and the President we elected on the pledge to bring sunshine to government makes the excuse that if we release the photos it might prove inflammatory with negative consequences for our troops. I for one do not think confirming to the world that we are a nation unwilling and incapable of facing up to the evidence of our own crimes will serve to protect our troops while carrying out any mission we attempt to portray as just.

Justice need not lack mercy but requires accountability. Justice requires crimes be exposed, the guilty prosecuted, whether they be a corporal or the brother of the president who carries out torture, or a president or vice president who ordered it. Justice is a contract between the rulers and the ruled, that says we play by the same rules; no one is above the law.

I can’t say how many times I have been in conversation with friends, intelligent people, who repeat to me sound-bites from the media or the President’s lips, as if that were the end of discussion. Behind these thought-numbing aphorisms is what Edward Said referred to as “Orientalism,” the unconscious supposition that white Christians of European descent are best disposed to rule the world, the only ones with a grasp of fairness, the only ones worth being accountable to. I find it equally at play in the question, “If we just leave Iraq, it would be chaos. How could they rebuild?” As if they didn’t build their country in the first place, as if they weren’t capable of rebuilding without our help, and of course we would be their first choice. I mean, since we destroyed it, we should know how to put it back together, right?

Many of us have become accustomed it seems, to accepting at face value pronouncements from power, instead of comparing them to our own internal sense of justice. The thing that made Orwell’s novel 1984 so compelling was the way he laid bare the conscious transition from human being to servile co-conspirator in the suffering of others. One thought only need be accepted; let it happen to others.

As Jeremy Scahill reported this morning on Democracy Now!, AlterNet, and his blog RebelReports.com, torture is alive and well at Guantanamo under Obama. Little wonder when we can’t even compel him to release the photos, let alone bring those responsible to justice, which is what he fears their release will require, more than consequences for our troops.

Obama’s message to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to stop building settlements notwithstanding, his pre-election pledge of “make me do it” is sounding ironically hollow. If he cuts off funding when Netanyahu ignores him (which he most certainly will), something even Bush senior once attempted, then I might believe him. Lacking that his actions are less than one step forward, two steps back.

Justice is alive in the world, even here in the US, but don’t look for it in the halls of power or the media. There it seems we can’t afford it. Find it, hang on to it, within yourself. Losing it is torture.