Musings

(1) In the U.S. military there is a concept of a duty to disobey an illegal order.
(2) The United Nations has says that people under colonial and foreign domination have the right to use armed struggle against their oppressors.

This to highlight the point that governments do not always act legally *or* in the interests of people. We see this regarding climate disruption and massive resistance at the government and corporate level to not only taking action but to prevent others from taking action... so if people have the right to resist, can small local 'governments' in any form (HOAs, PTAs, neighborhood organizations, town councils, etc.) have the right to resist state/federal rules and laws? For example, can they retain tax payments due to larger entities to spend on local efforts to mitigate climate disruption (or any other local initiative)?

***

Factory farming of hogs has a stinky and environmentally damaging effect of hog waste lagoons. Setting aside the animal abuse inherent in factory farming, these lagoons are also hazardous to local residents and workers...

This is an excellent opportunity to implement circular economic flow where the by-product of one industry becomes the input or raw material for another industry. For hog waste, the goal would be to use bacterial remediation to (a) reduce toxicity; (b) reduce odor emissions and (c) generate valuable consumer product, such as methane and garden manure [cow manure and other compost is used by home gardeners and landscapers]. If toxicity can only be addressed by adjusting the hog diet, that may be healthier for the hogs, hog consumers and the environment,

Tomi Lahren says stupid things

Tomi Lahren says stupid things, predictably.


My comment:

She spreads propaganda and conspiracy theories like infectious diseases. The NY public health health authorities quarantined Typhoid Mary for spreading typhoid. White wing media, Tomi Lahren included, are a similar threat to the public health of the nation and planet.

For the sake of the nation...

My comment at an Alternet post:

IMHO, impeaching DJT is a necessary housekeeping for the sake of American democracy. Between Nixon (Watergate), Reagan (Iran-Contra), Bush 41 (Iran-Contra), Bush 43 (illegal wars, domestic spying, war crimes) and now DJT, there have been numerous egregious violations of the U.S. Constitution at the level of the Executive branch of the federal government. Every single violation has chipped away the founding principles of this nation. A presidential impeachment would do much to restore American and international faith in the rule of law. Unfortunately, our politics hates to air dirty laundry so it's not likely to happen. 

As to the Fall of the House of Trump, I'm stocking up on snacks to watch the action. It's small payback for his assaults on my psyche and our nation during his time in office. Let the show begin.

How close to treason...

Rachel Maddow describes election tampering by local North Carolina Republicans at C&L.


My comment:

This is happening under the rubric of the Republican Party... doesn't that mean they are engaged in a conspiracy to abridge a Constitutionally guaranteed right? While perhaps not 'treasonous', it is a bare step short of treason. A crime syndicate would be forcibly disbanded for the same behavior...

Bernie talks concentrated wealth and power

Bernie Sanders talks with Paul Jay at TRNN about the effects of concentrated wealth and power on the American system.


My comment in response to some other comments and Bernie's remarks:

(1) Bernie Sanders is a standing Senator representing the state of Vermont. He has a responsibility to (a) act in the interests of his voters; (b) convey the legislation they want and (c) adhere to his personal code of ethics. To carry out his duties, especially as a member of the minority party, he must be able to walk/talk/commune with other representatives. This involves a level of public diplomacy that he often gets criticized for – supporting Hilary, anodyne comments about the late GHWB… IMHO, Bernie’s critics seem to prefer he behave Newt Gingrich, “allowing hurt feelings over a perceived slight by Clinton to influence his stance in the budget negotiations” and that turn out swimmingly (/s). 

(2) “Raising the minimum wage, 15 bucks an hour. Radical idea a few years ago; kind of mainstream today.”And by the time you actually pass the 15 bucks an hour minimum wage in another few years, workers will be even further behind on the wage scale. The fight should be for a minimum wage pegged to annual average wages. Fighting the same fight is good for keeping Bernie Sanders employed but not so good for the minimum wage workers he’s purportedly fighting for. 

(3) “…And as a nation we have got to think from a moral perspective and an economic perspective whether we think it is appropriate that three people, one, two, three, own more wealth than the bottom half of the American society. You know, that’s really quite outrageous, and it’s appropriate that we take a hard look at that.”Economics originated as a moral enterprise. Even today, economics of average individual families are about working to earn the means to support the members of a family, which is morally superior to not working and allowing your family to languish. It was the introduction of profit as the be all and end all to economies that drove ethics out of policy. Profiteering allows gun makers to ‘morally’ profit from making and selling goods designed to perpetrate objectively morally questionable acts. Profiteering allows the military industrial complex to ‘morally’ profit from the making, selling and use of goods and services designed to murder en masse. Profiteering allows big pharma to ‘morally’ profit from the making, selling, use, misuse and withholding of drugs that can save and/or destroy lives. Profiteering allows extractive industries to ‘morally’ profit from the damaging of viable ecosystems to the extent that much that supports human life is at risk. One place where a basic reform might have immediate and significant impact would be to redefine economies to be self-organizing and self-sustaining systems of production, distribution and consumption of goods and services that promote the well-being of all participants… This would force all policy to account for impacts on sustainability and human well-being as opposed to sole the profitability for investors.

Destroying the Myths of Market Fundamentalism

TRNN has posted a video series of a forum organized by Ralph Nader called 'Destroying the Myths of Market Fundamentalism'. Worth a listen.


My comment on Ralph Nader's introduction:

Market fundamentalism has its flaws, no thinking person would question that. However, the system evolved into its current state through regulatory capture. Arguing for alternate regulatory capture is analogous to replacing a despotic ruler with a benign ruler. In the short term, conditions can improve but the state mechanisms enable reversion are present and calling for turnover.

My comment on Damon Silvers talk:

“Markets are product of government.”“Markets not fundamental but created.”Markets are part of economies (economies can be broadly divided into production & markets). Economies form in any human community, regardless of government (refugee settlements have economies with markets)… thus economies (and markets) *are* fundamental. When communities/economies grow sufficiently large/complex, governments emerge as a property of complex systems.---“How to shape markets and to what end?”“How to shape markets for long term wealth creation for all Americans. For that matter, all of the world’s population?”Is the market aspect of economies the best area to ‘shape’? Economics is a social science; that is, primarily concerned with relationships between individuals, groups and communities. Market relationships tend to be rather transient: buyers examine sellers’ goods; trade transaction occurs (or not); termination of relationship. In contrast, the relationships on the production side, (employer/employee, supervisor/supervisee, colleagues) tends to be of long duration, both in daily interaction and term of employment. Strong/healthy relationships on the production side of the economy empowers workers to become capable consumers who drive (somewhat transient) market activity.---“Challenge for securities regulation…”Also must consider the damaging effects of concentrating capital on the scale of economic operations. For example, mountain top removal mining is only possible because enormous amounts of capital can be pooled to build the massively expensive equipment. The same is true for most large scale extractive endeavors. While these projects may be profitable in the short term, the resulting environmental damage has incalculable long term financial and ecological costs (climate change for one).“(3)…transparency around key problems…data secret…”Information asymmetry plagues far more than the securities markets. It is the source and driver of power imbalance and economic inequality. In fact, the term ‘free market’ is a misnomer in light of the absence of information symmetry regarding market goods/services (working conditions, environmental impact, costs, etc.).

Daniel Ellsberg interviews

TRNN has a 13 part series posted where Paul Jay interviews Daniel Ellsberg. He essentially says: given current nuclear stockpiles, a nuclear war would set off climate conditions similar to those of the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs. Terrifying. 

My comment in part 9:

In this segment and the last segment, Daniel Ellsberg described a nuclear and war-making policy largely determined by (1) a capitalistic military-industrial-complex whose raison d’etre is the pursuit of profit without regard to consequences and, (2) military commanders whose raison d’etre is ‘victory’, pyrrhic and otherwise. The absence of morality is so striking that the only rational conclusion is that the MIC and military consists solely of sociopaths. This would also explain their absolute resistance to rational reform their war planning. 

The performance of DJT as POTUS has illustrated the need to consider the mental health status of presidential candidates. This series of interviews highlights the need for a similar mental health review for leaders in other areas including military and industry {such as MIC). Sociopaths might make the best commanders for immediate [hot] combat, but their lack of empathy, morality and remorse makes them unsuitable for high level leadership positions.

My comment in part 13:

For the vast majority of people without bubble hideouts in New Zealand to wait out a nuclear winter, the only rational response to a nuclear strike is to immediate travels *towards* the first strike zone. Should humanity come to such a pass, it will prove itself not worthy of saving and not deserving of any efforts on its behalf. Let the 'true believers' of rapture inherit the destruction they will have wrought.