The military raided the Swedish-Afghan hospital
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/militar-razzia-mot-svensk-afghanskt-sjukhus-1.946596
A hospital that operates Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, not far from Kabul has been scanned with harsh methods by U.S. soldiers.
The hospital is located in Shaniz in Wardak province. The soldiers arrived late Wednesday evening in a convoy of military vehicles. They were quickly into the clinic without asking for permission or even giving an explanation. Four staff and two relatives of patients were tied up. Locked doors were opened by force with violence. And patients, even in bed sick, were forced out of the hospital during the raid, as reported by the committee on Sunday. -
This is not acceptable. It is a violation of international agreements, and also a threat to our operations and personnel safety, "says Anders Fänge, director at the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, told TT.
All the rooms and halls were searched, including the Department for Women. Around midnight, the soldiers went away. But first they ordered the hospital staff to report to the NATO-led ISAF forces in case suspected Taliban seek care. -
Our hospital takes care of all wounded and sick, regardless of which ethnic group they belong, or whether they are rebels, government soldiers or civilians. And we do not report to either side, "says Fänge. (my note-hippocratic oath, international law)
The hospital is located in the province of Wardak, south of the capital Kabul, and the area is often shaken by conflict and attacks. Earlier this summer, got the same hospital raided by a private security force that appeared threatening, destroying equipment and beating employees. The Force was hired to protect from a convoy of insurgents - and wanted care after a violent assault.
The hospital is situated in a conservative, religious Pashtun area. Important to note that that foreign men infringing on the women's department brings bad blood. At the end of August, NATO and Afghan army attacked a hospital in the province of Paktia after information that a Taliban leader was treated there. All parties to the conflict - the Taliban, NATO, the government army and the warlords - have at various times harassed or attacked a hospital and medical staff.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
When Will America Wake Up?
Front Page News here today translated from http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/analys/wolfganghansson/article5737972.ab
President Obama will be able to close the Internet with one touch.
Sounds like a joke?
In the name of combating terrorism is everthing permitted. Behind the U.S. bill to "turn off" the Internet is a legitimate fear. Next time Al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations strikes, it is perhaps not the skyscrapers, but the computer network that controls the U.S. electricity supply, banking, or anything that would create chaos in a modern society. Yet lies a dark cloud of big brother-wacthing-you over the bill which the government can force private companies to disclose any information with reference to the law.
"What happens after 2012, nobody knows"
Interestingly, the "attack" against the open network, this time coming from one of Obama's fellow party members and not from the neo-conservatives. Senator Jay Rockefeller - grandson of the famous oil magnate John D. Rockefeller - voted for the Iraq war, but very soon he turned to Bush and the war. The wording of the bill are very general in nature and would give the president broad powers to decide when a cyber emergency situation "exists. Although in practice it is more about turning off individual servers than the entire Internet. With a reasonable person in the White House, it is perhaps no danger. Right now, Obama seems to have no Dr. Strangelove-trends. It can be changed. What happens after 2012, nobody knows.
The will to defend their country is strong
Instead of Obama maybe it sits a Sarah Pallin in the White House. The will to defend their country with the means whatsoever is very strong in the U.S.. Just look at how George W. Bush acted after the terrorist attacks in New York in 2001. He allowed one million Americans to intercept phone calls and e-mail. Without the support of any law (Jay Rockefeller voted for the nolle prosequi of those involved in the illegal interception). Bush authorized torture as an interrogation method to get suspected terrorists to tell what they knew. Some of which subsequently turned out to be innocent.
"When Americans wake up?
With a vague cyberlag in the back increases the risk that a president might be tempted to take the methods of many perceived as a threat to the rule of law and democracy. The fact that there are both Democrats and Republicans who supports the bill increases the possibility that it will be adopted by the Senate. So far, most political commentators and civil rights organizations who reacted against the bill. The broad American public seems not even have a clue that it exists. Reminds a bit of resistance to the FRA law in Sweden until the eleventh hour run by a small "elite". When Americans wake up?
President Obama will be able to close the Internet with one touch.
Sounds like a joke?
In the name of combating terrorism is everthing permitted. Behind the U.S. bill to "turn off" the Internet is a legitimate fear. Next time Al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations strikes, it is perhaps not the skyscrapers, but the computer network that controls the U.S. electricity supply, banking, or anything that would create chaos in a modern society. Yet lies a dark cloud of big brother-wacthing-you over the bill which the government can force private companies to disclose any information with reference to the law.
"What happens after 2012, nobody knows"
Interestingly, the "attack" against the open network, this time coming from one of Obama's fellow party members and not from the neo-conservatives. Senator Jay Rockefeller - grandson of the famous oil magnate John D. Rockefeller - voted for the Iraq war, but very soon he turned to Bush and the war. The wording of the bill are very general in nature and would give the president broad powers to decide when a cyber emergency situation "exists. Although in practice it is more about turning off individual servers than the entire Internet. With a reasonable person in the White House, it is perhaps no danger. Right now, Obama seems to have no Dr. Strangelove-trends. It can be changed. What happens after 2012, nobody knows.
The will to defend their country is strong
Instead of Obama maybe it sits a Sarah Pallin in the White House. The will to defend their country with the means whatsoever is very strong in the U.S.. Just look at how George W. Bush acted after the terrorist attacks in New York in 2001. He allowed one million Americans to intercept phone calls and e-mail. Without the support of any law (Jay Rockefeller voted for the nolle prosequi of those involved in the illegal interception). Bush authorized torture as an interrogation method to get suspected terrorists to tell what they knew. Some of which subsequently turned out to be innocent.
"When Americans wake up?
With a vague cyberlag in the back increases the risk that a president might be tempted to take the methods of many perceived as a threat to the rule of law and democracy. The fact that there are both Democrats and Republicans who supports the bill increases the possibility that it will be adopted by the Senate. So far, most political commentators and civil rights organizations who reacted against the bill. The broad American public seems not even have a clue that it exists. Reminds a bit of resistance to the FRA law in Sweden until the eleventh hour run by a small "elite". When Americans wake up?
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Outstanding Members of Congress
http://www.actblue.com/page/theytookthepledge?refcode=moveon1
A list of pretty amazing people who should be noticed, IMHO
A list of pretty amazing people who should be noticed, IMHO
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
My View on Healthcare
To have the confidence that your family can see the doctor without the fear that it will result in years at a credit counselling service is priceless. I am surprised at those who defend degradation. I am calling my representatives and asking them to support Conyers/Kucinich Bill HR676. During his July 22, 2009 news conference, in responding to a question from MSNBC's Chuck Todd, President Obama conceded that the only way we can insure that every American has health care coverage is through a single-payer system.
At the fourth prime time health care news conference, President Obama said "I want to cover everybody. Now, the truth is that unless you have a -- what's called a single-payer system, in which everybody's automatically covered, then you're probably not going to reach every single individual."
As an American voter I was lured repeated by the rainbow on the horizon. No more. There is absolutely no transparency in these private alternatives, unless I am a share holder, I have no idea what ABB pays for a transformer for example. The problems we see are due to lack of Democracy, not because of Democracy. Citizens who are held under threat of loss of their families’ healthcare by their employers have not experienced democracy. Private, non-democratic entities already expanded our money supply and destroyed our savings and investments in the US, if my retirement fund is any example. HR676 does keep healthcare delivery privately owned. We must eliminate extraneous for profit health insurance. Avoiding competition, maintenance, and services is exactly how private for profit companies increase profits. Moral hazard can be reduced when we give the powerful market forces just enough regulation to keep them from hurting each other by eliminating all competition, or hurting us as the case with denying healthcare. Nobody wants to nationalize the pharmaceutical companies either, they will have to compete, and working for us is what we pay the government to do. If a company is not profitable to its investors it is destroyed, profit can be made from the falling price of stocks. Planning on the corporate level is done for three months ahead. Healthcare, preventative care we do today will pay off in 30-50 years or more, governing is a job to execute political will of the constituents. It is true that a reform in the US political system is needed and the healthcare issue is like a litmus test, we can now see who is working for us or not. Healthcare funded by private insurance which receives government subsidy removes competition and collective bargaining which are both tools of a healthy market. I insist that healthcare for profit is fraught with great moral hazard. I support HR 676, not healthcare vouchers. Vouchers for private insurance will never keep citizens free from medical bankruptcy, or give them the choice to see any doctor they want. They will constantly fear that a treatment goes outside the boundaries of their approved plan. That is not liberty.
Having a large population is an advantage for saving money in a single payer system. More people can benefit from expensive medical equipment, for example. If little Sweden can do it, it should only inspire you in the US. (Those higher taxes in Sweden also give access to higher education and vocational training, btw.) In the case of an example of expensive kidney dialysis, it is not the same as a purchase of a BMW! But when government is paying they do research ways to lower the cost and spend more money on research. Sweden currently spends 4% of gdp on R&D according to Scientific American Magazine. (Not all the money is spent on medical research. The dialysis machine, for an example, is an investment and can used by many people. Dialysis machines are not built to wear out soon after purchase, like a cd player. As Americans we all have a similar goal. A government is meant to serve you, remember, you are the government. Sure we should not disregard the emotive element in a discussion of a budget! Doesn't our fear and paranoia justify the over bloated defence budget? Paying a deductable or surcharge is standard practice in a single payer system. Citizens are protected from too high costs, which relieves stress and this is essential to the health of your nation, your overall lifespan and the health of mothers with small children particularly. Then perhaps removing the burden of healthcare from industry is a way to facilitate innovative new business. Learn how these same problems were solved by different countries around the world, I am an American who has moved to a country with a single payer system so Iwill tout the virtues of that because of my experiences with it. I commend effort to craft a uniquely American solution and Medicare is a single payer idea of the same line as HR676, which I support.
According to the OECD, health expenditures per US citizen 5,711, rated 37th in the world for quality and coverage. France NO1, 3,048 per citizen, Sweden 23rd with 2,745, the UK is 18th 2,317 per citizen, Cuba at number 38th around 40$ per citizen, Cuba with the same lifespan as Americans and have a lower infant mortality rate.(CIA fact book updated since this post, this month). There is competition in a single payer system. Companies compete for the government contracts. Collective bargaining and direct competition between companies for the government contracts will lower the costs in a single payer system. If my insurance allows an ointment purchase at 30$, by eliminating the insurance company and my state or national healthcare plan negotiates the price of said ointment at its public facilities, the same or competing brand will cost a fraction of that. It is childlike to believe that an individual can navigate such things alone, and a delicious source of corruption for any despot. If you believe this, then you attract corruption with your gullibility. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the Healthcare industry in the US spent more than $134 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2009 alone. Administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars. With a single payer financed system we could recover more than $350 billion per year. (Source PNHP)
To dispel the myth of death panels I must say this. The same end of life legislation is debated in the US and EU. Currently in VA you can watch Senator Warner questioning Director of the finance committee for his input on YouTube. EU legislation discussing assisted suicide is demanded by the people for conditions where nothing more can be done for the patient when medical solutions are exhausted and the patient themselves has demanded it, to secure the dignity and liberty of that individual, to honour their wishes and is unique the EU country in which the law is crafted, as it will be in Virginia.
At the fourth prime time health care news conference, President Obama said "I want to cover everybody. Now, the truth is that unless you have a -- what's called a single-payer system, in which everybody's automatically covered, then you're probably not going to reach every single individual."
As an American voter I was lured repeated by the rainbow on the horizon. No more. There is absolutely no transparency in these private alternatives, unless I am a share holder, I have no idea what ABB pays for a transformer for example. The problems we see are due to lack of Democracy, not because of Democracy. Citizens who are held under threat of loss of their families’ healthcare by their employers have not experienced democracy. Private, non-democratic entities already expanded our money supply and destroyed our savings and investments in the US, if my retirement fund is any example. HR676 does keep healthcare delivery privately owned. We must eliminate extraneous for profit health insurance. Avoiding competition, maintenance, and services is exactly how private for profit companies increase profits. Moral hazard can be reduced when we give the powerful market forces just enough regulation to keep them from hurting each other by eliminating all competition, or hurting us as the case with denying healthcare. Nobody wants to nationalize the pharmaceutical companies either, they will have to compete, and working for us is what we pay the government to do. If a company is not profitable to its investors it is destroyed, profit can be made from the falling price of stocks. Planning on the corporate level is done for three months ahead. Healthcare, preventative care we do today will pay off in 30-50 years or more, governing is a job to execute political will of the constituents. It is true that a reform in the US political system is needed and the healthcare issue is like a litmus test, we can now see who is working for us or not. Healthcare funded by private insurance which receives government subsidy removes competition and collective bargaining which are both tools of a healthy market. I insist that healthcare for profit is fraught with great moral hazard. I support HR 676, not healthcare vouchers. Vouchers for private insurance will never keep citizens free from medical bankruptcy, or give them the choice to see any doctor they want. They will constantly fear that a treatment goes outside the boundaries of their approved plan. That is not liberty.
Having a large population is an advantage for saving money in a single payer system. More people can benefit from expensive medical equipment, for example. If little Sweden can do it, it should only inspire you in the US. (Those higher taxes in Sweden also give access to higher education and vocational training, btw.) In the case of an example of expensive kidney dialysis, it is not the same as a purchase of a BMW! But when government is paying they do research ways to lower the cost and spend more money on research. Sweden currently spends 4% of gdp on R&D according to Scientific American Magazine. (Not all the money is spent on medical research. The dialysis machine, for an example, is an investment and can used by many people. Dialysis machines are not built to wear out soon after purchase, like a cd player. As Americans we all have a similar goal. A government is meant to serve you, remember, you are the government. Sure we should not disregard the emotive element in a discussion of a budget! Doesn't our fear and paranoia justify the over bloated defence budget? Paying a deductable or surcharge is standard practice in a single payer system. Citizens are protected from too high costs, which relieves stress and this is essential to the health of your nation, your overall lifespan and the health of mothers with small children particularly. Then perhaps removing the burden of healthcare from industry is a way to facilitate innovative new business. Learn how these same problems were solved by different countries around the world, I am an American who has moved to a country with a single payer system so Iwill tout the virtues of that because of my experiences with it. I commend effort to craft a uniquely American solution and Medicare is a single payer idea of the same line as HR676, which I support.
According to the OECD, health expenditures per US citizen 5,711, rated 37th in the world for quality and coverage. France NO1, 3,048 per citizen, Sweden 23rd with 2,745, the UK is 18th 2,317 per citizen, Cuba at number 38th around 40$ per citizen, Cuba with the same lifespan as Americans and have a lower infant mortality rate.(CIA fact book updated since this post, this month). There is competition in a single payer system. Companies compete for the government contracts. Collective bargaining and direct competition between companies for the government contracts will lower the costs in a single payer system. If my insurance allows an ointment purchase at 30$, by eliminating the insurance company and my state or national healthcare plan negotiates the price of said ointment at its public facilities, the same or competing brand will cost a fraction of that. It is childlike to believe that an individual can navigate such things alone, and a delicious source of corruption for any despot. If you believe this, then you attract corruption with your gullibility. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the Healthcare industry in the US spent more than $134 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2009 alone. Administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars. With a single payer financed system we could recover more than $350 billion per year. (Source PNHP)
To dispel the myth of death panels I must say this. The same end of life legislation is debated in the US and EU. Currently in VA you can watch Senator Warner questioning Director of the finance committee for his input on YouTube. EU legislation discussing assisted suicide is demanded by the people for conditions where nothing more can be done for the patient when medical solutions are exhausted and the patient themselves has demanded it, to secure the dignity and liberty of that individual, to honour their wishes and is unique the EU country in which the law is crafted, as it will be in Virginia.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Larry Summers Apologetics
Rescuing and Rebuilding the US Economy: A Progress Report by Lawrence H. Summers, Director of the National Economic Council and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy July 17, 2009 To read the recommended page: http://www.piie.com/events/event_detail.cfm?EventID=119
> Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics
> 1750 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20036
> www.piie.com
This was a speach given by our treasury secretary Larry Summers. He was talking to a room of people and here they are for you to check outhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peterson_Institute_for_International_Economics
Perhaps this speach was meant to reassure a group of people who could sink the value of the dollar. And as I was reading this I thought of something Paul Krugman had published the day before "The American economy remains in dire straits, with one worker in six unemployed or underemployed. Yet Goldman Sachs just reported record quarterly profits — and it’s preparing to hand out huge bonuses, comparable to what it was paying before the crisis. What does this contrast tell us?First, it tells us that Goldman is very good at what it does. Unfortunately, what it does is bad for America.Second, it shows that Wall Street’s bad habits — above all, the system of compensation that helped cause the financial crisis — have not gone away.Third, it shows that by rescuing the financial system without reforming it, Washington has done nothing to protect us from a new crisis, and, in fact, has made another crisis more likely."http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1&em
Summers' speech, I am not sure whether to laugh or cry about it, Is he really that out of touch? "As of May, the tax cuts, fiscal support for state and local government, and family assistance programs in the Recovery Act have boosted disposable income by nearly two percent. This has supported household spending as families have begun the necessary repairing of their household balance sheets."
Now I have a response from Virginia department of social services on this please watch this video and tell me if families are getting assistance.
Poverty in Virginia Presentation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBY2ojUeZ5w
> Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics
> 1750 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
> Washington, DC 20036
> www.piie.com
This was a speach given by our treasury secretary Larry Summers. He was talking to a room of people and here they are for you to check outhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peterson_Institute_for_International_Economics
Perhaps this speach was meant to reassure a group of people who could sink the value of the dollar. And as I was reading this I thought of something Paul Krugman had published the day before "The American economy remains in dire straits, with one worker in six unemployed or underemployed. Yet Goldman Sachs just reported record quarterly profits — and it’s preparing to hand out huge bonuses, comparable to what it was paying before the crisis. What does this contrast tell us?First, it tells us that Goldman is very good at what it does. Unfortunately, what it does is bad for America.Second, it shows that Wall Street’s bad habits — above all, the system of compensation that helped cause the financial crisis — have not gone away.Third, it shows that by rescuing the financial system without reforming it, Washington has done nothing to protect us from a new crisis, and, in fact, has made another crisis more likely."http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1&em
Summers' speech, I am not sure whether to laugh or cry about it, Is he really that out of touch? "As of May, the tax cuts, fiscal support for state and local government, and family assistance programs in the Recovery Act have boosted disposable income by nearly two percent. This has supported household spending as families have begun the necessary repairing of their household balance sheets."
Now I have a response from Virginia department of social services on this please watch this video and tell me if families are getting assistance.
Poverty in Virginia Presentation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBY2ojUeZ5w
Creigh Deeds and an Election Promise
Creigh Deeds will be Dem candidate for Governor of Virginia, so I was looking him up and found this, its something important to me, if he becomes elected can we please push him to fulfill his election promise?
"He also vowed to use his executive power to push non-partisan redistricting, if elected Governor. Sen. Deeds is hoping to eliminate the time honored political tradition of Gerrymandering(haha time honored?)
"Government ultimately belongs to the people, not elected officials," said Senator Deeds. "Yet, our broken redistricting process allows for legislators to protect their own interests by drawing districts that protect incumbents and political majorities. When I’m Governor, Virginia voters will be the ones to choose their elected officials instead of allowing legislators to choose their voters." (powerful words let's hold him to it)http://nbc12.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/deeds-presents-redistricting-plan Highlights of Creigh's Victory Speechhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9SLiSRNWwE
Reading some about Gerrymandering, its VERY importanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
I am not telling you how to vote i am telling you that if this is important to him, it also happens to be something very important to me and I would love to see Gerrymandering GONE.
"He also vowed to use his executive power to push non-partisan redistricting, if elected Governor. Sen. Deeds is hoping to eliminate the time honored political tradition of Gerrymandering(haha time honored?)
"Government ultimately belongs to the people, not elected officials," said Senator Deeds. "Yet, our broken redistricting process allows for legislators to protect their own interests by drawing districts that protect incumbents and political majorities. When I’m Governor, Virginia voters will be the ones to choose their elected officials instead of allowing legislators to choose their voters." (powerful words let's hold him to it)http://nbc12.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/deeds-presents-redistricting-plan Highlights of Creigh's Victory Speechhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9SLiSRNWwE
Reading some about Gerrymandering, its VERY importanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
I am not telling you how to vote i am telling you that if this is important to him, it also happens to be something very important to me and I would love to see Gerrymandering GONE.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Thoughts On July 4th
let it go - the
smashed word broken
open vow or
the oath cracked length
wise - let it
go itwas sworn to
go
let them go - the
truthful liars and
the false fair friends
and the boths and
neithers - you must let them go they
were born
to go
let all go - the
big small middling
tall bigger really
the biggest and all
things - let all go
dear
so comes love
~ e. e. cummings ~
In June 2009, the Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Report concluded the number of millionaires in the US was 2.5 million people.1.In a nation of 306 million people, that's .8% unless you count the 13 to 15 million illegal immigrants, who also live work in the US. Certainly puts a new twist on that old talking point "1% pay 58% of all income tax." With one in 50 children homeless in the US, one has to wonder why they do not pay even more in if it is indeed true that one percent of all the people on Wall St. make ninety-nine percent of all the profits. 3.Such a tiny number of Americans benefit and thrive from the current way of doing things.
Our current federal bank/war economic model always will require a group of 'losers' to control inflation, that means minorities and women are first ones out even when things are going well, and today it is not. 2. I found this astounding and sad. Since our government can never directly offer services useful to us, in the name of preserving a 'capitalist' system, it instead stealthily manipulates the economy through 'defense' spending, (we are 5% of the world who spend 52% of the world's military spending) and industrial agriculture policies (monetization) that subsidize production and shipping beyond the loftiest dreams of any marxist.
Bizarre and disturbing are the cries from so many fellow citizens to deliver us from our current suffering by abandoning the enlightment ideals that founded the United States of America and relenqish democracy. "We are a republic, not a democracy," they say, quoting Pat Buchanan, (then what about the republics of China or Iraq under Sadam Hussein? Republic only means you have a president, it has nothing to do with balance of power) or, "once people are elected they can do whatever they want" These people are speaking in the interest of that 1% in a severe case of Stockholm syndrome, considering giving up their citizenship. Do not let yourself be distracted with race issues, or homosexual issues until we get to the root of the problem.
According to our senator Warner, The Federal Reserve's primary responsibility is to conduct monetary policy to achieve twin objectives: price stability and full employment. 4.Just in case you were not aware of the relationship between employment rate and inflation I think this author below offered an excellant explanation, but I do NOT agree with the conclusions this person comes to to fix the problems we face today. I am in favor of social insurance personally, not a libertarian facade for futher weakening our protection from corruption. " In strong and vibrant democracies, a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness. " Scientific American Magazine 5.
So what can we do to revive our democracy? What we are doing right now!
Quote:
A paper by Milton Friedman, published in the month before Dr. King spoke, and another by Edmund Phelps, published a few months later, gave reason to believe that in the long term, if unemployment falls below a certain rate, inflation speeds up, whereas if unemployment rises above that rate, inflation slows down. That magic unemployment number became known as the Non-Accelerating-Inflation Rate of Unemployment, usually abbreviated by the acronym NAIRU.By about 1980, during the term of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, it was accepted that the aim of interest-rate policy was to create enough unemployment to exert enough downward pressure on wages to give stable (and low) inflation. That didn't mean that central bankers always aimed at a particular unemployment rate — the NAIRU — because they didn't always know what the magic rate was. But it did mean that the Fed concentrated on inflation and accepted whatever the unemployment outcome might be. And it did mean that the Fed would sometimes cite falling unemployment as a sign of rising inflationary pressure, which supposedly had to be checked by raising interest rates.While central banks determined interest rates, governments still had a role in setting other policies so as to minimize the NAIRU. But eventually that role was limited to making life for the unemployed as unpleasant as possible, in order to maximize wage restraint for any given unemployment rate, and defining an unemployed person as narrowly as possible, so that official statistics understated the extent of unemployment. (Attacking workers' wages and conditions is also widely advocated, but harder to do in a democracy. That's one reason why some people prefer dictatorship.)http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_gavin_r__080401_still_on_the_mountai.htm
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Peru
Peru
At least 84 indigenous people have been killed by Peruvian Special Forces ths week fighting to defend their traditional territories from oil exploration. http://www.earth-stream.com/outpage.php?s=18&id=174386
In the first twelve minutes of this interview, you can get an understanding of why the Panamanian government have fired on and killed their own indigenous native citizens.In the first 13 minutes you can understand why we are still in Iraq.In the first 22 minutes you can understand how people who do these things can ignore their conscience and dispell guilt.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8
At least 84 indigenous people have been killed by Peruvian Special Forces ths week fighting to defend their traditional territories from oil exploration. http://www.earth-stream.com/outpage.php?s=18&id=174386
In the first twelve minutes of this interview, you can get an understanding of why the Panamanian government have fired on and killed their own indigenous native citizens.In the first 13 minutes you can understand why we are still in Iraq.In the first 22 minutes you can understand how people who do these things can ignore their conscience and dispell guilt.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8
'Fake' Congress Sites
‘Fake’ congress sites, well they can be helpful just remember they each have their own ‘voice’ They have their donors and special interests too and a right to be heard, just that the people are not being heard right now.Roll Call Congress.org http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
These people have deliberately worded votes to sway my opinion and sent me petitions with tricky wording, they seem to represent business interests
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
This is BIZARRE and funny!
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/
Red background, communist logo and they work with the Heritage foundation and Cato institute, LOL are the neoconservatives closet commies?
http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/washingtonwatchcom-1000000-visitors/
Open Congress is from the Sunlight Foundation, I have not had any problems with them and heard good things about Maplight.org, but of course they have their own donors
http://www.opencongress.org/
http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/
http://maplight.org/map/us/bill/83086/default
And last but not least….. the Library of Congress!!
You know what’s really funny it was a Russian with very poor English who showed me how to look up my own Congress!
http://thomas.loc.gov/
These people have deliberately worded votes to sway my opinion and sent me petitions with tricky wording, they seem to represent business interests
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
This is BIZARRE and funny!
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/
Red background, communist logo and they work with the Heritage foundation and Cato institute, LOL are the neoconservatives closet commies?
http://techliberation.com/2008/11/20/washingtonwatchcom-1000000-visitors/
Open Congress is from the Sunlight Foundation, I have not had any problems with them and heard good things about Maplight.org, but of course they have their own donors
http://www.opencongress.org/
http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/
http://maplight.org/map/us/bill/83086/default
And last but not least….. the Library of Congress!!
You know what’s really funny it was a Russian with very poor English who showed me how to look up my own Congress!
http://thomas.loc.gov/
106$ Billion for More War
How did they Vote on HR 2346? http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll348.xml#N
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:2:./temp/~bdALRm::/bss/111search.html
I am looking for a way to discern what representatives are actually employed by, and working for, the citizens of the US and who is parasiting on a system that creates war and poverty.
$106 Billion dollars to more war in Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic for air operations, other Eurasian countries, Israel for weapons systems, Egypt for border patrol, Iraq and Afghanistan, Mexico (drug war), Lebanon, funding for the IMF (international monetary fund) a requirement that none of the money is spent on relocating detainees at Guantanamo detainees to the US, and a BAN on releasing photos of torture even if it is required by the freedom of information act. (open congress summary)
So here are the 32 Democrats who had the balls to not vote for this bill. I will be noticing them.
1.Baldwin http://tammybaldwin.house.gov/aboutTammy.html2.Capuano http://www.house.gov/capuano/3.Conyers http://conyers.house.gov/4.Doggett http://doggett.house.gov/5.Edwards (MD) http://donnaedwards.house.gov/
6.Ellison http://ellison.house.gov/7.Farr http://www.farr.house.gov/
8.Filner http://www.house.gov/filner/
9.Grayson http://grayson.house.gov/ 10.Grijalva http://grijalva.house.gov/11.Honda http://honda.house.gov/12.Kaptur http://www.kaptur.house.gov/ 13.Kucinich http://kucinich.house.gov/
14.Lee (CA) http://lee.house.gov/15.Lofgren, Zoe http://www.lofgren.house.gov/16.Massa http://massa.house.gov/17.McGovern http://mcgovern.house.gov/ His words on this Bill (video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9m0M85IrbU18.Michaud http://www.michaud.house.gov/
19.Payne http://www.house.gov/payne/20.Pingree (ME) http://pingree.house.gov/
21.Polis (CO) http://polis.house.gov/22.Serrano http://serrano.house.gov/Default.aspx23.Shea-Porter http://www.shea-porter.house.gov/
24.Sherman http://www.house.gov/sherman/
25.Speier http://speier.house.gov/
26.Stark http://www.stark.house.gov/27.Tierney http://tierney.house.gov/
28.Tsongas http://tsongas.house.gov/29.Waters http://www.house.gov/waters/
30.Watson http://www.house.gov/watson/ Her words on this bill
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca33_watson/20090617.html
31.Welch http://www.welch.house.gov/
32.Woolsey http://woolsey.house.gov/default.asp Her words on this bill (video) http://content.cq.com/floorvideo/play.do?id=83505437ec1a49ecd1f2ab1da73556bebc6a241f69be13324d920d417d49b1b40e7494cf2f6adf7e67643b853441405c301621cfaccbcd627c4b771b08dfc6de9c02a2fdbc7f5a80
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:2:./temp/~bdALRm::/bss/111search.html
I am looking for a way to discern what representatives are actually employed by, and working for, the citizens of the US and who is parasiting on a system that creates war and poverty.
$106 Billion dollars to more war in Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic for air operations, other Eurasian countries, Israel for weapons systems, Egypt for border patrol, Iraq and Afghanistan, Mexico (drug war), Lebanon, funding for the IMF (international monetary fund) a requirement that none of the money is spent on relocating detainees at Guantanamo detainees to the US, and a BAN on releasing photos of torture even if it is required by the freedom of information act. (open congress summary)
So here are the 32 Democrats who had the balls to not vote for this bill. I will be noticing them.
1.Baldwin http://tammybaldwin.house.gov/aboutTammy.html2.Capuano http://www.house.gov/capuano/3.Conyers http://conyers.house.gov/4.Doggett http://doggett.house.gov/5.Edwards (MD) http://donnaedwards.house.gov/
6.Ellison http://ellison.house.gov/7.Farr http://www.farr.house.gov/
8.Filner http://www.house.gov/filner/
9.Grayson http://grayson.house.gov/ 10.Grijalva http://grijalva.house.gov/11.Honda http://honda.house.gov/12.Kaptur http://www.kaptur.house.gov/ 13.Kucinich http://kucinich.house.gov/
14.Lee (CA) http://lee.house.gov/15.Lofgren, Zoe http://www.lofgren.house.gov/16.Massa http://massa.house.gov/17.McGovern http://mcgovern.house.gov/ His words on this Bill (video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9m0M85IrbU18.Michaud http://www.michaud.house.gov/
19.Payne http://www.house.gov/payne/20.Pingree (ME) http://pingree.house.gov/
21.Polis (CO) http://polis.house.gov/22.Serrano http://serrano.house.gov/Default.aspx23.Shea-Porter http://www.shea-porter.house.gov/
24.Sherman http://www.house.gov/sherman/
25.Speier http://speier.house.gov/
26.Stark http://www.stark.house.gov/27.Tierney http://tierney.house.gov/
28.Tsongas http://tsongas.house.gov/29.Waters http://www.house.gov/waters/
30.Watson http://www.house.gov/watson/ Her words on this bill
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca33_watson/20090617.html
31.Welch http://www.welch.house.gov/
32.Woolsey http://woolsey.house.gov/default.asp Her words on this bill (video) http://content.cq.com/floorvideo/play.do?id=83505437ec1a49ecd1f2ab1da73556bebc6a241f69be13324d920d417d49b1b40e7494cf2f6adf7e67643b853441405c301621cfaccbcd627c4b771b08dfc6de9c02a2fdbc7f5a80
Geitner and Summers to Regulate?
Geitner and Summers , Sounds like a good name for a Music Duo
While Geitner and Summers pretend to be asking for tighter regulation and more power to the Fed to ‘regulate’ the financial industry we need to re-read this last article carefully and then you will understand why what they are saying is so laughable. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124532495495527289.html
Top Economics Aide Discloses Income
Summers Earned Salary From Hedge Fund, Speaking Fees From Wall St. Firms
Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, April 4, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040303732.html?hpid=topnews
From “What Cooked the Economy, it wasn’t your overdue mortgage by James Lieber
http://www.argumentations.com/Argumentations/StoryDetail_10568.aspx
“People still seem surprised to read that hedge principals have raked in billions of dollars in a single year. They shouldn't be. These subprime-time players knew how to score. The scam bled AIG white. In mid-September, when it was on the ropes, AIG received an astonishing $85 billion emergency line of credit from the Fed. Soon, that was supplemented by another $67 billion. Much of that money, to use the government's euphemism, has already been "drawn down." Shamefully, neither Washington nor AIG will explain where the billions went. But the answer is increasingly clear: It went to counterparties who bought derivatives from Cassano's shop in London.”
“AIG's lavishly compensated counterparties were willing participants and likewise could be considered for prosecution, depending on what they knew. Who were they?
At a 2007 conference, Cassano defined them as a "global swath" that included "banks and investment banks, pension funds, endowments, foundations, insurance companies, hedge funds, money managers, high-net-worth individuals, municipalities, sovereigns, and supranationals." Abetting the scheme, ratings agencies like Standard & Poor's gave high grades to the shaky mortgage-backed securities bundled by investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers.”
While Geitner and Summers pretend to be asking for tighter regulation and more power to the Fed to ‘regulate’ the financial industry we need to re-read this last article carefully and then you will understand why what they are saying is so laughable. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124532495495527289.html
Top Economics Aide Discloses Income
Summers Earned Salary From Hedge Fund, Speaking Fees From Wall St. Firms
Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, April 4, 2009
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040303732.html?hpid=topnews
From “What Cooked the Economy, it wasn’t your overdue mortgage by James Lieber
http://www.argumentations.com/Argumentations/StoryDetail_10568.aspx
“People still seem surprised to read that hedge principals have raked in billions of dollars in a single year. They shouldn't be. These subprime-time players knew how to score. The scam bled AIG white. In mid-September, when it was on the ropes, AIG received an astonishing $85 billion emergency line of credit from the Fed. Soon, that was supplemented by another $67 billion. Much of that money, to use the government's euphemism, has already been "drawn down." Shamefully, neither Washington nor AIG will explain where the billions went. But the answer is increasingly clear: It went to counterparties who bought derivatives from Cassano's shop in London.”
“AIG's lavishly compensated counterparties were willing participants and likewise could be considered for prosecution, depending on what they knew. Who were they?
At a 2007 conference, Cassano defined them as a "global swath" that included "banks and investment banks, pension funds, endowments, foundations, insurance companies, hedge funds, money managers, high-net-worth individuals, municipalities, sovereigns, and supranationals." Abetting the scheme, ratings agencies like Standard & Poor's gave high grades to the shaky mortgage-backed securities bundled by investment banks such as Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers.”
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
If you aren't upset, you aren't paying attention
If you aren't upset, you aren't paying attention. Obama says he will seek to block the court-ordered release of photographs depicting the abuse of detainees held by U.S. authorities abroad. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051301751_pf.html
Meanwhile torture continues at Quantanamo Bay. (see more below)http://www.alternet.org/story/140022/
Obama administration will announce plans today to revive the Bush-era military commission system for prosecuting terrorism suspects (they always had a UN observer at these kangaroo court trials, you can follow it at the UN website, I believe)http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military-tribunal15-2009may15,0,4322036.story
Calls to create an outside "truth commission" are gaining momentum in both the House and Senatehttp://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/14/to-probe-detainee-abuse-congress-leans-toward-outsourcing/
Did you look at these articles? Seymour Hersh, an investigative reorter who gave us information on Watergate and military abuses in Vietnam, I have waited for his comments since last year, reports:
Hersh gave a speech last week to the ACLU making the charge that children were sodomized in front of women in the prison, and the Pentagon has tape of it.Hersh: "Debating about it, ummm ... Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out." http://www.truthout.org/051509J
What follows next are exerpts from the IRF article. "One day they took me to a room that had very large snakes in glass boxes. The room was all painted black-and-white, with dim lights. They threatened to leave me there and let the snakes out with me in the room. This really got to me, as there were such sick people that they must have had this room specially made."
"They brought their pepper spray and held him down. They held both of his eyes open and sprayed it into his eyes and later took a towel soaked in pepper spray and rubbed it in his eyes."Omar could not see from either eye for two weeks, but he gradually got sight back in one eye."He's totally blind in the right eye. I can report that his right eye is all white and milky -- he can't see out of it because he has been blinded by the U.S. in Guantánamo."
ERF-ing Omar -- The Feces Incident On one of the ERF-ing incidents where Omar was abused, the officer in charge himself came into the cell with the feces of another prisoners [sic] and smeared it onto Omar's face. While some prisoners had thrown feces at the abusive guards, Omar had always emphatically refused to sink to this level. The experience was one of the most disgusting in Omar's life.
ERF-ing Omar -- The Toilet Incident In April or May 2004, when the Guantánamo administration insisted on taking Omar's English-language Quran, he objected. The ERF team came into Omar's cell and put him in shackles. He was not resisting. They then put his head in the toilet, pressed his face into the water. They repeatedly flushed it.
ERF-ing Omar -- The Beating In one ERF-ing incident, Omar was shackled by three American soldiers in their black Darth Vader Star Wars uniforms. The first was going to punch Omar, but before he could, the second kneed Omar in the nose, trying to break it. The third queried this, and the second said, "If his nose is broken, that's good. We want to break his ******* nose." The third soldier then took him to hospital.
ERF-ing Omar -- The Drowning The ERF team came into the cell with a water hose under very high pressure. He was totally shackled, and they would hold his head fixed still. They would force water up his nose until he was suffocating and would scream for them to stop. This was done with medical staff present, and they would join in. Omar is particularly affected by the fact that there was one nurse who "had been very beautiful and kind" to him to [sic] took part in the process. This happened three times.
ERF-ing Omar -- Tango Block Omar was out on the Tango block rec yard when 15 ERF soldiers came, with two other soldiers in the towers, armed with guns. They grabbed him (and others) and sprayed him.They then pulled him up into the air and slammed his face down, on the left side, on the concrete. They had someone from the hospital there, and she just watched. She then came up to him and asked whether he was OK. He was taken off to isolation after that."
The first man is meant to go in with a shield. On this occasion, the man with the shield threw the shield away, took his helmet off, when the door was unlocked ran in and did a knee drop onto Jumah's back just between his shoulder blades with his full weight. He must have been about 240 pounds in weight. His name was Smith. He was a sergeant E-5. Once he had done that, the others came in and were punching and kicking Jumah. While they were doing that the female officer then came in and was kicking his stomach. Jumah had had an operation and had metal rods in his stomach clamped together in the operation."
The officer Smith was the MP sergeant who was punching him. He grabbed his head with one hand and with the other hand punched him repeatedly in the face. His nose was broken. He pushed his face, and he smashed it into the concrete floor. All of this should be on video. There was blood everywhere. When they took him out, they hosed the cell down and the water ran red with blood. We all saw it."
According to Tarver, "Nasal gastric (NG) tubes [were removed] by placing a foot on one end of the tube and yanking the detainee's head back by his hair, causing the tube to be painfully ejected from the detainee's nose. Then, in front of the Guantanamo physicians … the guards took NG tubes from one detainee, and with no sanitization whatsoever, reinserted it into the nose of a different detainee. When these tubes were reinserted, the detainees could see the blood and stomach bile from the other detainees remaining on the tubes." Medical staff, according to Tarver, made no effort to intervene. This was one of many incidents where IRF teams facilitated such force-feeding.
Jamal al-Harith claims he was beaten by a five-man IRF team for refusing an injection: "I was terrified of what they were going to do. I had seen victims of [IRF] being paraded in front of my cell. They were battered and bruised into submission. It was a horrible sight and a frequent sight. … They were really gung-ho, hyped up and aggressive. One of them attacked me really hard and left me with a deep red mark from my backbone down to my knee. I thought I was bleeding, but it was just really bad bruising."
They grabbed my arms, my legs, twisted me up and, unfortunately, one of the individuals got up on my back from behind and put pressure down on me while I was face down. Then he -- the same individual -- reached around and began to choke me and press my head down against the steel floor. After several seconds, 20 to 30 seconds, it seemed like an eternity because I couldn't breathe. When I couldn't breathe, I began to panic and I gave the code word I was supposed to give to stop the exercise, which was 'red.' … That individual slammed my head against the floor and continued to choke me. Somehow I got enough air. I muttered out: 'I'm a U.S. soldier. I'm a U.S. soldier.'"After I stopped talking, and tears were flowing from my eyes, I could hardly see or breathe."They then beat me again to the ground, one of them held my head and beat it against the ground. I started screaming to his senior 'see what he's doing, see what he's doing' [but] his senior started laughing and said 'he's doing his job.'"
Meanwhile torture continues at Quantanamo Bay. (see more below)http://www.alternet.org/story/140022/
Obama administration will announce plans today to revive the Bush-era military commission system for prosecuting terrorism suspects (they always had a UN observer at these kangaroo court trials, you can follow it at the UN website, I believe)http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military-tribunal15-2009may15,0,4322036.story
Calls to create an outside "truth commission" are gaining momentum in both the House and Senatehttp://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/14/to-probe-detainee-abuse-congress-leans-toward-outsourcing/
Did you look at these articles? Seymour Hersh, an investigative reorter who gave us information on Watergate and military abuses in Vietnam, I have waited for his comments since last year, reports:
Hersh gave a speech last week to the ACLU making the charge that children were sodomized in front of women in the prison, and the Pentagon has tape of it.Hersh: "Debating about it, ummm ... Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out." http://www.truthout.org/051509J
What follows next are exerpts from the IRF article. "One day they took me to a room that had very large snakes in glass boxes. The room was all painted black-and-white, with dim lights. They threatened to leave me there and let the snakes out with me in the room. This really got to me, as there were such sick people that they must have had this room specially made."
"They brought their pepper spray and held him down. They held both of his eyes open and sprayed it into his eyes and later took a towel soaked in pepper spray and rubbed it in his eyes."Omar could not see from either eye for two weeks, but he gradually got sight back in one eye."He's totally blind in the right eye. I can report that his right eye is all white and milky -- he can't see out of it because he has been blinded by the U.S. in Guantánamo."
ERF-ing Omar -- The Feces Incident On one of the ERF-ing incidents where Omar was abused, the officer in charge himself came into the cell with the feces of another prisoners [sic] and smeared it onto Omar's face. While some prisoners had thrown feces at the abusive guards, Omar had always emphatically refused to sink to this level. The experience was one of the most disgusting in Omar's life.
ERF-ing Omar -- The Toilet Incident In April or May 2004, when the Guantánamo administration insisted on taking Omar's English-language Quran, he objected. The ERF team came into Omar's cell and put him in shackles. He was not resisting. They then put his head in the toilet, pressed his face into the water. They repeatedly flushed it.
ERF-ing Omar -- The Beating In one ERF-ing incident, Omar was shackled by three American soldiers in their black Darth Vader Star Wars uniforms. The first was going to punch Omar, but before he could, the second kneed Omar in the nose, trying to break it. The third queried this, and the second said, "If his nose is broken, that's good. We want to break his ******* nose." The third soldier then took him to hospital.
ERF-ing Omar -- The Drowning The ERF team came into the cell with a water hose under very high pressure. He was totally shackled, and they would hold his head fixed still. They would force water up his nose until he was suffocating and would scream for them to stop. This was done with medical staff present, and they would join in. Omar is particularly affected by the fact that there was one nurse who "had been very beautiful and kind" to him to [sic] took part in the process. This happened three times.
ERF-ing Omar -- Tango Block Omar was out on the Tango block rec yard when 15 ERF soldiers came, with two other soldiers in the towers, armed with guns. They grabbed him (and others) and sprayed him.They then pulled him up into the air and slammed his face down, on the left side, on the concrete. They had someone from the hospital there, and she just watched. She then came up to him and asked whether he was OK. He was taken off to isolation after that."
The first man is meant to go in with a shield. On this occasion, the man with the shield threw the shield away, took his helmet off, when the door was unlocked ran in and did a knee drop onto Jumah's back just between his shoulder blades with his full weight. He must have been about 240 pounds in weight. His name was Smith. He was a sergeant E-5. Once he had done that, the others came in and were punching and kicking Jumah. While they were doing that the female officer then came in and was kicking his stomach. Jumah had had an operation and had metal rods in his stomach clamped together in the operation."
The officer Smith was the MP sergeant who was punching him. He grabbed his head with one hand and with the other hand punched him repeatedly in the face. His nose was broken. He pushed his face, and he smashed it into the concrete floor. All of this should be on video. There was blood everywhere. When they took him out, they hosed the cell down and the water ran red with blood. We all saw it."
According to Tarver, "Nasal gastric (NG) tubes [were removed] by placing a foot on one end of the tube and yanking the detainee's head back by his hair, causing the tube to be painfully ejected from the detainee's nose. Then, in front of the Guantanamo physicians … the guards took NG tubes from one detainee, and with no sanitization whatsoever, reinserted it into the nose of a different detainee. When these tubes were reinserted, the detainees could see the blood and stomach bile from the other detainees remaining on the tubes." Medical staff, according to Tarver, made no effort to intervene. This was one of many incidents where IRF teams facilitated such force-feeding.
Jamal al-Harith claims he was beaten by a five-man IRF team for refusing an injection: "I was terrified of what they were going to do. I had seen victims of [IRF] being paraded in front of my cell. They were battered and bruised into submission. It was a horrible sight and a frequent sight. … They were really gung-ho, hyped up and aggressive. One of them attacked me really hard and left me with a deep red mark from my backbone down to my knee. I thought I was bleeding, but it was just really bad bruising."
They grabbed my arms, my legs, twisted me up and, unfortunately, one of the individuals got up on my back from behind and put pressure down on me while I was face down. Then he -- the same individual -- reached around and began to choke me and press my head down against the steel floor. After several seconds, 20 to 30 seconds, it seemed like an eternity because I couldn't breathe. When I couldn't breathe, I began to panic and I gave the code word I was supposed to give to stop the exercise, which was 'red.' … That individual slammed my head against the floor and continued to choke me. Somehow I got enough air. I muttered out: 'I'm a U.S. soldier. I'm a U.S. soldier.'"After I stopped talking, and tears were flowing from my eyes, I could hardly see or breathe."They then beat me again to the ground, one of them held my head and beat it against the ground. I started screaming to his senior 'see what he's doing, see what he's doing' [but] his senior started laughing and said 'he's doing his job.'"
Thursday, May 14, 2009
You Will Know Them by Their Fruits
After reading this article,
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/408/story/702093.html
3,500 children in public schools, plus an untold number of their younger siblings. Homeless in Charlotte. "There are pockets of folks energized around their efforts," said Bert Green, executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Charlotte. "But there's no one organization that's trying to pull all these groups together and say: ‘This is our strategic plan.' We know what we need to do. I don't think there's a political will out there to do it."
No political will. So I wondered why not? Haven't I heard for many years people say that they voted for a candidate based on 'values'? So I chose nine senators who recieved 100% rating from an organization called 'Christian Voice,' back in 1992, to get people who have consistantly enjoyed the support of Christians.
"The Christian Voice is one of the largest conservative evangelical lobbys in Washington. "Devoted to reviving religious freedom in helping make Christians good stewards."
Fast forward to today. I have taken these same nine Congressmen and compared their rating by the Christian Coalition, the Chamber of Commerce, and RESULTS.
I tried to find three groups who would represent the issues that must be addressed in todays recession. Christian Coalition, Chamber of Commerce, and RESULTS. Here is what they each claim to be about.
"The Christian Coalition was founded in 1989 by Dr. Pat Robertson to give Christians a voice in government. We represent millions of people of faith and enable them to have a strong, unified voice in the conversation we call democracyOur Five-Fold Mission: Represent the pro-family point of view before local councils, school boards, state legislatures, and Congress Speak out in the public arena and in the media Train leaders for effective social and political action Inform pro-family voters about timely issues and legislation Protest anti-Christian bigotry and defend the rights of people of faith"
"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions. It includes hundreds of associations, thousands of local chambers, and 111 American Chambers of Commerce in 99 countries.Whether you own a business, represent one, lead a corporate office, or manage an association, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America® provides you with a voice of experience and influence in Washington, D.C., and around the globe. Our core mission is to fight for business and free enterprise before Congress, the White House, regulatory agencies, the courts, the court of public opinion, and governments around the world."
"RESULTS is a nonprofit grassroots advocacy organization committed to creating the political will to end hunger and the worst aspects of poverty. RESULTS is committed to individuals exercising their personal and political power by lobbying elected officials for effective solutions and key policies that affect hunger and poverty.RESULTS Educational Fund is committed to educating the public, the media, and leaders about issues related to poverty and hunger in the United States and abroad. We hold public forums, train citizens in democracy, hold media conference calls to share the latest information, and produce quality oversight research to determine the effectiveness of programs for the poor. RESULTS Educational Fund is a 501(c)(3), tax-exempt nonprofit organization."
Here is how our 9 'Christian' Congressmen are rated today, 2008.
Christian Coalition
80,100,100,100,100,100,90,100,100
Chamber of Commerce
100,80,75,80,90,90,88,79,75
RESULTS
8,11,21,62,21,9,11,11,5
So is there really a chance that goals of 'millions of people of faith' and 'business and free enterprise' are the same goals?
I chose a group that represents 'issues related to poverty and hunger' because of Jesus words in Mathew 27:35-40 "Then the righteous will say to him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and give you something to eat, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you as a stranger and welcome you, or see you naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you? The king will answer them, 'I tell you with certainty, since you did it for one of the least important of these brothers of mine, you did it for me.' I welcome you to repeat this research yourself. I used a resource called Project Votesmart http://votesmart.org/program_about_pvs.php
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/408/story/702093.html
3,500 children in public schools, plus an untold number of their younger siblings. Homeless in Charlotte. "There are pockets of folks energized around their efforts," said Bert Green, executive director of Habitat for Humanity of Charlotte. "But there's no one organization that's trying to pull all these groups together and say: ‘This is our strategic plan.' We know what we need to do. I don't think there's a political will out there to do it."
No political will. So I wondered why not? Haven't I heard for many years people say that they voted for a candidate based on 'values'? So I chose nine senators who recieved 100% rating from an organization called 'Christian Voice,' back in 1992, to get people who have consistantly enjoyed the support of Christians.
"The Christian Voice is one of the largest conservative evangelical lobbys in Washington. "Devoted to reviving religious freedom in helping make Christians good stewards."
Fast forward to today. I have taken these same nine Congressmen and compared their rating by the Christian Coalition, the Chamber of Commerce, and RESULTS.
I tried to find three groups who would represent the issues that must be addressed in todays recession. Christian Coalition, Chamber of Commerce, and RESULTS. Here is what they each claim to be about.
"The Christian Coalition was founded in 1989 by Dr. Pat Robertson to give Christians a voice in government. We represent millions of people of faith and enable them to have a strong, unified voice in the conversation we call democracyOur Five-Fold Mission: Represent the pro-family point of view before local councils, school boards, state legislatures, and Congress Speak out in the public arena and in the media Train leaders for effective social and political action Inform pro-family voters about timely issues and legislation Protest anti-Christian bigotry and defend the rights of people of faith"
"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions. It includes hundreds of associations, thousands of local chambers, and 111 American Chambers of Commerce in 99 countries.Whether you own a business, represent one, lead a corporate office, or manage an association, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America® provides you with a voice of experience and influence in Washington, D.C., and around the globe. Our core mission is to fight for business and free enterprise before Congress, the White House, regulatory agencies, the courts, the court of public opinion, and governments around the world."
"RESULTS is a nonprofit grassroots advocacy organization committed to creating the political will to end hunger and the worst aspects of poverty. RESULTS is committed to individuals exercising their personal and political power by lobbying elected officials for effective solutions and key policies that affect hunger and poverty.RESULTS Educational Fund is committed to educating the public, the media, and leaders about issues related to poverty and hunger in the United States and abroad. We hold public forums, train citizens in democracy, hold media conference calls to share the latest information, and produce quality oversight research to determine the effectiveness of programs for the poor. RESULTS Educational Fund is a 501(c)(3), tax-exempt nonprofit organization."
Here is how our 9 'Christian' Congressmen are rated today, 2008.
Christian Coalition
80,100,100,100,100,100,90,100,100
Chamber of Commerce
100,80,75,80,90,90,88,79,75
RESULTS
8,11,21,62,21,9,11,11,5
So is there really a chance that goals of 'millions of people of faith' and 'business and free enterprise' are the same goals?
I chose a group that represents 'issues related to poverty and hunger' because of Jesus words in Mathew 27:35-40 "Then the righteous will say to him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and give you something to eat, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you as a stranger and welcome you, or see you naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you? The king will answer them, 'I tell you with certainty, since you did it for one of the least important of these brothers of mine, you did it for me.' I welcome you to repeat this research yourself. I used a resource called Project Votesmart http://votesmart.org/program_about_pvs.php
Sunday, May 10, 2009
So Many Baptists Went to Hell
So many Baptists died before 1979, and they never knew they were going to Hell, because they believed in the religious truths were without error, and not a litteral interpretation of the Bible. So if you did not believe the world was created in 6 days it was not going to interfere with your salvation, or so they thought.....
Well i am all for the return of moderate Christianity.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060829152111/religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html
The biggest issue on which the two sides differed was biblical authority. Both sides saw the Bible as the central authority in one's life but the fundamentalists believed the history and religious teachings to be without error, while the moderates believed only the religious truths to be without error.
Dividing the two sides was also the issue of pastoral authority. The fundamentalists believed in a pattern of authority where a husband has authority over his wife and a pastor over his church. Due to this hierarchy fundamentalists saw it inappropriate for a woman to be ordained as a pastor. The moderates thought any believer should have a right to be an ordained pastor.
The two sides also tended to differ on various social and political issues as well. Fundamentalists were not supportive issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and the Equal Rights Amendment. The fundamentalists strongly believed in the issues they took a stand on and would fight diligently to see these issues implemented in the SBC. On the other side the moderates did not have anywhere close to a unanimous decision on any of these political or social issues.
The two sides differed dramatically on what they believed to be important about being a Baptist. The key for the fundamentalists was that they needed a way to get their views and ideas into the SBC, which was dominated by the moderate people who were leading the SBC in a direction, which they didn't want to go. 21 .
This controversy began to unfold within the Southern Baptist Convention during the late 1970's and continued to dominate the denomination's attention for the balance of the century. The conflict was presaged by a doctrinal controversy that erupted over a book published by Midwestern Seminary Professor named Ralph Elliott in 1961. Elliott argued that the book of Genesis was not to be taken literally.
Conservative Baptists believing that every word in the Bible is true and should be taken literally, Elliott's book sparked considerable controversy. Tensions mounted and grew during the 1970's, but during this period the fundamentalists did not control the majore bureaucratic structures of the SBC and, thus, were viewed as a minority. During the 1970's they made their views known, but had to maintain a stance of loyal opposition. 20 .
During the late 1970's fundamentalist, Paul Pressler, a Baptist layman and distinguished Houston judge, thought he figured out how the denomination's power structure could be wrestled from the control of the denominations moderates. He shared his views with Paaige Patterson, the youthful president of the Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, who agreed to join him in a crusade to win control of the Southern Baptist Convention for fundamentalism.
Their efforts would change the fundamentalist movement from one of loyal opposition to a movement focused at taking over the offices and key positions inside the denomination so that their ideas and beliefs could be spread throughout Southern Baptist thought.
The most basic idea underly Pressler's strategy was for the fundamentalists to successfully elect presidents from year to year. By doing so they could gain control of the appointive and nominating powers, control the boards and agencies of the SBC, and influence the SBC with their thoughts and beliefs.
In the late 70's Pressler and Patterson set their sights on 1979 as the year to win the presidency. In the years prior to this convention in 1979, the fundamentalists began organizing a way to win this election. Since the messengers at the convention vote on the president, the fundamentalists simply spread the word to others that had fundamentalist ideas to come to the convention and vote for the president. The fundamentalists basically brought more people to vote than there were moderates and as a result fundamentalist Adrian Rogers won the presidency in 1979. This signaled the beginning in the fundamentalist takeover and from here on in the moderates would never really come close to defeating the fundamentalists. 22 .
With Rogers as president, the fundamentalists began laying out the groundwork for their takeover of the SBC. The messengers who attended the convention elected the president of the SBC. The fundamentalists simply had to go to fundamentalist churches and convince people to attend and vote for their desired president.
From here the president of the SBC appointed a Committee on Committees and this committee then nominated a Committee on Nominations and this committee nominated people to fill the vacancies of standing committees and boards of trustees. When the fundamentalists won the presidency year after year the president simply would stack the Committee on Committees with people who had fundamentalist ideas and from here fundamentalists would be appointed and nominated to head boards, agencies and any other vacancies. By doing this, within ten years the SBC was under complete control of the fundamentalists. They could easily appoint the necessary people to whatever position and could pass almost Resolution they so desired. 23 .
As fundamentalists rapidly took control of the SBC they began making the necessary changes they deemed appropriate. In 1984, a resolution was passed at the convention in Kansas City, which excluded women from pastoral roles because the woman was first in the Edenic fall. By 1985, the fundamentalists had been appointing trustees for boards who were proven to be inerrantists to institute their policies. The fundamentalists were convinced that agencies were not being governed under biblical principals and they wanted the right people in office to ensure biblical principles would be applied. 24 . In 1982, fundamentalists succeeded in passing resolutions that supported the prohibition of abortion and sanctioning voluntary school prayer. 25 . For years and years the moderates continued to fight against the fundamentalists only to lose virtually every time on every issue. One can only be left to wonder how and why were the fundamentalists so successful in their endeavors to control the Southern Baptist Convention.
Despite the efforts of the moderates to combat the takeover by the fundamentalists they lost the battle for several reasons. First of all, when Rogers first won the presidency in 1979 many of them simply brushed it off as a fluke. Many of them believed that such a takeover would never succeed so they never took the takeover as anything serious. In 1980, when Pressler gave his "Going for the Jugular" speech in which he planned to takeover the convention by electing presidents and controlling appointments, the moderates finally took this takeover seriously. Even this wouldn't help the moderates much. The fundamentalists were simply more powerful and motivating speakers. They had the ability to move crowds and persuade huge churches to listen to what they had to say. It was partly this reason that allowed Pressler and Patterson to gather the large crowds of messengers necessary to help them elect presidents.
The inability of the moderates to gather support for their cause also contributed to a fundamentalist victory. The moderates could not gather enough support because only the older people who had dedicated their lives to the SBC were willing to take on the fight. Younger people simply were not willing to dedicate their lives to a fight with the fundamentalists.
Moderates also lacked the understanding of the presidential election process. They viewed nomination for presidency as a great achievement in itself and would sometimes nominate two or three people making it impossible to win the presidency with that many candidates.
Each side constituted about 35 percent of all Southern Baptists so they each faced the challenge of trying to win the support of the other 30 percent. The fundamentalists won over the majority of these people because they were such excellent speakers. They were better speakers and tended to speak to larger crowds. The fundamentalists also had the support of well-known people like Billy Graham and Ronald Reagan. Fundamentalists also were the first to mass mail their literature to all the SBC churches in hopes of winning their support.
Fundamentalists were also deeply dedicated to their cause as a clear majority went to the conventions only to vote for the president while the moderates attended for other reasons like to hear the sermons or just out of habit. Dedication to establishing biblical inerrancy throughout the Southern Baptist Convention led the fundamentalists to fight long and hard for their cause. Even today fundamentalists continue to take firm stands on their beliefs and they will continue into the future. 26 .
It took ten years, as Pressler and Paige strategized, for the fundamentalists to successfully control the bureaucracy of the Southern Baptist Convention. They controlled virtually every aspect of the SBC and the decisions made throughout the 1990's showed this dramatically. In 1992, two churches were disfellowshipped from the SBC. One for approving the ordination of a gay man and the other blessing the union of two gay people. 27 .
The fundamentalists have pursued a number of tactical programs that continue to generate internal conflict and keep the SBC in high profile the broader culture. One very controversial decision the Southern Baptists was the decision to boycott the Walt Disney Company in 1997. They objected to Disney's so-called anti-family and anti- Christian direction. They objected to Disney giving benefits to same sex partners and for having "Gay Days", where gays could come to their theme parks and celebrate openly. 28 .
Another controversy arose in the late 1990s when the Southern Baptists, having selected to meet in Salt Lake City, angered the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints by pursuing an aggressive program of proselytization among Mormons before and during the convention.
For a good many years it has seemed like a split or schism in the Southern Baptist Convention could be near. As early as 1987, some moderates, disappointed by their inability to stop the fundamentalist takeover, formed the Southern Baptist Alliance. The Alliance, formed with the goal of being an opposition group within the denomination, has attracted a substantial following. There has been talk of forming a separate denomination but it is not clear this will happen, but it is not clear that such a split in the SBC will ever happen. 29 .
In 1997, the largest state convention, the Baptist General Convention of Texas split from the SBC. This led people to believe that a schism within the SBC could be closer than previously thought. 30 . In 1999 Paige Patterson was elected president of the SBC and, perhaps in a genture to encourage dissidents to leave, predicted there would be a split.
Still, a schism within the SBC is probably not likely. A major reason for this is the high degree of autonomy that each local congregation maintains. Ministers, and their congregations may disagree with the leadership direction of the SBC, but what happens at the national level has little, if any, affect them. Thus, if churches feel that the convention is irrelevant to them, there is little initiative to leave. In the late 1980's Nany Ammerman, the leading scholar of Southern Baptists conducted a study and concluded that most churches anticipated no changes at all in their church despite the fundamentalist takeover. If people today still feel that they and their church are autonomous from the national convention then a schism is very unlikely to occur. 31 .
Well i am all for the return of moderate Christianity.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060829152111/religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html
The biggest issue on which the two sides differed was biblical authority. Both sides saw the Bible as the central authority in one's life but the fundamentalists believed the history and religious teachings to be without error, while the moderates believed only the religious truths to be without error.
Dividing the two sides was also the issue of pastoral authority. The fundamentalists believed in a pattern of authority where a husband has authority over his wife and a pastor over his church. Due to this hierarchy fundamentalists saw it inappropriate for a woman to be ordained as a pastor. The moderates thought any believer should have a right to be an ordained pastor.
The two sides also tended to differ on various social and political issues as well. Fundamentalists were not supportive issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and the Equal Rights Amendment. The fundamentalists strongly believed in the issues they took a stand on and would fight diligently to see these issues implemented in the SBC. On the other side the moderates did not have anywhere close to a unanimous decision on any of these political or social issues.
The two sides differed dramatically on what they believed to be important about being a Baptist. The key for the fundamentalists was that they needed a way to get their views and ideas into the SBC, which was dominated by the moderate people who were leading the SBC in a direction, which they didn't want to go. 21 .
This controversy began to unfold within the Southern Baptist Convention during the late 1970's and continued to dominate the denomination's attention for the balance of the century. The conflict was presaged by a doctrinal controversy that erupted over a book published by Midwestern Seminary Professor named Ralph Elliott in 1961. Elliott argued that the book of Genesis was not to be taken literally.
Conservative Baptists believing that every word in the Bible is true and should be taken literally, Elliott's book sparked considerable controversy. Tensions mounted and grew during the 1970's, but during this period the fundamentalists did not control the majore bureaucratic structures of the SBC and, thus, were viewed as a minority. During the 1970's they made their views known, but had to maintain a stance of loyal opposition. 20 .
During the late 1970's fundamentalist, Paul Pressler, a Baptist layman and distinguished Houston judge, thought he figured out how the denomination's power structure could be wrestled from the control of the denominations moderates. He shared his views with Paaige Patterson, the youthful president of the Criswell Center for Biblical Studies, who agreed to join him in a crusade to win control of the Southern Baptist Convention for fundamentalism.
Their efforts would change the fundamentalist movement from one of loyal opposition to a movement focused at taking over the offices and key positions inside the denomination so that their ideas and beliefs could be spread throughout Southern Baptist thought.
The most basic idea underly Pressler's strategy was for the fundamentalists to successfully elect presidents from year to year. By doing so they could gain control of the appointive and nominating powers, control the boards and agencies of the SBC, and influence the SBC with their thoughts and beliefs.
In the late 70's Pressler and Patterson set their sights on 1979 as the year to win the presidency. In the years prior to this convention in 1979, the fundamentalists began organizing a way to win this election. Since the messengers at the convention vote on the president, the fundamentalists simply spread the word to others that had fundamentalist ideas to come to the convention and vote for the president. The fundamentalists basically brought more people to vote than there were moderates and as a result fundamentalist Adrian Rogers won the presidency in 1979. This signaled the beginning in the fundamentalist takeover and from here on in the moderates would never really come close to defeating the fundamentalists. 22 .
With Rogers as president, the fundamentalists began laying out the groundwork for their takeover of the SBC. The messengers who attended the convention elected the president of the SBC. The fundamentalists simply had to go to fundamentalist churches and convince people to attend and vote for their desired president.
From here the president of the SBC appointed a Committee on Committees and this committee then nominated a Committee on Nominations and this committee nominated people to fill the vacancies of standing committees and boards of trustees. When the fundamentalists won the presidency year after year the president simply would stack the Committee on Committees with people who had fundamentalist ideas and from here fundamentalists would be appointed and nominated to head boards, agencies and any other vacancies. By doing this, within ten years the SBC was under complete control of the fundamentalists. They could easily appoint the necessary people to whatever position and could pass almost Resolution they so desired. 23 .
As fundamentalists rapidly took control of the SBC they began making the necessary changes they deemed appropriate. In 1984, a resolution was passed at the convention in Kansas City, which excluded women from pastoral roles because the woman was first in the Edenic fall. By 1985, the fundamentalists had been appointing trustees for boards who were proven to be inerrantists to institute their policies. The fundamentalists were convinced that agencies were not being governed under biblical principals and they wanted the right people in office to ensure biblical principles would be applied. 24 . In 1982, fundamentalists succeeded in passing resolutions that supported the prohibition of abortion and sanctioning voluntary school prayer. 25 . For years and years the moderates continued to fight against the fundamentalists only to lose virtually every time on every issue. One can only be left to wonder how and why were the fundamentalists so successful in their endeavors to control the Southern Baptist Convention.
Despite the efforts of the moderates to combat the takeover by the fundamentalists they lost the battle for several reasons. First of all, when Rogers first won the presidency in 1979 many of them simply brushed it off as a fluke. Many of them believed that such a takeover would never succeed so they never took the takeover as anything serious. In 1980, when Pressler gave his "Going for the Jugular" speech in which he planned to takeover the convention by electing presidents and controlling appointments, the moderates finally took this takeover seriously. Even this wouldn't help the moderates much. The fundamentalists were simply more powerful and motivating speakers. They had the ability to move crowds and persuade huge churches to listen to what they had to say. It was partly this reason that allowed Pressler and Patterson to gather the large crowds of messengers necessary to help them elect presidents.
The inability of the moderates to gather support for their cause also contributed to a fundamentalist victory. The moderates could not gather enough support because only the older people who had dedicated their lives to the SBC were willing to take on the fight. Younger people simply were not willing to dedicate their lives to a fight with the fundamentalists.
Moderates also lacked the understanding of the presidential election process. They viewed nomination for presidency as a great achievement in itself and would sometimes nominate two or three people making it impossible to win the presidency with that many candidates.
Each side constituted about 35 percent of all Southern Baptists so they each faced the challenge of trying to win the support of the other 30 percent. The fundamentalists won over the majority of these people because they were such excellent speakers. They were better speakers and tended to speak to larger crowds. The fundamentalists also had the support of well-known people like Billy Graham and Ronald Reagan. Fundamentalists also were the first to mass mail their literature to all the SBC churches in hopes of winning their support.
Fundamentalists were also deeply dedicated to their cause as a clear majority went to the conventions only to vote for the president while the moderates attended for other reasons like to hear the sermons or just out of habit. Dedication to establishing biblical inerrancy throughout the Southern Baptist Convention led the fundamentalists to fight long and hard for their cause. Even today fundamentalists continue to take firm stands on their beliefs and they will continue into the future. 26 .
It took ten years, as Pressler and Paige strategized, for the fundamentalists to successfully control the bureaucracy of the Southern Baptist Convention. They controlled virtually every aspect of the SBC and the decisions made throughout the 1990's showed this dramatically. In 1992, two churches were disfellowshipped from the SBC. One for approving the ordination of a gay man and the other blessing the union of two gay people. 27 .
The fundamentalists have pursued a number of tactical programs that continue to generate internal conflict and keep the SBC in high profile the broader culture. One very controversial decision the Southern Baptists was the decision to boycott the Walt Disney Company in 1997. They objected to Disney's so-called anti-family and anti- Christian direction. They objected to Disney giving benefits to same sex partners and for having "Gay Days", where gays could come to their theme parks and celebrate openly. 28 .
Another controversy arose in the late 1990s when the Southern Baptists, having selected to meet in Salt Lake City, angered the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints by pursuing an aggressive program of proselytization among Mormons before and during the convention.
For a good many years it has seemed like a split or schism in the Southern Baptist Convention could be near. As early as 1987, some moderates, disappointed by their inability to stop the fundamentalist takeover, formed the Southern Baptist Alliance. The Alliance, formed with the goal of being an opposition group within the denomination, has attracted a substantial following. There has been talk of forming a separate denomination but it is not clear this will happen, but it is not clear that such a split in the SBC will ever happen. 29 .
In 1997, the largest state convention, the Baptist General Convention of Texas split from the SBC. This led people to believe that a schism within the SBC could be closer than previously thought. 30 . In 1999 Paige Patterson was elected president of the SBC and, perhaps in a genture to encourage dissidents to leave, predicted there would be a split.
Still, a schism within the SBC is probably not likely. A major reason for this is the high degree of autonomy that each local congregation maintains. Ministers, and their congregations may disagree with the leadership direction of the SBC, but what happens at the national level has little, if any, affect them. Thus, if churches feel that the convention is irrelevant to them, there is little initiative to leave. In the late 1980's Nany Ammerman, the leading scholar of Southern Baptists conducted a study and concluded that most churches anticipated no changes at all in their church despite the fundamentalist takeover. If people today still feel that they and their church are autonomous from the national convention then a schism is very unlikely to occur. 31 .
PHNP Activism in DC
Three doctors were arrested for asking that single payer healthcare be represented at the Senate Committee Finance meeting for healthcare reform, Please see the link below to email Senator Baucus and tell him to include single payer advocates. Please support these smart, caring individuals.
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=cKY5h8hkQ6NSq5stHNyiIH1Xa4oVpMF9
Video of the incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKP05AyfRsI
Members of the Senate Finance Committee
Max BAUCUS, MT, John D. ROCKEFELLER IV, WV, Kent CONRAD, ND, Jeff BINGAMAN, NM, John F. KERRY, MA, Blance L. LINCOLN, AR, Ron WYDEN, OR, Charles E. SCHUMER, NY, Debbie STABENOW, MI, Maria CANTWELL, WA, Bill NELSON, FL, Robert MENENDEZ, NJ, Thomas CARPER, DE, Chuck GRASSLEY, IA, Orrin G. HATCH, UT, Olympia J. SNOWE, ME, Jon KYL, AZ, Jim BUNNING, KY, Mike CRAPO, ID, Pat ROBERTS, KS, John ENSIGN, NV, Mike ENZI, WY, John CORNYN, TX
I think the comments under the video speak for themselves.
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=cKY5h8hkQ6NSq5stHNyiIH1Xa4oVpMF9
Video of the incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKP05AyfRsI
Members of the Senate Finance Committee
Max BAUCUS, MT, John D. ROCKEFELLER IV, WV, Kent CONRAD, ND, Jeff BINGAMAN, NM, John F. KERRY, MA, Blance L. LINCOLN, AR, Ron WYDEN, OR, Charles E. SCHUMER, NY, Debbie STABENOW, MI, Maria CANTWELL, WA, Bill NELSON, FL, Robert MENENDEZ, NJ, Thomas CARPER, DE, Chuck GRASSLEY, IA, Orrin G. HATCH, UT, Olympia J. SNOWE, ME, Jon KYL, AZ, Jim BUNNING, KY, Mike CRAPO, ID, Pat ROBERTS, KS, John ENSIGN, NV, Mike ENZI, WY, John CORNYN, TX
I think the comments under the video speak for themselves.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Smörgåstårta
This word, Smörgåstårta, means sandwich cake. It is a really fun thing to have for all types of family celebrations. We have them to celebrate birthdays, and customize the ingredients for the person whose birthday it happens to be.I will give a basic idea of how it is constructed, and warn you it is a calorie bomb in its original form, and tastes even better the next day.
Brainstorm four to five sandwich filligs that you like. I will list some suggestions: chopped ham and cheese, chicken salad, seafood salads, mimosa salad, boiled egg with cheese, braunschweiger or lever pastej, sliced sausage, shrimp, smoked salmon
We use approx 1.5 loaves of white sandwich bread and remove the crusts. Build up layers as a lasagna and top with bread. For the icing, a 50/50 mixture of whipped cream and mayonaise(some use cream cheese instead of mayo) spread thinly over the cake.
We stop here, wrap it up, and decorate the cake near time to serve it. Cherry tomatoes, smoked salmon, caviar, cucumbers or sliced lemon are just some ideas for decoration, use your imagination!
Rhubarb Strawberry Pie
Rhubarb is in plentiful supply in Sweden and there is even rhubarb candy, which i never had til I came here. Here is a recipe for a typical fruit pie, in this case rhubarb and strawberry, but also rhubarb apple is good.15 dl or 7.5 cups of chopped fruit
5 Tbl potato or corn starch
1 cup of white sugar divided
1/2 cup of brown sugar
50 dl or about 1/2 stick of margarine, chilled
2 dl or 1 cup of white flour (half of this can be replaced with quick cooking oats if desired)
1 tsp cinnamon
Toss the chopped fruit with starch and 1/2 cup of white sugar
Arrange in the pie plate
Combine the remaining 1/2 cup of white sugar, brown sugar, margarine, flour with oats if you are using that and cinnamon, and pinch it together with your fingers until the entire mixture has a texture as crumbs
Sprinkle the crumb mixture over the fruit and bake for 35-45 minutes at 350 farenheit or 175 celsius.
The fruit mixture will bubble at the sides of the plate and the topping wil take on a brown color.
Fiskgratäng
Fiskgratäng is a very simple delicious way to enjoy seafood, we commonly use frozen filets of Pangasius or Cod. I think whiting or pollok would do fine, and try this recipe with any other seafood as shrimp, scallops. I am not sure about mussels, squid, or fish steaks, but why not?
Half Kilo or about a pound of fish filets, or other seafood
Mashed potato, enough to serve approx 6
2 egg yokes
1.25 cups, or 2.5 dl of cream
1 tsp of crushed rose peppercorns
Dill, fresh chopped or dried
Make up mashed potatoes for 6 people, instant works fine. You then add a couple egg yokes and to the potatoes to give it a richer color. Arrange the potatoes around the dish with the seafood in the middle. The frozen fiskgratäng here in Sweden often has a decorative texture on the potatoes, I am still playing with that idea, as you can see in the picture. It tastes the same whether you dress it up or not! Pour cream over the seafood and sprinkle with a teaspoon of crushed rose peppercorns. We then top it off with dill and bake it until it is bubbley all through and the potatoes brown on the edges. Enjoy!
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Thanks Baxter
I dedicate the signing of this petition to Baxter Healthcare Corporation, who screwed up with live Avian flu virus in vaccines sent to 18 countries last year, they love to play with gene splicing in new and exciting ways! Lets tame the pharmacutical companies, shall we? http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/live-avian-flu-virus-placed-in-baxter-vaccine-materials-sent-to-18-countries/
Thanks Baxter, for all you do to 'take care of us!'
http://healthrevolutionpetition.org/
Thanks Baxter, for all you do to 'take care of us!'
http://healthrevolutionpetition.org/
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Germany Bans E-Voting
Germany's Supreme Court equivalent, its federal constitutional court, issued a decision that computerized vote counting is unconstitutional.
More here:> http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/79633.html
Support our work here: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
What's important is WHY Germany banned computerized voting. Newspapers gave the impression that Germany banned e-voting due to "security issues" or bugs. NOT SO: The ban was based on HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.
This stopped e-voting dead in Germany.
This decision represents spectacular progress for the US voting rights groups who believe computerized, secret vote counting violates inalienable rights. Germany gave us effective argumentation for this. It starts with reframing the issue of computerized voting into basic human rights.
The details of Germany's knock-out punch arguments are below. If you feel uncomfortable about computerized voting, the controversial Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the new 2009 Holt Bill that expands on HAVA, here's real hope for change.
For years now, leaders like voting rights lawyer Paul Lehto, Nancy Tobi (Democracy for New Hampshire/Election Defense Alliance), and Bev Harris of Black Box Voting, and have been focusing on these issues from the standpoint of human rights. We believe that counting votes on computers controlled by insiders violates inalienable rights, specifically the right to public scrutiny of public elections.
Germany agrees.
Last week, Germany's Supreme Court equivalent, its federal constitutional court, issued a decision that computerized vote counting is unconstitutional.
HEY, AMERICA IS NOT GERMANY
But the principles in the German decision are very much in line with the principles underlying our own democratic structure.
As Paul Lehto explains, "We [the USA] insisted on the human rights provisions as a condition of approval of the post-war German Constitution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came out in December 1948, and the German Constitution was signed off by Allies and went into effect May 23, 1949. We insisted on human rights, including free, genuine public elections, for post-war Germany. We conditioned our approval specifically on these human rights being 'inviolable and inalienable.' Meaning, they can't be violated and they can't be lost, waived or forfeited."
WHAT WOULD GERMANY DO ABOUT COMPUTERIZED VOTING MACHINES?
Last week's decision by Germany's high court ultimately prohibits voting machines from further use. Reasoning behind the decision is as follows -- I've broken it up into bite-sized chunks, scroll, skim, and re-read the parts that resonate with you:
German decision: "The use of voting machines which electronically record the voters’ votes and electronically ascertain the election result only meets the constitutional requirements if the essential steps of the voting and of the ascertainment of the result can be examined reliably and without any specialist knowledge of the subject. "
It goes on to state that such examination must be available to the public; in fact it says "A complementary examination by the voter, by the electoral bodies or the general public";
"The use of electronic voting machines requires that the essential steps of the voting and of the determination of the result [the count] can be examined by the citizen reliably and without any specialist knowledge of the subject. This requirement results from the principle of the public nature of elections"
WHAT WOULD GERMANY DO ABOUT THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT and THE HOLT "VOTER CONFIDENCE" BILL (WHICH EXPANDS ON HAVA)? > > Germany had its own version of something similar to HAVA. This court decision declares that legislation to be unconstitutional.
"The Federal Voting Machines Ordinance is unconstitutional because it infringes on the principle of the public nature of elections. > > "The Federal Voting Machines Ordinance (Bundeswahlgeräteverordnung) is unconstitutional because it does not ensure that only such voting machines are permitted and used which meet the constitutional requirements of the principle of the public nature of elections. "
In various parts of the decision, it makes it clear that the right to public scrutiny cannot be removed in order to make sure voters don't make a mistake on their ballot, cannot be removed for speedy results, cannot be removed and replaced with something else that does not involve the citizens themselves.
WHAT WOULD GERMANY SAY ABOUT CERTIFICATION AND TESTING OF VOTING MACHINES?
The USA has a decades-long history of inept and corrupt certification and testing processes. Just last week, the EAC admitted that it doesn't understand its own technical reports (leading us to wonder how "the public" is supposed to make sense of any of this.)
Here's what the German decision says about certification and testing:
"Limitations of the possibility for the citizens to examine the voting cannot be compensated by an official institution testing sample machines in the context of their engineering type licensing procedure, or the very voting machines which will be used in the elections before their being used, for their compliance with specific security requirements and for their technical integrity."
WHAT DOES GERMANY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT TRYING MITIGATING SECRET VOTE-COUNTING WITH AUDITS AND OTHER PROCEDURES?
What Americans have been calling an "audit" is mislabeled, because measures called election audits are actually spot checks, and missing the management report component of real audits; no effort is made to evaluate chain of custody as part of the spot check. But the German court decision correctly pointed out that Government substitution of public scrutiny with its own check is no substitute at all.
"Also an extensive entirety of other technical and organizational security measures alone is not suited to compensate a lack of the possibility of the essential steps of the electoral procedure being examined by the citizens."
The German decision should bring encouragement to Americans who just knew something was wrong. A whole nation agrees with you! Now, to get our own country to protect and defend our own rights. We all need to help, by clearly stating what we really want: public scrutiny of all phases of public elections.
(1) 2009 version of Holt "Voter Confidence" bill: > http://www.bbvdocs.org/2009holt.pdf
(2) Official English translation of the government statement on the German decision: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/press/bvg09-019en.html
(3) German version: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-019.html
Permission to reprint granted, with link to http://www.blackboxvoting.org
This message was sent by: Black Box Voting, Inc., 330 SW 43rd St Suite K - PMB 547, Renton, WA 98057
More here:> http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/79633.html
Support our work here: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/donate.html
What's important is WHY Germany banned computerized voting. Newspapers gave the impression that Germany banned e-voting due to "security issues" or bugs. NOT SO: The ban was based on HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.
This stopped e-voting dead in Germany.
This decision represents spectacular progress for the US voting rights groups who believe computerized, secret vote counting violates inalienable rights. Germany gave us effective argumentation for this. It starts with reframing the issue of computerized voting into basic human rights.
The details of Germany's knock-out punch arguments are below. If you feel uncomfortable about computerized voting, the controversial Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the new 2009 Holt Bill that expands on HAVA, here's real hope for change.
For years now, leaders like voting rights lawyer Paul Lehto, Nancy Tobi (Democracy for New Hampshire/Election Defense Alliance), and Bev Harris of Black Box Voting, and have been focusing on these issues from the standpoint of human rights. We believe that counting votes on computers controlled by insiders violates inalienable rights, specifically the right to public scrutiny of public elections.
Germany agrees.
Last week, Germany's Supreme Court equivalent, its federal constitutional court, issued a decision that computerized vote counting is unconstitutional.
HEY, AMERICA IS NOT GERMANY
But the principles in the German decision are very much in line with the principles underlying our own democratic structure.
As Paul Lehto explains, "We [the USA] insisted on the human rights provisions as a condition of approval of the post-war German Constitution. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came out in December 1948, and the German Constitution was signed off by Allies and went into effect May 23, 1949. We insisted on human rights, including free, genuine public elections, for post-war Germany. We conditioned our approval specifically on these human rights being 'inviolable and inalienable.' Meaning, they can't be violated and they can't be lost, waived or forfeited."
WHAT WOULD GERMANY DO ABOUT COMPUTERIZED VOTING MACHINES?
Last week's decision by Germany's high court ultimately prohibits voting machines from further use. Reasoning behind the decision is as follows -- I've broken it up into bite-sized chunks, scroll, skim, and re-read the parts that resonate with you:
German decision: "The use of voting machines which electronically record the voters’ votes and electronically ascertain the election result only meets the constitutional requirements if the essential steps of the voting and of the ascertainment of the result can be examined reliably and without any specialist knowledge of the subject. "
It goes on to state that such examination must be available to the public; in fact it says "A complementary examination by the voter, by the electoral bodies or the general public";
"The use of electronic voting machines requires that the essential steps of the voting and of the determination of the result [the count] can be examined by the citizen reliably and without any specialist knowledge of the subject. This requirement results from the principle of the public nature of elections"
WHAT WOULD GERMANY DO ABOUT THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT and THE HOLT "VOTER CONFIDENCE" BILL (WHICH EXPANDS ON HAVA)? > > Germany had its own version of something similar to HAVA. This court decision declares that legislation to be unconstitutional.
"The Federal Voting Machines Ordinance is unconstitutional because it infringes on the principle of the public nature of elections. > > "The Federal Voting Machines Ordinance (Bundeswahlgeräteverordnung) is unconstitutional because it does not ensure that only such voting machines are permitted and used which meet the constitutional requirements of the principle of the public nature of elections. "
In various parts of the decision, it makes it clear that the right to public scrutiny cannot be removed in order to make sure voters don't make a mistake on their ballot, cannot be removed for speedy results, cannot be removed and replaced with something else that does not involve the citizens themselves.
WHAT WOULD GERMANY SAY ABOUT CERTIFICATION AND TESTING OF VOTING MACHINES?
The USA has a decades-long history of inept and corrupt certification and testing processes. Just last week, the EAC admitted that it doesn't understand its own technical reports (leading us to wonder how "the public" is supposed to make sense of any of this.)
Here's what the German decision says about certification and testing:
"Limitations of the possibility for the citizens to examine the voting cannot be compensated by an official institution testing sample machines in the context of their engineering type licensing procedure, or the very voting machines which will be used in the elections before their being used, for their compliance with specific security requirements and for their technical integrity."
WHAT DOES GERMANY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT TRYING MITIGATING SECRET VOTE-COUNTING WITH AUDITS AND OTHER PROCEDURES?
What Americans have been calling an "audit" is mislabeled, because measures called election audits are actually spot checks, and missing the management report component of real audits; no effort is made to evaluate chain of custody as part of the spot check. But the German court decision correctly pointed out that Government substitution of public scrutiny with its own check is no substitute at all.
"Also an extensive entirety of other technical and organizational security measures alone is not suited to compensate a lack of the possibility of the essential steps of the electoral procedure being examined by the citizens."
The German decision should bring encouragement to Americans who just knew something was wrong. A whole nation agrees with you! Now, to get our own country to protect and defend our own rights. We all need to help, by clearly stating what we really want: public scrutiny of all phases of public elections.
(1) 2009 version of Holt "Voter Confidence" bill: > http://www.bbvdocs.org/2009holt.pdf
(2) Official English translation of the government statement on the German decision: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/en/press/bvg09-019en.html
(3) German version: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-019.html
Permission to reprint granted, with link to http://www.blackboxvoting.org
This message was sent by: Black Box Voting, Inc., 330 SW 43rd St Suite K - PMB 547, Renton, WA 98057
Friday, April 17, 2009
Protests this Week
Iraq – April 9, 100,000 Iraqis protest the continued presence of American Troops in Iraq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOgEwtrh7Ls&feature=channel_page
Georgia- Tens of thousands of people gathered Friday in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, to protest against President Mikhail Saakashvili and demand -- apparently in vain -- that elections be held months earlier than scheduled. (psst its not Russia they are mad at, there are at least 250,000 still out of work who need to get to their jobs in Russia, and Saakashvili has used blackwater and Israeli mercinaries to provoke hostilities at the border) http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/02/georgia.protest/index.html
Thailand-Articles we read this day had the number at 60,000 protesters. If you recall, the prime minister(Thaksin) was ousted for corruption by a military coup, an election held, and the same political party won again, the wealthy families in Thailand didn’t like the result, so they paid protesters(yellow shirts) to shut down the airport, then installed their choice of leader. These people are protesting because they want a real democracy. The media seems to over and over talk about the corrupt leader from before. Its getting tiring, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes just annoying. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/13/thailand-protests-soldier_n_186101.html
Moldovia- Up to 10,000 students protest the Communist win of the election. Good news, there were UN observers there to verify the election. These students did not like the results, but these are tough times in and their elders are voting for people who promise to protect their pensions. http://www.cnbc.com/id/30085236
India-125,000 Indian Farmers have taken their lives as genetically modified seed fails. 'He was strangled by these magic seeds. They sell us the seeds, saying they will not need expensive pesticides but they do. We have to buy the same seeds from the same company every year. It is killing us. Please tell the world what is happening here.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html
Protests on both sides to end Drone Warfare
US-14 Peace Activists Arrested After Protesting US Drones in Nevada,
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/14/peace_activists_arrested_after_protesting_us
Pakistan – Supporters of a Pakistani religious group 'Tanzeem-e-Islami' hold a rally against the suspected U.S. drone missile strike on the country's tribal areas
http://www.breitbart.com/image.php?id=app-10010f68-8c08-44f2-ae50-8c9b30f6267c&show_article=1&article_id=D97EEDG81
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOgEwtrh7Ls&feature=channel_page
Georgia- Tens of thousands of people gathered Friday in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, to protest against President Mikhail Saakashvili and demand -- apparently in vain -- that elections be held months earlier than scheduled. (psst its not Russia they are mad at, there are at least 250,000 still out of work who need to get to their jobs in Russia, and Saakashvili has used blackwater and Israeli mercinaries to provoke hostilities at the border) http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/11/02/georgia.protest/index.html
Thailand-Articles we read this day had the number at 60,000 protesters. If you recall, the prime minister(Thaksin) was ousted for corruption by a military coup, an election held, and the same political party won again, the wealthy families in Thailand didn’t like the result, so they paid protesters(yellow shirts) to shut down the airport, then installed their choice of leader. These people are protesting because they want a real democracy. The media seems to over and over talk about the corrupt leader from before. Its getting tiring, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes just annoying. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/13/thailand-protests-soldier_n_186101.html
Moldovia- Up to 10,000 students protest the Communist win of the election. Good news, there were UN observers there to verify the election. These students did not like the results, but these are tough times in and their elders are voting for people who promise to protect their pensions. http://www.cnbc.com/id/30085236
India-125,000 Indian Farmers have taken their lives as genetically modified seed fails. 'He was strangled by these magic seeds. They sell us the seeds, saying they will not need expensive pesticides but they do. We have to buy the same seeds from the same company every year. It is killing us. Please tell the world what is happening here.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html
Protests on both sides to end Drone Warfare
US-14 Peace Activists Arrested After Protesting US Drones in Nevada,
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/14/peace_activists_arrested_after_protesting_us
Pakistan – Supporters of a Pakistani religious group 'Tanzeem-e-Islami' hold a rally against the suspected U.S. drone missile strike on the country's tribal areas
http://www.breitbart.com/image.php?id=app-10010f68-8c08-44f2-ae50-8c9b30f6267c&show_article=1&article_id=D97EEDG81
Thursday, April 16, 2009
An Impromptu Protest
So much is in the news lately about protests, I want to share with you a protest that happened today, spur of the moment, in Jönköping, Sweden.
Earlier today there was a pre-trial, a hearing to see if there was sufficient evidence to bring charges of rape against a 42 yr old man accused of raping a 15 year old girl. The girl had given an oral testimony explaining what happened and named the man in question as the rapist. The sad part of this story is that she committed suicide before this court hearing. There was no one to testify against the man and so there was no case. It was dismissed. Her girlfriends from school waited outside the courthouse, they would not leave, more people came, the newspaper updated the story at least three times today and even put up a map to find the courthouse, there was 200, 250, 500 people there before the day was over. People left school and work, they came and let that fellow know they would not forget so easy. The 42yr old is also suspected of the rape of a 17yr old girl. Hint: use google translate if you want to read more.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article4916517.ab
Earlier today there was a pre-trial, a hearing to see if there was sufficient evidence to bring charges of rape against a 42 yr old man accused of raping a 15 year old girl. The girl had given an oral testimony explaining what happened and named the man in question as the rapist. The sad part of this story is that she committed suicide before this court hearing. There was no one to testify against the man and so there was no case. It was dismissed. Her girlfriends from school waited outside the courthouse, they would not leave, more people came, the newspaper updated the story at least three times today and even put up a map to find the courthouse, there was 200, 250, 500 people there before the day was over. People left school and work, they came and let that fellow know they would not forget so easy. The 42yr old is also suspected of the rape of a 17yr old girl. Hint: use google translate if you want to read more.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article4916517.ab
Monday, April 13, 2009
It's Not Communism!
Finally! I found it, a former prime minister of Sweden Ingvar Carlsson has written this little book, "What is Social Democracy?"
http://www.socialdemokraterna.se/upload/Internationellt/Other%20Languages/WhatisSocialDemocracy.pdf
Now you can see that the type of government economics we have in Sweden, and other Scandinavian countries, also Britain and other Western European countries is not Communism! I do get so tired of hearing people confuse Social Democracy(socialism) with communism!
I am learning alot with you too.Here is one part, at the end of this letter, that helps illuminate the difference between Social Democracies and communism, if you read through Carlsson's short book there is more, and PARTICULARLY about government control over economy, which the US has centralized in times of war (cold war, war on terror, war for war's sake) and practices regulation of course.
So what's necessary at this time is decentralization, you know, break up the banks that are 'too big to fail' and build up local economies, Catherine Fitts will be speaking on that in Floyd County Virginia on April 18:http://solari.com/assets/PDFs/FSIflyer.pdf
Revolution or Reform?
The discussions meant that around the turn of the 20th century the socialistparties in Europe and Russia were divided into two main groups: onerevolutionary and one reformist.
The revolutionary parties wanted to hurry development to achieve asocial revolution by force rather than wait for the change in productiveconditions that, according to Marx, was a prerequisite of the revolution.When the final phase was known, why not go directly to it without theintermediate period of waiting?
The reformist approach wanted to start changing and improvingeveryday life at the time so that the conditions for the working classimproved. Instead of one violent upheaval, they saw an opportunity togradually approach a more equal and fairer society. Now that capitalism hadalready freed the productive powers, why wait for its collapse beforestarting to redistribute the results in a more reasonable way? Why not startat once?
The parties that chose the revolutionary strategy – albeit that it was only really in Russia that it became possible to put it into practice – gradually came to be known as communistic. Those who chose the reformist approach became known as social democrats.
The two models have developed very differently.
The social democratic parties attracted large groups of followers early on and consequently also came to power early in the Scandinavian countries and eventually also in Great Britain and many Western European countries. Governments have since alternated between social democratic and rightwing parties.
Naturally, the countries have not developed in exactly the same way, though the strong position of social democracy has led to some importantbasic similarities. Strong welfare systems give everyone the opportunity of education, health care, pensions and economic protection in the event of illness or unemployment. Industrial life is based on market-economic principles, with the exception of social services such as care and education,but the game rules, the frameworks, for industry are set through political decisions so as to guarantee consideration for social interests such as environmental requirements.
International research usually points to the Nordic countries in particular –where social democracy has and has had its strongest hold – as examples of how welfare policy can be combined with economic efficiency.
http://www.socialdemokraterna.se/upload/Internationellt/Other%20Languages/WhatisSocialDemocracy.pdf
Now you can see that the type of government economics we have in Sweden, and other Scandinavian countries, also Britain and other Western European countries is not Communism! I do get so tired of hearing people confuse Social Democracy(socialism) with communism!
I am learning alot with you too.Here is one part, at the end of this letter, that helps illuminate the difference between Social Democracies and communism, if you read through Carlsson's short book there is more, and PARTICULARLY about government control over economy, which the US has centralized in times of war (cold war, war on terror, war for war's sake) and practices regulation of course.
So what's necessary at this time is decentralization, you know, break up the banks that are 'too big to fail' and build up local economies, Catherine Fitts will be speaking on that in Floyd County Virginia on April 18:http://solari.com/assets/PDFs/FSIflyer.pdf
Revolution or Reform?
The discussions meant that around the turn of the 20th century the socialistparties in Europe and Russia were divided into two main groups: onerevolutionary and one reformist.
The revolutionary parties wanted to hurry development to achieve asocial revolution by force rather than wait for the change in productiveconditions that, according to Marx, was a prerequisite of the revolution.When the final phase was known, why not go directly to it without theintermediate period of waiting?
The reformist approach wanted to start changing and improvingeveryday life at the time so that the conditions for the working classimproved. Instead of one violent upheaval, they saw an opportunity togradually approach a more equal and fairer society. Now that capitalism hadalready freed the productive powers, why wait for its collapse beforestarting to redistribute the results in a more reasonable way? Why not startat once?
The parties that chose the revolutionary strategy – albeit that it was only really in Russia that it became possible to put it into practice – gradually came to be known as communistic. Those who chose the reformist approach became known as social democrats.
The two models have developed very differently.
The social democratic parties attracted large groups of followers early on and consequently also came to power early in the Scandinavian countries and eventually also in Great Britain and many Western European countries. Governments have since alternated between social democratic and rightwing parties.
Naturally, the countries have not developed in exactly the same way, though the strong position of social democracy has led to some importantbasic similarities. Strong welfare systems give everyone the opportunity of education, health care, pensions and economic protection in the event of illness or unemployment. Industrial life is based on market-economic principles, with the exception of social services such as care and education,but the game rules, the frameworks, for industry are set through political decisions so as to guarantee consideration for social interests such as environmental requirements.
International research usually points to the Nordic countries in particular –where social democracy has and has had its strongest hold – as examples of how welfare policy can be combined with economic efficiency.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
New Word- Wahabism
I learned a new word today in noticing an article is of course, clear as mud.
Here we go again! Lets have a look at this article together, and consider what does it actually say and what does it insinuate?
At least 22 killed in Pakistan suicide bombing
Sun Apr 5, 2009 1:56pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5340TR20090405
The word Shi'ite appears five times in this article, and most significantly in the first paragraph. Sunni appears twice in the last half of the article. To most of us, with much to follow in the financial problems of today we do not have time to go digging for clues as to what is really going on. This means most of us will equate Shi'ite to suicide bombings, even though this attack was carried out against and killed the Shi'ite muslims.
Well, who then carried it out? The article says,
"Pakistan has a long history of tit-for-tat attacks by militants from the majority Sunni and minority Shi'ite Muslim communities.
But sectarian militancy intensified after some anti-Shi'ite groups forged ties with al Qaeda and Taliban militants, security officials say."
Who is anti Shi'ite and would stoop so low as to form ties with al Qaeda (mercinarie$ from all over the world founded by the CIA) and Taliban militants (also well funded religious fundies with ties to Saudi Arabia.) Apparently there are several different factions of people with a mutual interest. Shi'ites are a minority in Pakistan but not in Iran. Would anyone want to insinuate negative associations with Iran?
The United States has a lucrative relationship to Saudi Arabia, but theocracy there is run by a faction of Sunni muslims called the Wahabists. They fund mosques and teach Imans(preachers) all over the world. The problem is they degrade women and scare the secular muslims to pieces. When we Americans only see things in black and white and think all Muslims should fit into that mold, we are angering the majority of Muslims and then the negative feelings snowball. Its really wrong and so i need to tell you about it!
Here are some examples only this week that will illustrate my point.
Turkey- Obama gave a speach, we jeapordize our relationship with a NATO country because we call the Wahabist muslims 'moderate muslims' We scare the Turkish people, and the Prime minister has to settle everyone down and assure them, we are not those 'moderates'
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/11360374.asp?scr=1%20
Afganistan- the radical new rules(curbing women's rights) our man Karzai has put out this past week are to satisfy powerful sponsored warlords tenuous hold over the country, he is only doing what is needed to stay in power, not the will of the governed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/afghanistan-womens-rights-hamid-karzai
Anyway so the radical shake up i have had this morning is WAHABISM. Ashamed to say i didn't know who or what that was and they exert so much influence that the Swedish government funds Iman studies here in Sweden, because we cannot afford to let it be funded as a free market religion in this case, heh (ok bad joke)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wahabist
Here we go again! Lets have a look at this article together, and consider what does it actually say and what does it insinuate?
At least 22 killed in Pakistan suicide bombing
Sun Apr 5, 2009 1:56pm EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5340TR20090405
The word Shi'ite appears five times in this article, and most significantly in the first paragraph. Sunni appears twice in the last half of the article. To most of us, with much to follow in the financial problems of today we do not have time to go digging for clues as to what is really going on. This means most of us will equate Shi'ite to suicide bombings, even though this attack was carried out against and killed the Shi'ite muslims.
Well, who then carried it out? The article says,
"Pakistan has a long history of tit-for-tat attacks by militants from the majority Sunni and minority Shi'ite Muslim communities.
But sectarian militancy intensified after some anti-Shi'ite groups forged ties with al Qaeda and Taliban militants, security officials say."
Who is anti Shi'ite and would stoop so low as to form ties with al Qaeda (mercinarie$ from all over the world founded by the CIA) and Taliban militants (also well funded religious fundies with ties to Saudi Arabia.) Apparently there are several different factions of people with a mutual interest. Shi'ites are a minority in Pakistan but not in Iran. Would anyone want to insinuate negative associations with Iran?
The United States has a lucrative relationship to Saudi Arabia, but theocracy there is run by a faction of Sunni muslims called the Wahabists. They fund mosques and teach Imans(preachers) all over the world. The problem is they degrade women and scare the secular muslims to pieces. When we Americans only see things in black and white and think all Muslims should fit into that mold, we are angering the majority of Muslims and then the negative feelings snowball. Its really wrong and so i need to tell you about it!
Here are some examples only this week that will illustrate my point.
Turkey- Obama gave a speach, we jeapordize our relationship with a NATO country because we call the Wahabist muslims 'moderate muslims' We scare the Turkish people, and the Prime minister has to settle everyone down and assure them, we are not those 'moderates'
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/11360374.asp?scr=1%20
Afganistan- the radical new rules(curbing women's rights) our man Karzai has put out this past week are to satisfy powerful sponsored warlords tenuous hold over the country, he is only doing what is needed to stay in power, not the will of the governed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/afghanistan-womens-rights-hamid-karzai
Anyway so the radical shake up i have had this morning is WAHABISM. Ashamed to say i didn't know who or what that was and they exert so much influence that the Swedish government funds Iman studies here in Sweden, because we cannot afford to let it be funded as a free market religion in this case, heh (ok bad joke)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wahabist
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Why War? Einstein to Freud
Ok more words from famous people that should never be forgotten, it needs to be discussed. Here is a letter to Freud by Einstein asking his analysis and opinion on the subject of preventing war.
from Einstein on Peace ed. Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden (New York: Schocken Books, 1960), pp186-203
Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud on the question of war:
The Einstein-Freud Correspondence (1931-1932)
[1]
The letter which Einstein addressed to Freud, concerning the projected organization of intellectual leaders, was sent in 1931, or possibly 1932, and read as follows:
I greatly admire your passion to ascertain the truth--a passion that has come to dominate all else in your thinking. You have shown with irresistible lucidity how inseparably the aggressive and destructive instincts are bound up in the human psyche with those of love and the lust for life. At the same time, your convincing arguments make manifest your deep devotion to the great goal of the internal and external liberation of man from the evils of war. This was the profound hope of all those who have been revered as moral and spiritual leaders beyond the limits of their own time and country, from Jesus to Goethe and Kant. Is it not significant that such men have been universally recognized as leaders, even though their desire to affect the course of human affairs was quite ineffective?
[2]
I am convinced that almost all great men who, because of their accomplishments, are recognized as leaders even of small groups share the same ideals. But they have little influence on the course of political events. It would almost appear that the very domain of human activity most crucial to the fate of nations is inescapably in the hands of wholly irresponsible political rulers.
[3]
Political leaders or governments owe their power either to the use of force or to their election by the masses. They cannot be regarded as representative of the superior moral or intellectual elements in a nation. In our time, the intellectual elite does not exercise any direct influence on the history of the world; the very fact of its division into many factions makes it impossible for its members to co-operate in the solution of today's problems. Do you not share the feeling that a change could be brought about by a free association of men whose previous work and achievements offer a guarantee of their ability and integrity? Such a group of international scope, whose members would have to keep contact with each other through constant interchange of opinions, might gain a significant and wholesome moral influence on the solution of political problems if its own attitudes, backed by the signatures of its concurring members, were made public through the press. Such an association would, of course, suffer from all the defects that have so often led to degeneration in learned societies; the danger that such a degeneration may develop is, unfortunately, ever present in view of the imperfections of human nature. However, and despite those dangers, should we not make at least an attempt to form such an association in spite of all dangers? It seems to me nothing less than an imperative duty!
[4]
Once such an association of intellectuals--men of real stature--has come into being, it might then make an energetic effort to en-list religious groups in the fight against war. The association would give moral power for action to many personalities whose good intentions are today paralyzed by an attitude of painful resignation. I also believe that such an association of men, who are highly respected for their personal accomplishments, would provide important moral support to those elements in the League of Nations who actively support the great objective for which that institution was created.
[5]
I offer these suggestions to you, rather than to anyone else in the world, because your sense of reality is less clouded by wishful thinking than is the case with other people and since you combine the qualities of critical judgment, earnestness and responsibility.
The high point in the relationship between Einstein and Freud came in the summer of 1932 when, under the auspices of the International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, Einstein initiated a public debate with Freud about the causes and cure of wars. Einstein's official letter is dated July 30, 1932; it was accompanied by the following private note of the same date:
[6]
I should like to use this opportunity to send you warm personal regards and to thank you for many a pleasant hour which I had in reading your works. It is always amusing for me to observe that even those who do not believe in your theories find it so difficult to resist your ideas that they use your terminology in their thoughts and speech when they are off guard.
This is Einstein's open letter to Freud, which, strangely enough, has never become widely known:
[7]
Dear Mr. Freud:
The proposal of the League of Nations and its International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation at Paris that I should invite a person, to be chosen by myself, to a frank exchange of views on any problem that I might select affords me a very welcome opportunity of conferring with you upon a question which, as things now are, seems the most insistent of all the problems civilization has to face. This is the problem: Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war? It is common knowledge that, with the advance of modern science, this issue has come to mean a matter of life and death for Civilization as we know it; nevertheless, for all the zeal displayed, every attempt at its solution has ended in a lamentable breakdown.
[8]
I believe, moreover, that those whose duty it is to tackle the problem professionally and practically are growing only too aware of their impotence to deal with it, and have now a very lively desire to learn the views of men who, absorbed in the pursuit of science, can see world problems in the perspective distance lends. As for me, the normal objective of my thought affords no insight into the dark places of human will and feeling. Thus, in the inquiry now proposed, I can do little more than to seek to clarify the question at issue and, clearing the ground of the more obvious solutions, enable you to bring the light of your far-reaching knowledge of man's instinctive life to bear upon the problem. There are certain psychological obstacles whose existence a layman in the mental sciences may dimly surmise, but whose interrelations and vagaries he is incompetent to fathom; you, I am convinced, will be able to suggest educative methods, lying more or less outside the scope of politics, which will eliminate these obstacles.
[9]
As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations. Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, to accept its judgments unreservedly and to carry out every measure the tribunal deems necessary for the execution of its decrees. But here, at the outset, I come up against a difficulty; a tribunal is a human institution which, in proportion as the power at its disposal is inadequate to enforce its verdicts, is all the more prone to suffer these to be deflected by extrajudicial pressure. This is a fact with which we have to reckon; law and might inevitably go hand in hand, and juridical decisions approach more nearly the ideal justice demanded by the community (in whose name and interests these verdicts are pronounced) insofar as the community has effective power to compel respect of its juridical ideal. But at present we are far from possessing any supranational organization competent to render verdicts of incontestable authority and enforce absolute submission to the execution of its verdicts. Thus I am led to my first axiom: The quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action--its sovereignty that is to say--and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such security.
[10]
The ill success, despite their obvious sincerity, of all the efforts made during the last decade to reach this goal leaves us no room to doubt that strong psychological factors are at work which paralyze these efforts. Some of these factors are not far to seek. The craving for power which characterizes the governing class in every nation is hostile to any limitation of the national sovereignty. This political power hunger is often supported by the activities of another group, whose aspirations are on purely mercenary, economic lines. I have especially in mind that small but determined group, active in every nation, composed of individuals who, indifferent to social considerations and restraints, regard warfare, the manufacture and sale of arms, simply as an occasion to advance their personal interests and enlarge their personal authority.
[11]
But recognition of this obvious fact is merely the first step toward an appreciation of the actual state of affairs. Another question follows hard upon it: How is it possible for this small clique to bend the will of the majority, who stand to lose and suffer by a state of war, to the service of their ambitions. (*) An obvious answer to this question would seem to be that the minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and makes its tool of them.
[12]
Yet even this answer does not provide a complete solution. Another question arises from it: How is it that these devices succeed so well in rousing men to such wild enthusiasm, even to sacrifice their lives? Only one answer is possible. Because man has within him a lust for hatred and destruction. In normal times this passion exists in a latent state, it emerges only in unusual circumstances; but it is a comparatively easy task to call it into play and raise it to the power of a collective psychosis. Here lies, perhaps, the crux of all the complex factors we are considering, an enigma that only the expert in the lore of human instincts can resolve.
[13]
And so we come to our last question. Is it possible to control man's mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychosis of hate and destructiveness? Here I am thinking by no means only of the so-called uncultured masses. Experience proves that it is rather the so-called "intelligentsia" that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions, since the intellectual has no direct contact with life in the raw but encounters it in its easiest, synthetic form--upon the printed page.
[14]
To conclude: I have so far been speaking only of wars between nations; what are known as international conflicts. But I am well aware that the aggressive instinct operates under other forms and in other circumstances. (I am thinking of civil wars, for instance, due in earlier days to religious zeal, but nowadays to social factors; or, again, the persecution of racial minorities.) But my insistence on what is the most typical, most cruel and extravagant form of conflict between man and man was deliberate, for here we have the best occasion of discovering ways and means to render all armed conflicts impossible.
[15]
I know that in your writings we may find answers, explicit or implied, to all the issues of this urgent and absorbing problem. But it would be of the greatest service to us all were you to present the problem of world peace in the light of your most recent discoveries, for such a presentation well might blaze the trail for new and fruitful modes of action.
Yours very sincerely,
A. Einstein
Leon Steinig, a League of Nations official who did much to inspire this correspondence, wrote Einstein on September 12, 1932:
[16]
. . . When I visited Professor Freud in Vienna, he asked me to thank you for your kind words and to tell you that he would do his best to explore the thorny problem of preventing war. He will have his answer ready by early October and he rather thinks that what he has to say will not be very encouraging. "All my life I have had to tell people truths that were difficult to swallow. Now that I am old, I certainly do not want to fool them." He was even doubtful whether [Henri] Bonnet [Director of the Institute of Intellectual Co-operation in Paris] would want to publish his pessimistic reply. . . .
Einstein replied to Steinig four days later saying that even if Freud's reply would be neither cheerful nor optimistic, it would certainly be interesting and psychologically effective.
Freud's reply, dated Vienna, September 1932, has also never been given the attention it deserved:
[17]
Dear Mr. Einstein:
When I learned of your intention to invite me to a mutual exchange of views upon a subject which not only interested you personally but seemed deserving, too, of public interest, I cordially assented. I expected you to choose a problem lying on the borderland of the knowable, as it stands today, a theme which each of us, physicist and psychologist, might approach from his own angle, to meet at last on common ground, though setting out from different premises. Thus the question which you put me--what is to be done to rid mankind of the war menace?--took me by surprise. And, next, I was dumbfounded by the thought of my (of our, I almost wrote) incompetence; for this struck me as being a matter of practical politics, the statesman's proper study. But then I realized that you did not raise the question in your capacity of scientist or physicist, but as a lover of his fellow men, who responded to the call of the League of Nations much as Fridtjof Nansen, the polar explorer, took on himself the task of succoring homeless and starving victims of the World War. And, next, I reminded myself that I was not being called on to formulate practical proposals but, rather, to explain how this question of preventing wars strikes a psychologist.
[18]
But here, too, you have stated the gist of the matter in your letter--and taken the wind out of my sails! Still, I will gladly follow in your wake and content myself with endorsing your conclusions, which, however, I propose to amplify to the best of my knowledge or surmise.
[19]
You begin with the relations between might and right, and this is assuredly the proper starting point for our inquiry. But, for the term might, I would substitute a tougher and more telling word: violence. In right and violence we have today an obvious antinomy. It is easy to prove that one has evolved from the other and, when we go back to origins and examine primitive conditions, the solution of the problem follows easily enough. I must crave your indulgence if in what follows I speak of well-known, admitted facts as though they were new data;the context necessitates this method.
[20]
Conflicts of interest between man and man are resolved, in principle, by the recourse to violence. It is the same in the animal kingdom, from which man cannot claim exclusion; nevertheless, men are also prone to conflicts of opinion, touching, on occasion, the loftiest peaks of abstract thought, which seem to call for settlement by quite another method. This refinement is, however, a late development. To start with, group force was the factor which, in small communities, decided points of ownership and the question which man's will was to prevail. Very soon physical force was implemented, then replaced, by the use of various adjuncts; he proved the victor whose weapon was the better, or handled the more skillfully. Now, for the first time, with the coming of weapons, superior brains began to oust brute force, but the object of the conflict remained the same: one party was to be constrained, by the injury done him or impairment of his strength, to retract a claim or a refusal. This end is most effectively gained when the opponent is definitely put out of action--in other words, is killed. This procedure has two advantages: the enemy cannot renew hostilities, and, secondly, his fate deters others from following his example. Moreover, the slaughter of a foe gratifies an instinctive craving--a point to which we shall revert hereafter. However, another consideration may be set off against this will to kill: the possibility of using an enemy for servile tasks if< his spirit be broken and his life spared. Here violence finds an outlet not in slaughter but in subjugation. Hence springs the practice of giving quarter; but the victor, having from now on to reckon with the craving for revenge that rankles in his victim, forfeits to some extent his personal security.
[21]
Thus, under primitive conditions, it is superior force--brute violence, or violence backed by arms-- that lords it everywhere. We know that in the course of evolution this state of things was modified, a path was traced that led away from violence to law. But what was this path? Surely it issued from a single verity: that the superiority of one strong man can be overborne by an alliance of many weaklings, that l'union fait la force. Brute force is overcome by union; the allied might of scattered units makes good its right against the isolated giant. Thus we may define "right" (i.e., law) as the might of a community. Yet it, too, is nothing else than violence, quick to attack whatever individual stands in its path, and it employs the selfsame methods, follows like ends, with but one difference: it is the communal, not individual, violence that has its way. But, for the transition from crude violence to the reign of law, a certain psychological condition must first obtain. The union of the majority must be stable and enduring. If its sole raison d'etre be the discomfiture of some overweening individual and, after his downfall, it be dissolved, it leads to nothing. Some other man, trusting to his superior power, will seek to reinstate the rule of violence, and the cycle will repeat itself unendingly. Thus the union of the people must be permanent and well organized; it must enact rules to meet the risk of possible revolts; must set up machinery insuring that its rules--the laws--are observed and that such acts of violence as the laws demand are duly carried out. This recognition of a community of interests engenders among the members of the group a sentiment of unity and fraternal solidarity which constitutes its real strength.
[22]
So far I have set out what seems to me the kernel of the matter: the suppression of brute force by the transfer of power to a larger combination, founded on the community of sentiments linking up its members. All the rest is mere tautology and glosses. Now the position is simple enough so long as the community consists of a number of equipollent individuals. The laws of such a group can determine to what extent the individual must forfeit his personal freedom, the right of using personal force as an instrument of violence, to insure the safety of the group. But such a combination is only theoretically possible; in practice the situation is always complicated by the fact that, from the outset, the group includes elements of unequal power, men and women, elders and children, and, very soon, as a result of war and conquest, victors and the vanquished--i.e., masters and slaves--as well. From this time on the common law takes notice of these inequalities of power, laws are made by and for the rulers, giving the servile classes fewer rights. Thenceforward there exist within the state two factors making for legal instability, but legislative evolution, too: first, the attempts by members of the ruling class to set themselves above the law's restrictions and, secondly, the constant struggle of the ruled to extend their rights and see each gain embodied in the code, replacing legal disabilities by equal laws for all. The second of these tendencies will be particularly marked when there takes place a positive mutation of the balance of power within the community, the frequent outcome of certain historical conditions. In such cases the laws may gradually be adjusted to the changed conditions or (as more usually ensues) the ruling class is loath to rush in with the new developments, the result being insurrections and civil wars, a period when law is in abeyance and force once more the arbiter, followed by a new regime of law. There is another factor of constitutional change, which operates in a wholly pacific manner, viz.: the cultural evolution of the mass of the community; this factor, however, is of a different order and an only be dealt with later.
[23]
Thus we see that, even within the group itself, the exercise of violence cannot be avoided when conflicting interests are at stake. But the common needs and habits of men who live in fellowship under the same sky favor a speedy issue of such conflicts and, this being so, the possibilities of peaceful solutions make steady progress. Yet the most casual glance at world history will show an unending series of conflicts between one community and another or a group of others, between large and smaller units, between cities, countries, races, tribes and kingdoms, almost all of which were settled by the ordeal of war. Such war ends either in pillage or in conquest and its fruits, the downfall of the loser. No single all-embracing judgment can be passed on these wars of aggrandizement. Some, like the war between the Mongols and the Turks, have led to unmitigated misery; others, however, have furthered the transition from violence to law, since they brought larger units into being, within whose limits a recourse to violence was banned and a new regime determined all disputes. Thus the Roman conquest brought that boon, the pax Romana, to the Mediterranean lands. The French kings' lust for aggrandizement created a new France, flourishing in peace and unity. Paradoxical as its sounds, we must admit that warfare well might serve to pave the way to that unbroken peace we so desire, for it is war that brings vast empires into being, within whose frontiers all warfare is proscribed by a strong central power. In practice, however, this end is not attained, for as a rule the fruits of victory are but short-lived, the new-created unit falls asunder once again, generally because there can be no true cohesion between the parts that violence has welded. Hitherto, moreover, such conquests have only led to aggregations which, for all their magnitude, had limits, and disputes between these units could be resolved only by recourse to arms. For humanity at large the sole result of all these military enterprises was that, instead of frequent, not to say incessant, little wars, they had now to face great wars which, for all they came less often, were so much the more destructive.
[24]
Regarding the world of today the same conclusion holds good, and you, too, have reached it, though by a shorter path. There is but one sure way of ending war and that is the establishment, by common consent, of a central control which shall have the last word in every conflict of interests. For this, two things are needed: first, the creation of such a supreme court of judicature; secondly, its investment with adequate executive force. Unless this second requirement be fulfilled, the first is unavailing. Obviously the League of Nations, acting as a Supreme Court, fulfills the first condition; it does not fulfill the second. It has no force at its disposal and can only get it if the members of the new body, its constituent nations, furnish it. And, as things are, this is a forlorn hope. Still we should be taking a very shortsighted view of the League of Nations were we to ignore the fact that here is an experiment the like of which has rarely--never before, perhaps, on such a scale--been attempted in the course of history. It is an attempt to acquire the authority (in other words, coercive influence), which hitherto reposed exclusively in the possession of power, by calling into play certain idealistic attitudes of mind. We have seen that there are two factors of cohesion in a community: violent compulsion and ties of sentiment ("identifications," in technical parlance) between the members of the group. If one of these factors becomes inoperative, the other may still suffice to hold the group together. Obviously such notions as these can only be significant when they are the expression of a deeply rooted sense of unity, shared by all. It is necessary, therefore, to gauge the efficacy of such sentiments. History tells us that, on occasion, they have been effective. For example, the Panhellenic conception, the Greeks' awareness of superiority over their barbarian neighbors, which found expression in the Amphictyonies, the Oracles and Games, was strong enough to humanize the methods of warfare as between Greeks, though inevitably it failed to prevent conflicts between different elements of the Hellenic race or even to deter a city or group of cities from joining forces with their racial foe, the Persians, for the discomfiture of a rival. The solidarity of Christendom in the Renaissance age was no more effective, despite its vast authority, in hindering Christian nations, large and small alike, from calling in the Sultan to their aid. And, in our times, we look in vain for some such unifying notion whose authority would be unquestioned. It is all too clear that the nationalistic ideas, paramount today in every country, operate in quite a contrary direction. Some there are who hold that the Bolshevist conceptions may make an end of war, but, as things are, that goal lies very far away and, perhaps, could only be attained after a spell of brutal internecine warfare. Thus it would seem that any effort to replace brute force by the might of an ideal is, under present conditions, doomed to fail. Our logic is at fault if we ignore the fact that right is founded on brute force and even today needs violence to maintain it.
[25]
I now can comment on another of your statements. You are amazed that it is so easy to infect men with the war fever, and you surmise that man has in him an active instinct for hatred and destruction, amenable to such stimulations. I entirely agree with you. I believe in the existence of this instinct and have been recently at pains to study its manifestations. In this connection may I set out a fragment of that knowledge of the instincts, which we psychoanalysts, after so many tentative essays and gropings in the dark, have compassed? We assume that human instincts are of two kinds: those that conserve and unify, which we call "erotic" (in the meaning Plato gives to Eros in his Symposium), or else "sexual" (explicitly extending the popular connotation of "sex"); and, secondly, the instincts to destroy and kill, which we assimilate as the aggressive or destructive instincts. These are, as you perceive, the well known opposites, Love and Hate, transformed into theoretical entities; they are, perhaps, another aspect of those eternal polarities, attraction and repulsion, which fall within your province. But we must be chary of passing over hastily to the notions of good and evil. Each of these instincts is every whit as indispensable as its opposite, and all the phenomena of life derive from their activity, whether they work in concert or in opposition. It seems that an instinct of either category can operate but rarely in isolation; it is always blended ("alloyed," as we say) with a certain dosage of its opposite, which modifies its aim or even, in certain circumstances, is a prime condition of its attainment. Thus the instinct of self-preservation is certainly of an erotic nature, but to gain its end this very instinct necessitates aggressive action. In the same way the love instinct, when directed to a specific object, calls for an admixture of the acquisitive instinct if it is to enter into effective possession of that object. It is the difficulty of isolating the two kinds of instinct in their manifestations that has so long prevented us from recognizing them.
[26]
If you will travel with me a little further on this road, you will find that human affairs are complicated in yet another way. Only exceptionally does an action follow on the stimulus of a single instinct, which is per se a blend of Eros and destructiveness. As a rule several motives of similar composition concur to bring about the act. This fact was duly noted by a colleague of yours, Professor G. C. Lichtenberg, sometime Professor of Physics at Gottingen; he was perhaps even more eminent as a psychologist than as a physical scientist. He evolved the notion of a "Compass-card of Motives" and wrote: "The efficient motives impelling man to act can be classified like the thirty-two winds and described in the same manner; e.g., Food-Food-Fame or Fame-Fame-Food." Thus, when a nation is summoned to engage in war, a whole gamut of human motives may respond to this appeal--high and low motives, some openly avowed, others slurred over. The lust for aggression and destruction is certainly included; the innumerable cruelties of history and man's daily life confirm its prevalence and strength. The stimulation of these destructive impulses by appeals to idealism and the erotic instinct naturally facilitate their release. Musing on the atrocities recorded on history's page, we feel that the ideal motive has often served as a camouflage for the dust of destruction; sometimes, as with the cruelties of the Inquisition, it seems that, while the ideal motives occupied the foreground of consciousness, they drew their strength from the destructive instincts submerged in the unconscious. Both interpretations are feasible.
[26]
You are interested, I know, in the prevention of war, not in our theories, and I keep this fact in mind. Yet I would like to dwell a little longer on this destructive instinct which is seldom given the attention that its importance warrants. With the least of speculative efforts we are led to conclude that this instinct functions in every living being, striving to work its ruin and reduce life to its primal state of inert matter. Indeed, it might well be called the "death instinct"; whereas the erotic instincts vouch for the struggle to live on. The death instinct becomes an impulse to destruction when, with the aid of certain organs, it directs its action outward, against external objects. The living being, that is to say, defends its own existence by destroying foreign bodies. But, in one of its activities, the death instinct is operative within the living being and we have sought to trace back a number of normal and pathological phenomena to this introversion of the destructive instinct. We have even committed the heresy of explaining the origin of human conscience by some such "turning inward" of the aggressive impulse. Obviously when this internal tendency operates on too large a scale, it is no trivial matter; rather, a positively morbid state of things; whereas the diversion of the destructive impulse toward the external world must have beneficial effects. Here is then the biological justification for all those vile, pernicious propensities which we are now combating. We can but own that they are really more akin to nature than this ourstand against them, which, in fact, remains to be accounted for.
[27]
All this may give you the impression that our theories amount to species of mythology and a gloomy one at that! But does not every natural science lead ultimately to this--a sort of mythology? Is it otherwise today with your physical sciences?
[28]
The upshot of these observations, as bearing on the subject in hand, is that there is no likelihood of our being able to suppress humanity's aggressive tendencies. In some happy corners of the earth, they say, where nature brings forth abundantly whatever man desires, there flourish races whose lives go gently by; unknowing of aggression or constraint. This I can hardly credit; I would like further details about these happy folk. The Bolshevists, too, aspire to do away with human aggressiveness by insuring the satisfaction of material needs and enforcing equality between man and man. To me this hope seems vain. Meanwhile they busily perfect their armaments, and their hatred of outsiders is not the least of the factors of cohesion among themselves. In any case, as you too have observed, complete suppression of man's aggressive tendencies is not in issue; what we may try is to divert it into a channel other than that of warfare.
[29]
From our "mythology" of the instincts we may easily deduce a formula for an indirect method of eliminating war. If the propensity for war be due to the destructive instinct, we have always its counter-agent, Eros, to our hand. All that produces ties of sentiment between man and man must serve us as war's antidote. These ties are of two kinds. First, such relations as those toward a beloved object, void though they be of sexual intent. The psychoanalyst need feel no compunction in mentioning "love" in this connection; religion uses the same language: Love thy neighbor as thyself. A pious injunction, easy to enounce, but hard to carry out! The other bond of sentiment is by way of identification. All that brings out the significant resemblances between men calls into play this feeling of community, identification, whereon is founded, in large measure, the whole edifice of human society.
[30]
In your strictures on the abuse of authority I find another suggestion for an indirect attack on the war impulse. That men are divided into the leaders and the led is but another manifestation of their inborn and irremediable inequality. The second class constitutes the vast majority; they need a high command to make decisions for them, to which decisions they usually bow without demur. In this context we would point out that men should be at greater pains than heretofore to form a superior class of independent thinkers, unamenable to intimidation and fervent in the quest of truth, whose function it would be to guide the masses dependent on their lead. There is no need to point out how little the rule of politicians and the Church's ban on liberty of thought encourage such a new creation. The ideal conditions would obviously be found in a community where every man subordinated his instinctive life to the dictates of reason. Nothing less than this could bring about so thorough and so durable a union between men, even if this involved the severance of mutual ties of sentiment. But surely such a hope is utterly utopian, as things are. The other indirect methods of preventing war are certainly more feasible, but entail no quick results. They conjure up an ugly picture of mills that grind so slowly that, before the flour is ready, men are dead of hunger.
[31]
As you see, little good comes of consulting a theoretician, aloof from worldly contact, on practical and urgent problems! Better it were to tackle each successive crisis with means that we have ready to our hands. However, I would like to deal with a question which, though it is not mooted in your letter, interests me greatly. Why do we, you and I and many another, protest so vehemently against war, instead of just accepting it as another of life's odious importunities? For it seems a natural thing enough, biologically sound and practically unavoidable. I trust you will not be shocked by my raising such a question. For the better conduct of an inquiry it may be well to don a mask of feigned aloofness. The answer to my query may run as follows: Because every man has a right over his own life and war destroys lives that were full of promise; it forces the individual into situations that shame his manhood, obliging him to murder fellow men, against his will; it ravages material amenities, the fruits of human toil, and much besides. Moreover, wars, as now conducted, afford no scope for acts of heroism according to the old ideals and, given the high perfection of modern arms, war today would mean the sheer extermination of one of the combatants, if not of both. This is so true, so obvious, that we can but wonder why the conduct of war is not banned by general consent. Doubtless either of the points I have just made is open to debate. It may be asked if the community, in its turn, cannot claim a right over the individual lives of its members. Moreover, all forms of war cannot be indiscriminately condemned; so long as there are nations and empires, each prepared callously to exterminate its rival, all alike must be equipped for war. But we will not dwell on any of these problems; they lie outside the debate to which you have invited me. I pass on to another point, the basis, as it strikes me, of our common hatred of war. It is this: We cannot do otherwise than hate it. Pacifists we are, since our organic nature wills us thus to be. Hence it comes easy to us to find arguments that justify our standpoint.
[32]
This point, however, calls for elucidation. Here is the way in which Isee it. The cultural development of mankind (some, I know, prefer to call itcivilization) has been in progress since immemorial antiquity. To this processus we owe all that is best in our composition, but also much that makes for human suffering. Its origins and causes are obscure, its issue is uncertain, but some of its characteristics are easy to perceive. It well may lead to the extinction of mankind, for it impairs the sexual function in more than one respect, and even today the uncivilized races and the backward classes of all nations are multiplying more rapidly than the cultured elements. This process may, perhaps, be likened to the effects of domestication on certain animals--it clearly involves physical changes of structure--but the view that cultural development is an organic process of this order has not yet become generally familiar. The psychic changes which accompany this process of cultural change are striking, and not to be gainsaid. They consist in the progressive rejection of instinctive ends and a scaling down of instinctive reactions. Sensations which delighted our forefathers have become neutral or unbearable to us; and, if our ethical and aesthetic ideals have undergone a change, the causes of this are ultimately organic. On the psychological side two of the most important phenomena of culture are, firstly, a strengthening of the intellect, which tends to master our instinctive life, and, secondly, an introversion of the aggressive impulse, with all its consequent benefits and perils. Now war runs most emphatically counter to the psychic disposition imposed on us by the growth of culture; we are therefore bound to resent war, to find it utterly intolerable. With pacifists like us it is not merely an intellectual and affective repulsion, but a constitutional intolerance, an idiosyncrasy in its most drastic form. And it would seem that the aesthetic ignominies of warfare play almost as large a part in this repugnance as war's atrocities.
[33]
How long have we to wait before the rest of men turn pacifist? Impossible to say, and yet perhaps our hope that these two factors--man's cultural disposition and a well-founded dread of the form that future wars will take--may serve to put an end to war in the near future, is not chimerical. But by what ways or byways this will come about, we cannot guess. Meanwhile we may rest on the assurance that whatever makes for cultural development is working also against war.
[34]
With kindest regards and, should this expose prove a disappointment to you, my sincere regrets,
Yours,
SIGMUND FREUD
Einstein was apparently not disappointed when Freud's reply was received. He addressed the following letter to Freud on December 3, 1932:
[35]
You have made a most gratifying gift to the League of Nations and myself with your truly classic reply. When I wrote you I was thoroughly convinced of the insignificance of my role, which was only meant to document my good will, with me as the bait on the hoof; to tempt the marvelous fish into nibbling. You have given in return something altogether magnificent. We cannot know what may grow from such seed, as the effect upon man of any action or event is always incalculable. This is not within our power and we do not need to worry about it.
[36]
You have earned my gratitude and the gratitude of all men for having devoted all your strength to the search for truth and for having shown the rarest courage in professing your convictions all your life. . . . By the time the exchange between Einstein and Freud was published in 1933, under the title Why War?, Hitler, who was to drive both men into exile, was already in power, and the letters never achieved the wide circulation intended for them. Indeed, the first German edition of the pamphlet is reported to have been limited to only 2,000 copies, as was also the original English edition.
Besides the four major projects in 1932 that were just recorded, some of the messages, replies to inquiries, and similar statements which Einstein prepared during that same period give evidence of the increasing political tensions of those days. On April 20, 1932, he submitted to the Russian-language journal Nord-Ost, published in Riga, Latvia (then still an independentcountry), a contribution to a symposium on "Europe and the Coming War":
[37]
As long as all international conflicts are not subject to arbitration and the enforcement of decisions arrived at by arbitration is not guaranteed, and as long as war production is not prohibited we may be sure that war will follow upon war. Unless our civilization achieves the moral strength to overcome this evil, it is bound to share the fate of former civilizations: decline and decay.
To Arnold Kalisch, editor of the magazine Die Friedensfront, who asked him to sponsor a book against war by a Czechoslovakian physician, Einstein wrote on April 26, 1932:
[38]
No doubt you know how anxious I am to support anything that could effectively help combat the militaristic orientation of the public. But I have reservations . . . about this book. If war psychosis could be regarded as an illness like, say, paranoia, then any panic in a meeting would likewise have to be considered a sickness. It appears to be quite normal for people to raise little resistance to the emotional attitude of their fellow human beings. . . . In the case of war, to describe the psychosis that may then exist as an illness does not bring us one single step closer to solving the problem of wars. . . .
from Einstein on Peace ed. Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden (New York: Schocken Books, 1960), pp186-203
Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud on the question of war:
The Einstein-Freud Correspondence (1931-1932)
[1]
The letter which Einstein addressed to Freud, concerning the projected organization of intellectual leaders, was sent in 1931, or possibly 1932, and read as follows:
I greatly admire your passion to ascertain the truth--a passion that has come to dominate all else in your thinking. You have shown with irresistible lucidity how inseparably the aggressive and destructive instincts are bound up in the human psyche with those of love and the lust for life. At the same time, your convincing arguments make manifest your deep devotion to the great goal of the internal and external liberation of man from the evils of war. This was the profound hope of all those who have been revered as moral and spiritual leaders beyond the limits of their own time and country, from Jesus to Goethe and Kant. Is it not significant that such men have been universally recognized as leaders, even though their desire to affect the course of human affairs was quite ineffective?
[2]
I am convinced that almost all great men who, because of their accomplishments, are recognized as leaders even of small groups share the same ideals. But they have little influence on the course of political events. It would almost appear that the very domain of human activity most crucial to the fate of nations is inescapably in the hands of wholly irresponsible political rulers.
[3]
Political leaders or governments owe their power either to the use of force or to their election by the masses. They cannot be regarded as representative of the superior moral or intellectual elements in a nation. In our time, the intellectual elite does not exercise any direct influence on the history of the world; the very fact of its division into many factions makes it impossible for its members to co-operate in the solution of today's problems. Do you not share the feeling that a change could be brought about by a free association of men whose previous work and achievements offer a guarantee of their ability and integrity? Such a group of international scope, whose members would have to keep contact with each other through constant interchange of opinions, might gain a significant and wholesome moral influence on the solution of political problems if its own attitudes, backed by the signatures of its concurring members, were made public through the press. Such an association would, of course, suffer from all the defects that have so often led to degeneration in learned societies; the danger that such a degeneration may develop is, unfortunately, ever present in view of the imperfections of human nature. However, and despite those dangers, should we not make at least an attempt to form such an association in spite of all dangers? It seems to me nothing less than an imperative duty!
[4]
Once such an association of intellectuals--men of real stature--has come into being, it might then make an energetic effort to en-list religious groups in the fight against war. The association would give moral power for action to many personalities whose good intentions are today paralyzed by an attitude of painful resignation. I also believe that such an association of men, who are highly respected for their personal accomplishments, would provide important moral support to those elements in the League of Nations who actively support the great objective for which that institution was created.
[5]
I offer these suggestions to you, rather than to anyone else in the world, because your sense of reality is less clouded by wishful thinking than is the case with other people and since you combine the qualities of critical judgment, earnestness and responsibility.
The high point in the relationship between Einstein and Freud came in the summer of 1932 when, under the auspices of the International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation, Einstein initiated a public debate with Freud about the causes and cure of wars. Einstein's official letter is dated July 30, 1932; it was accompanied by the following private note of the same date:
[6]
I should like to use this opportunity to send you warm personal regards and to thank you for many a pleasant hour which I had in reading your works. It is always amusing for me to observe that even those who do not believe in your theories find it so difficult to resist your ideas that they use your terminology in their thoughts and speech when they are off guard.
This is Einstein's open letter to Freud, which, strangely enough, has never become widely known:
[7]
Dear Mr. Freud:
The proposal of the League of Nations and its International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation at Paris that I should invite a person, to be chosen by myself, to a frank exchange of views on any problem that I might select affords me a very welcome opportunity of conferring with you upon a question which, as things now are, seems the most insistent of all the problems civilization has to face. This is the problem: Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war? It is common knowledge that, with the advance of modern science, this issue has come to mean a matter of life and death for Civilization as we know it; nevertheless, for all the zeal displayed, every attempt at its solution has ended in a lamentable breakdown.
[8]
I believe, moreover, that those whose duty it is to tackle the problem professionally and practically are growing only too aware of their impotence to deal with it, and have now a very lively desire to learn the views of men who, absorbed in the pursuit of science, can see world problems in the perspective distance lends. As for me, the normal objective of my thought affords no insight into the dark places of human will and feeling. Thus, in the inquiry now proposed, I can do little more than to seek to clarify the question at issue and, clearing the ground of the more obvious solutions, enable you to bring the light of your far-reaching knowledge of man's instinctive life to bear upon the problem. There are certain psychological obstacles whose existence a layman in the mental sciences may dimly surmise, but whose interrelations and vagaries he is incompetent to fathom; you, I am convinced, will be able to suggest educative methods, lying more or less outside the scope of politics, which will eliminate these obstacles.
[9]
As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations. Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, to accept its judgments unreservedly and to carry out every measure the tribunal deems necessary for the execution of its decrees. But here, at the outset, I come up against a difficulty; a tribunal is a human institution which, in proportion as the power at its disposal is inadequate to enforce its verdicts, is all the more prone to suffer these to be deflected by extrajudicial pressure. This is a fact with which we have to reckon; law and might inevitably go hand in hand, and juridical decisions approach more nearly the ideal justice demanded by the community (in whose name and interests these verdicts are pronounced) insofar as the community has effective power to compel respect of its juridical ideal. But at present we are far from possessing any supranational organization competent to render verdicts of incontestable authority and enforce absolute submission to the execution of its verdicts. Thus I am led to my first axiom: The quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action--its sovereignty that is to say--and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such security.
[10]
The ill success, despite their obvious sincerity, of all the efforts made during the last decade to reach this goal leaves us no room to doubt that strong psychological factors are at work which paralyze these efforts. Some of these factors are not far to seek. The craving for power which characterizes the governing class in every nation is hostile to any limitation of the national sovereignty. This political power hunger is often supported by the activities of another group, whose aspirations are on purely mercenary, economic lines. I have especially in mind that small but determined group, active in every nation, composed of individuals who, indifferent to social considerations and restraints, regard warfare, the manufacture and sale of arms, simply as an occasion to advance their personal interests and enlarge their personal authority.
[11]
But recognition of this obvious fact is merely the first step toward an appreciation of the actual state of affairs. Another question follows hard upon it: How is it possible for this small clique to bend the will of the majority, who stand to lose and suffer by a state of war, to the service of their ambitions. (*) An obvious answer to this question would seem to be that the minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and makes its tool of them.
[12]
Yet even this answer does not provide a complete solution. Another question arises from it: How is it that these devices succeed so well in rousing men to such wild enthusiasm, even to sacrifice their lives? Only one answer is possible. Because man has within him a lust for hatred and destruction. In normal times this passion exists in a latent state, it emerges only in unusual circumstances; but it is a comparatively easy task to call it into play and raise it to the power of a collective psychosis. Here lies, perhaps, the crux of all the complex factors we are considering, an enigma that only the expert in the lore of human instincts can resolve.
[13]
And so we come to our last question. Is it possible to control man's mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychosis of hate and destructiveness? Here I am thinking by no means only of the so-called uncultured masses. Experience proves that it is rather the so-called "intelligentsia" that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions, since the intellectual has no direct contact with life in the raw but encounters it in its easiest, synthetic form--upon the printed page.
[14]
To conclude: I have so far been speaking only of wars between nations; what are known as international conflicts. But I am well aware that the aggressive instinct operates under other forms and in other circumstances. (I am thinking of civil wars, for instance, due in earlier days to religious zeal, but nowadays to social factors; or, again, the persecution of racial minorities.) But my insistence on what is the most typical, most cruel and extravagant form of conflict between man and man was deliberate, for here we have the best occasion of discovering ways and means to render all armed conflicts impossible.
[15]
I know that in your writings we may find answers, explicit or implied, to all the issues of this urgent and absorbing problem. But it would be of the greatest service to us all were you to present the problem of world peace in the light of your most recent discoveries, for such a presentation well might blaze the trail for new and fruitful modes of action.
Yours very sincerely,
A. Einstein
Leon Steinig, a League of Nations official who did much to inspire this correspondence, wrote Einstein on September 12, 1932:
[16]
. . . When I visited Professor Freud in Vienna, he asked me to thank you for your kind words and to tell you that he would do his best to explore the thorny problem of preventing war. He will have his answer ready by early October and he rather thinks that what he has to say will not be very encouraging. "All my life I have had to tell people truths that were difficult to swallow. Now that I am old, I certainly do not want to fool them." He was even doubtful whether [Henri] Bonnet [Director of the Institute of Intellectual Co-operation in Paris] would want to publish his pessimistic reply. . . .
Einstein replied to Steinig four days later saying that even if Freud's reply would be neither cheerful nor optimistic, it would certainly be interesting and psychologically effective.
Freud's reply, dated Vienna, September 1932, has also never been given the attention it deserved:
[17]
Dear Mr. Einstein:
When I learned of your intention to invite me to a mutual exchange of views upon a subject which not only interested you personally but seemed deserving, too, of public interest, I cordially assented. I expected you to choose a problem lying on the borderland of the knowable, as it stands today, a theme which each of us, physicist and psychologist, might approach from his own angle, to meet at last on common ground, though setting out from different premises. Thus the question which you put me--what is to be done to rid mankind of the war menace?--took me by surprise. And, next, I was dumbfounded by the thought of my (of our, I almost wrote) incompetence; for this struck me as being a matter of practical politics, the statesman's proper study. But then I realized that you did not raise the question in your capacity of scientist or physicist, but as a lover of his fellow men, who responded to the call of the League of Nations much as Fridtjof Nansen, the polar explorer, took on himself the task of succoring homeless and starving victims of the World War. And, next, I reminded myself that I was not being called on to formulate practical proposals but, rather, to explain how this question of preventing wars strikes a psychologist.
[18]
But here, too, you have stated the gist of the matter in your letter--and taken the wind out of my sails! Still, I will gladly follow in your wake and content myself with endorsing your conclusions, which, however, I propose to amplify to the best of my knowledge or surmise.
[19]
You begin with the relations between might and right, and this is assuredly the proper starting point for our inquiry. But, for the term might, I would substitute a tougher and more telling word: violence. In right and violence we have today an obvious antinomy. It is easy to prove that one has evolved from the other and, when we go back to origins and examine primitive conditions, the solution of the problem follows easily enough. I must crave your indulgence if in what follows I speak of well-known, admitted facts as though they were new data;the context necessitates this method.
[20]
Conflicts of interest between man and man are resolved, in principle, by the recourse to violence. It is the same in the animal kingdom, from which man cannot claim exclusion; nevertheless, men are also prone to conflicts of opinion, touching, on occasion, the loftiest peaks of abstract thought, which seem to call for settlement by quite another method. This refinement is, however, a late development. To start with, group force was the factor which, in small communities, decided points of ownership and the question which man's will was to prevail. Very soon physical force was implemented, then replaced, by the use of various adjuncts; he proved the victor whose weapon was the better, or handled the more skillfully. Now, for the first time, with the coming of weapons, superior brains began to oust brute force, but the object of the conflict remained the same: one party was to be constrained, by the injury done him or impairment of his strength, to retract a claim or a refusal. This end is most effectively gained when the opponent is definitely put out of action--in other words, is killed. This procedure has two advantages: the enemy cannot renew hostilities, and, secondly, his fate deters others from following his example. Moreover, the slaughter of a foe gratifies an instinctive craving--a point to which we shall revert hereafter. However, another consideration may be set off against this will to kill: the possibility of using an enemy for servile tasks if< his spirit be broken and his life spared. Here violence finds an outlet not in slaughter but in subjugation. Hence springs the practice of giving quarter; but the victor, having from now on to reckon with the craving for revenge that rankles in his victim, forfeits to some extent his personal security.
[21]
Thus, under primitive conditions, it is superior force--brute violence, or violence backed by arms-- that lords it everywhere. We know that in the course of evolution this state of things was modified, a path was traced that led away from violence to law. But what was this path? Surely it issued from a single verity: that the superiority of one strong man can be overborne by an alliance of many weaklings, that l'union fait la force. Brute force is overcome by union; the allied might of scattered units makes good its right against the isolated giant. Thus we may define "right" (i.e., law) as the might of a community. Yet it, too, is nothing else than violence, quick to attack whatever individual stands in its path, and it employs the selfsame methods, follows like ends, with but one difference: it is the communal, not individual, violence that has its way. But, for the transition from crude violence to the reign of law, a certain psychological condition must first obtain. The union of the majority must be stable and enduring. If its sole raison d'etre be the discomfiture of some overweening individual and, after his downfall, it be dissolved, it leads to nothing. Some other man, trusting to his superior power, will seek to reinstate the rule of violence, and the cycle will repeat itself unendingly. Thus the union of the people must be permanent and well organized; it must enact rules to meet the risk of possible revolts; must set up machinery insuring that its rules--the laws--are observed and that such acts of violence as the laws demand are duly carried out. This recognition of a community of interests engenders among the members of the group a sentiment of unity and fraternal solidarity which constitutes its real strength.
[22]
So far I have set out what seems to me the kernel of the matter: the suppression of brute force by the transfer of power to a larger combination, founded on the community of sentiments linking up its members. All the rest is mere tautology and glosses. Now the position is simple enough so long as the community consists of a number of equipollent individuals. The laws of such a group can determine to what extent the individual must forfeit his personal freedom, the right of using personal force as an instrument of violence, to insure the safety of the group. But such a combination is only theoretically possible; in practice the situation is always complicated by the fact that, from the outset, the group includes elements of unequal power, men and women, elders and children, and, very soon, as a result of war and conquest, victors and the vanquished--i.e., masters and slaves--as well. From this time on the common law takes notice of these inequalities of power, laws are made by and for the rulers, giving the servile classes fewer rights. Thenceforward there exist within the state two factors making for legal instability, but legislative evolution, too: first, the attempts by members of the ruling class to set themselves above the law's restrictions and, secondly, the constant struggle of the ruled to extend their rights and see each gain embodied in the code, replacing legal disabilities by equal laws for all. The second of these tendencies will be particularly marked when there takes place a positive mutation of the balance of power within the community, the frequent outcome of certain historical conditions. In such cases the laws may gradually be adjusted to the changed conditions or (as more usually ensues) the ruling class is loath to rush in with the new developments, the result being insurrections and civil wars, a period when law is in abeyance and force once more the arbiter, followed by a new regime of law. There is another factor of constitutional change, which operates in a wholly pacific manner, viz.: the cultural evolution of the mass of the community; this factor, however, is of a different order and an only be dealt with later.
[23]
Thus we see that, even within the group itself, the exercise of violence cannot be avoided when conflicting interests are at stake. But the common needs and habits of men who live in fellowship under the same sky favor a speedy issue of such conflicts and, this being so, the possibilities of peaceful solutions make steady progress. Yet the most casual glance at world history will show an unending series of conflicts between one community and another or a group of others, between large and smaller units, between cities, countries, races, tribes and kingdoms, almost all of which were settled by the ordeal of war. Such war ends either in pillage or in conquest and its fruits, the downfall of the loser. No single all-embracing judgment can be passed on these wars of aggrandizement. Some, like the war between the Mongols and the Turks, have led to unmitigated misery; others, however, have furthered the transition from violence to law, since they brought larger units into being, within whose limits a recourse to violence was banned and a new regime determined all disputes. Thus the Roman conquest brought that boon, the pax Romana, to the Mediterranean lands. The French kings' lust for aggrandizement created a new France, flourishing in peace and unity. Paradoxical as its sounds, we must admit that warfare well might serve to pave the way to that unbroken peace we so desire, for it is war that brings vast empires into being, within whose frontiers all warfare is proscribed by a strong central power. In practice, however, this end is not attained, for as a rule the fruits of victory are but short-lived, the new-created unit falls asunder once again, generally because there can be no true cohesion between the parts that violence has welded. Hitherto, moreover, such conquests have only led to aggregations which, for all their magnitude, had limits, and disputes between these units could be resolved only by recourse to arms. For humanity at large the sole result of all these military enterprises was that, instead of frequent, not to say incessant, little wars, they had now to face great wars which, for all they came less often, were so much the more destructive.
[24]
Regarding the world of today the same conclusion holds good, and you, too, have reached it, though by a shorter path. There is but one sure way of ending war and that is the establishment, by common consent, of a central control which shall have the last word in every conflict of interests. For this, two things are needed: first, the creation of such a supreme court of judicature; secondly, its investment with adequate executive force. Unless this second requirement be fulfilled, the first is unavailing. Obviously the League of Nations, acting as a Supreme Court, fulfills the first condition; it does not fulfill the second. It has no force at its disposal and can only get it if the members of the new body, its constituent nations, furnish it. And, as things are, this is a forlorn hope. Still we should be taking a very shortsighted view of the League of Nations were we to ignore the fact that here is an experiment the like of which has rarely--never before, perhaps, on such a scale--been attempted in the course of history. It is an attempt to acquire the authority (in other words, coercive influence), which hitherto reposed exclusively in the possession of power, by calling into play certain idealistic attitudes of mind. We have seen that there are two factors of cohesion in a community: violent compulsion and ties of sentiment ("identifications," in technical parlance) between the members of the group. If one of these factors becomes inoperative, the other may still suffice to hold the group together. Obviously such notions as these can only be significant when they are the expression of a deeply rooted sense of unity, shared by all. It is necessary, therefore, to gauge the efficacy of such sentiments. History tells us that, on occasion, they have been effective. For example, the Panhellenic conception, the Greeks' awareness of superiority over their barbarian neighbors, which found expression in the Amphictyonies, the Oracles and Games, was strong enough to humanize the methods of warfare as between Greeks, though inevitably it failed to prevent conflicts between different elements of the Hellenic race or even to deter a city or group of cities from joining forces with their racial foe, the Persians, for the discomfiture of a rival. The solidarity of Christendom in the Renaissance age was no more effective, despite its vast authority, in hindering Christian nations, large and small alike, from calling in the Sultan to their aid. And, in our times, we look in vain for some such unifying notion whose authority would be unquestioned. It is all too clear that the nationalistic ideas, paramount today in every country, operate in quite a contrary direction. Some there are who hold that the Bolshevist conceptions may make an end of war, but, as things are, that goal lies very far away and, perhaps, could only be attained after a spell of brutal internecine warfare. Thus it would seem that any effort to replace brute force by the might of an ideal is, under present conditions, doomed to fail. Our logic is at fault if we ignore the fact that right is founded on brute force and even today needs violence to maintain it.
[25]
I now can comment on another of your statements. You are amazed that it is so easy to infect men with the war fever, and you surmise that man has in him an active instinct for hatred and destruction, amenable to such stimulations. I entirely agree with you. I believe in the existence of this instinct and have been recently at pains to study its manifestations. In this connection may I set out a fragment of that knowledge of the instincts, which we psychoanalysts, after so many tentative essays and gropings in the dark, have compassed? We assume that human instincts are of two kinds: those that conserve and unify, which we call "erotic" (in the meaning Plato gives to Eros in his Symposium), or else "sexual" (explicitly extending the popular connotation of "sex"); and, secondly, the instincts to destroy and kill, which we assimilate as the aggressive or destructive instincts. These are, as you perceive, the well known opposites, Love and Hate, transformed into theoretical entities; they are, perhaps, another aspect of those eternal polarities, attraction and repulsion, which fall within your province. But we must be chary of passing over hastily to the notions of good and evil. Each of these instincts is every whit as indispensable as its opposite, and all the phenomena of life derive from their activity, whether they work in concert or in opposition. It seems that an instinct of either category can operate but rarely in isolation; it is always blended ("alloyed," as we say) with a certain dosage of its opposite, which modifies its aim or even, in certain circumstances, is a prime condition of its attainment. Thus the instinct of self-preservation is certainly of an erotic nature, but to gain its end this very instinct necessitates aggressive action. In the same way the love instinct, when directed to a specific object, calls for an admixture of the acquisitive instinct if it is to enter into effective possession of that object. It is the difficulty of isolating the two kinds of instinct in their manifestations that has so long prevented us from recognizing them.
[26]
If you will travel with me a little further on this road, you will find that human affairs are complicated in yet another way. Only exceptionally does an action follow on the stimulus of a single instinct, which is per se a blend of Eros and destructiveness. As a rule several motives of similar composition concur to bring about the act. This fact was duly noted by a colleague of yours, Professor G. C. Lichtenberg, sometime Professor of Physics at Gottingen; he was perhaps even more eminent as a psychologist than as a physical scientist. He evolved the notion of a "Compass-card of Motives" and wrote: "The efficient motives impelling man to act can be classified like the thirty-two winds and described in the same manner; e.g., Food-Food-Fame or Fame-Fame-Food." Thus, when a nation is summoned to engage in war, a whole gamut of human motives may respond to this appeal--high and low motives, some openly avowed, others slurred over. The lust for aggression and destruction is certainly included; the innumerable cruelties of history and man's daily life confirm its prevalence and strength. The stimulation of these destructive impulses by appeals to idealism and the erotic instinct naturally facilitate their release. Musing on the atrocities recorded on history's page, we feel that the ideal motive has often served as a camouflage for the dust of destruction; sometimes, as with the cruelties of the Inquisition, it seems that, while the ideal motives occupied the foreground of consciousness, they drew their strength from the destructive instincts submerged in the unconscious. Both interpretations are feasible.
[26]
You are interested, I know, in the prevention of war, not in our theories, and I keep this fact in mind. Yet I would like to dwell a little longer on this destructive instinct which is seldom given the attention that its importance warrants. With the least of speculative efforts we are led to conclude that this instinct functions in every living being, striving to work its ruin and reduce life to its primal state of inert matter. Indeed, it might well be called the "death instinct"; whereas the erotic instincts vouch for the struggle to live on. The death instinct becomes an impulse to destruction when, with the aid of certain organs, it directs its action outward, against external objects. The living being, that is to say, defends its own existence by destroying foreign bodies. But, in one of its activities, the death instinct is operative within the living being and we have sought to trace back a number of normal and pathological phenomena to this introversion of the destructive instinct. We have even committed the heresy of explaining the origin of human conscience by some such "turning inward" of the aggressive impulse. Obviously when this internal tendency operates on too large a scale, it is no trivial matter; rather, a positively morbid state of things; whereas the diversion of the destructive impulse toward the external world must have beneficial effects. Here is then the biological justification for all those vile, pernicious propensities which we are now combating. We can but own that they are really more akin to nature than this ourstand against them, which, in fact, remains to be accounted for.
[27]
All this may give you the impression that our theories amount to species of mythology and a gloomy one at that! But does not every natural science lead ultimately to this--a sort of mythology? Is it otherwise today with your physical sciences?
[28]
The upshot of these observations, as bearing on the subject in hand, is that there is no likelihood of our being able to suppress humanity's aggressive tendencies. In some happy corners of the earth, they say, where nature brings forth abundantly whatever man desires, there flourish races whose lives go gently by; unknowing of aggression or constraint. This I can hardly credit; I would like further details about these happy folk. The Bolshevists, too, aspire to do away with human aggressiveness by insuring the satisfaction of material needs and enforcing equality between man and man. To me this hope seems vain. Meanwhile they busily perfect their armaments, and their hatred of outsiders is not the least of the factors of cohesion among themselves. In any case, as you too have observed, complete suppression of man's aggressive tendencies is not in issue; what we may try is to divert it into a channel other than that of warfare.
[29]
From our "mythology" of the instincts we may easily deduce a formula for an indirect method of eliminating war. If the propensity for war be due to the destructive instinct, we have always its counter-agent, Eros, to our hand. All that produces ties of sentiment between man and man must serve us as war's antidote. These ties are of two kinds. First, such relations as those toward a beloved object, void though they be of sexual intent. The psychoanalyst need feel no compunction in mentioning "love" in this connection; religion uses the same language: Love thy neighbor as thyself. A pious injunction, easy to enounce, but hard to carry out! The other bond of sentiment is by way of identification. All that brings out the significant resemblances between men calls into play this feeling of community, identification, whereon is founded, in large measure, the whole edifice of human society.
[30]
In your strictures on the abuse of authority I find another suggestion for an indirect attack on the war impulse. That men are divided into the leaders and the led is but another manifestation of their inborn and irremediable inequality. The second class constitutes the vast majority; they need a high command to make decisions for them, to which decisions they usually bow without demur. In this context we would point out that men should be at greater pains than heretofore to form a superior class of independent thinkers, unamenable to intimidation and fervent in the quest of truth, whose function it would be to guide the masses dependent on their lead. There is no need to point out how little the rule of politicians and the Church's ban on liberty of thought encourage such a new creation. The ideal conditions would obviously be found in a community where every man subordinated his instinctive life to the dictates of reason. Nothing less than this could bring about so thorough and so durable a union between men, even if this involved the severance of mutual ties of sentiment. But surely such a hope is utterly utopian, as things are. The other indirect methods of preventing war are certainly more feasible, but entail no quick results. They conjure up an ugly picture of mills that grind so slowly that, before the flour is ready, men are dead of hunger.
[31]
As you see, little good comes of consulting a theoretician, aloof from worldly contact, on practical and urgent problems! Better it were to tackle each successive crisis with means that we have ready to our hands. However, I would like to deal with a question which, though it is not mooted in your letter, interests me greatly. Why do we, you and I and many another, protest so vehemently against war, instead of just accepting it as another of life's odious importunities? For it seems a natural thing enough, biologically sound and practically unavoidable. I trust you will not be shocked by my raising such a question. For the better conduct of an inquiry it may be well to don a mask of feigned aloofness. The answer to my query may run as follows: Because every man has a right over his own life and war destroys lives that were full of promise; it forces the individual into situations that shame his manhood, obliging him to murder fellow men, against his will; it ravages material amenities, the fruits of human toil, and much besides. Moreover, wars, as now conducted, afford no scope for acts of heroism according to the old ideals and, given the high perfection of modern arms, war today would mean the sheer extermination of one of the combatants, if not of both. This is so true, so obvious, that we can but wonder why the conduct of war is not banned by general consent. Doubtless either of the points I have just made is open to debate. It may be asked if the community, in its turn, cannot claim a right over the individual lives of its members. Moreover, all forms of war cannot be indiscriminately condemned; so long as there are nations and empires, each prepared callously to exterminate its rival, all alike must be equipped for war. But we will not dwell on any of these problems; they lie outside the debate to which you have invited me. I pass on to another point, the basis, as it strikes me, of our common hatred of war. It is this: We cannot do otherwise than hate it. Pacifists we are, since our organic nature wills us thus to be. Hence it comes easy to us to find arguments that justify our standpoint.
[32]
This point, however, calls for elucidation. Here is the way in which Isee it. The cultural development of mankind (some, I know, prefer to call itcivilization) has been in progress since immemorial antiquity. To this processus we owe all that is best in our composition, but also much that makes for human suffering. Its origins and causes are obscure, its issue is uncertain, but some of its characteristics are easy to perceive. It well may lead to the extinction of mankind, for it impairs the sexual function in more than one respect, and even today the uncivilized races and the backward classes of all nations are multiplying more rapidly than the cultured elements. This process may, perhaps, be likened to the effects of domestication on certain animals--it clearly involves physical changes of structure--but the view that cultural development is an organic process of this order has not yet become generally familiar. The psychic changes which accompany this process of cultural change are striking, and not to be gainsaid. They consist in the progressive rejection of instinctive ends and a scaling down of instinctive reactions. Sensations which delighted our forefathers have become neutral or unbearable to us; and, if our ethical and aesthetic ideals have undergone a change, the causes of this are ultimately organic. On the psychological side two of the most important phenomena of culture are, firstly, a strengthening of the intellect, which tends to master our instinctive life, and, secondly, an introversion of the aggressive impulse, with all its consequent benefits and perils. Now war runs most emphatically counter to the psychic disposition imposed on us by the growth of culture; we are therefore bound to resent war, to find it utterly intolerable. With pacifists like us it is not merely an intellectual and affective repulsion, but a constitutional intolerance, an idiosyncrasy in its most drastic form. And it would seem that the aesthetic ignominies of warfare play almost as large a part in this repugnance as war's atrocities.
[33]
How long have we to wait before the rest of men turn pacifist? Impossible to say, and yet perhaps our hope that these two factors--man's cultural disposition and a well-founded dread of the form that future wars will take--may serve to put an end to war in the near future, is not chimerical. But by what ways or byways this will come about, we cannot guess. Meanwhile we may rest on the assurance that whatever makes for cultural development is working also against war.
[34]
With kindest regards and, should this expose prove a disappointment to you, my sincere regrets,
Yours,
SIGMUND FREUD
Einstein was apparently not disappointed when Freud's reply was received. He addressed the following letter to Freud on December 3, 1932:
[35]
You have made a most gratifying gift to the League of Nations and myself with your truly classic reply. When I wrote you I was thoroughly convinced of the insignificance of my role, which was only meant to document my good will, with me as the bait on the hoof; to tempt the marvelous fish into nibbling. You have given in return something altogether magnificent. We cannot know what may grow from such seed, as the effect upon man of any action or event is always incalculable. This is not within our power and we do not need to worry about it.
[36]
You have earned my gratitude and the gratitude of all men for having devoted all your strength to the search for truth and for having shown the rarest courage in professing your convictions all your life. . . . By the time the exchange between Einstein and Freud was published in 1933, under the title Why War?, Hitler, who was to drive both men into exile, was already in power, and the letters never achieved the wide circulation intended for them. Indeed, the first German edition of the pamphlet is reported to have been limited to only 2,000 copies, as was also the original English edition.
Besides the four major projects in 1932 that were just recorded, some of the messages, replies to inquiries, and similar statements which Einstein prepared during that same period give evidence of the increasing political tensions of those days. On April 20, 1932, he submitted to the Russian-language journal Nord-Ost, published in Riga, Latvia (then still an independentcountry), a contribution to a symposium on "Europe and the Coming War":
[37]
As long as all international conflicts are not subject to arbitration and the enforcement of decisions arrived at by arbitration is not guaranteed, and as long as war production is not prohibited we may be sure that war will follow upon war. Unless our civilization achieves the moral strength to overcome this evil, it is bound to share the fate of former civilizations: decline and decay.
To Arnold Kalisch, editor of the magazine Die Friedensfront, who asked him to sponsor a book against war by a Czechoslovakian physician, Einstein wrote on April 26, 1932:
[38]
No doubt you know how anxious I am to support anything that could effectively help combat the militaristic orientation of the public. But I have reservations . . . about this book. If war psychosis could be regarded as an illness like, say, paranoia, then any panic in a meeting would likewise have to be considered a sickness. It appears to be quite normal for people to raise little resistance to the emotional attitude of their fellow human beings. . . . In the case of war, to describe the psychosis that may then exist as an illness does not bring us one single step closer to solving the problem of wars. . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
