Friday, March 25, 2011
Shall I go to a Japanese Restaurant?
Singapore has reported finding low levels of radioactivity in four vegetable samples imported from Japan.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Violence Against Libya
Following the horrific destruction of the World Trade Towers in New York City on September 11, 2001 that led to thousands of deaths, a war was authorized against the government and people of Afghanistan in retaliation for this attack. This war was begun with use of staggering air power against which the enemy had no possible defense. Of course, the claim was made that only the perpetrators of this act were being targeted. The First Gulf War began with a blistering and relentless attack from the air on the sovereignty of Iraq including its capital city of Baghdad. In the beginning of the Second Gulf War this assault was referred to “Shock and Awe” by the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, with a barely contained sense of pride and arrogance. During that conflict, President George W. Bush rationalized this violent incursion upon the premise of preventing the use of so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) by Saddam Hussein with the use of WMD of our own making.
Now we have an air assault on the country of Libya. President Obama authorized this attack ostensibly to curtail the assault led by Col. Muammar Gaddafi on those within his own country who seek his ouster. Here we go again around a very familiar wheel. Let us assume, for arguments sake, that the ostensible reasons for this warlike behavior are true. These sophisticated weapons are incredible devices, the products of an advanced technology, constructed for one purpose – destruction. Cruise missiles and bombs have no moral imperative, exhibit no remorse, and demonstrate no reluctance; they merely follow the laws of physics and carry out, meticulously, their programmed instructions. If they should collide with a bus filled with school children, or a school, or a train filled with passengers, or a wedding party, or a market place filled with shoppers and deliver their deadly munitions, so be it. Fighter pilots, likewise have been trained to follow their precise orders. Those who have shown any reluctance have, of course, been culled from the ranks. Should their ordinance go astray and incinerate innocent people, this is not construed as killing, but simply as regrettable mistakes. In military parlance, such outcomes are referred to as collateral damage.
The questions I pose are simple ones – why do we allow ourselves to accept this violence as appropriate; why is any collateral damage acceptable? Furthermore, why is the death of a soldier in the field, obeying his own commander’s instructions, from devices that he has no defense against and from an enemy he cannot see, acceptable? These horrendous acts are deemed acceptable; because the stated goal seems to conform to what we believe is right and moral. It is, in essence, a defense of morality using methods employing acts of deadly force. War has become permissible, for we have become a warlike people. We cherish and pay homage to our arsenal of weaponry; we spend a lion-share of our national resources on the military while our people suffer from neglect and from unnecessary hardships. Our history is replete with the use of violence to resolve conflict, to oppress an entire people within our own borders, to decimate the native population to propel our own material interests, to control the destinies of other nations by forceful means. It is what we have become.
This reality exists; because, we permit it. This is our history; because, we implicitly accept this definition of our country and, more importantly, ourselves. If the idea of violence as a viable method to resolve conflict is to be uprooted, we need to change the paradigm.
Now we have an air assault on the country of Libya. President Obama authorized this attack ostensibly to curtail the assault led by Col. Muammar Gaddafi on those within his own country who seek his ouster. Here we go again around a very familiar wheel. Let us assume, for arguments sake, that the ostensible reasons for this warlike behavior are true. These sophisticated weapons are incredible devices, the products of an advanced technology, constructed for one purpose – destruction. Cruise missiles and bombs have no moral imperative, exhibit no remorse, and demonstrate no reluctance; they merely follow the laws of physics and carry out, meticulously, their programmed instructions. If they should collide with a bus filled with school children, or a school, or a train filled with passengers, or a wedding party, or a market place filled with shoppers and deliver their deadly munitions, so be it. Fighter pilots, likewise have been trained to follow their precise orders. Those who have shown any reluctance have, of course, been culled from the ranks. Should their ordinance go astray and incinerate innocent people, this is not construed as killing, but simply as regrettable mistakes. In military parlance, such outcomes are referred to as collateral damage.
The questions I pose are simple ones – why do we allow ourselves to accept this violence as appropriate; why is any collateral damage acceptable? Furthermore, why is the death of a soldier in the field, obeying his own commander’s instructions, from devices that he has no defense against and from an enemy he cannot see, acceptable? These horrendous acts are deemed acceptable; because the stated goal seems to conform to what we believe is right and moral. It is, in essence, a defense of morality using methods employing acts of deadly force. War has become permissible, for we have become a warlike people. We cherish and pay homage to our arsenal of weaponry; we spend a lion-share of our national resources on the military while our people suffer from neglect and from unnecessary hardships. Our history is replete with the use of violence to resolve conflict, to oppress an entire people within our own borders, to decimate the native population to propel our own material interests, to control the destinies of other nations by forceful means. It is what we have become.
This reality exists; because, we permit it. This is our history; because, we implicitly accept this definition of our country and, more importantly, ourselves. If the idea of violence as a viable method to resolve conflict is to be uprooted, we need to change the paradigm.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Johan Galtung and the Study of Peace
Johan Galtung was born on October 24, 1930 in Oslo, Norway. He is a Norwegian mathematician and sociologist and a principal founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies. He earned his degree in Mathematics at the University of Oslo in 1956, and a Master of Arts Degree in Sociology a year later at the same university. In addition, Galtung received the first of seven honorary doctorates in 1975.
Both of his parents are from Norway and his father and paternal grandfather were physicians. His mother’s maiden name was Helga Homboe. Galtung has been married twice, and has two children by his first wife Ingrid Eide, and two by his second wife Fumiko Nishimura.
Galtung lived through the German occupation of Norway during World War II as a young and impressionable boy. When he was only twelve years old, he was present when the Nazi’s arrested his father. His direct experience with the horrors associated with war, convinced him to devote his professional energies to the cause of peace. As a matter of fact, in 1951 he chose to do 18 months of social service instead of the mandatory military service. After twelve months of such service, he insisted that the remainder of his obligation be spent working directly for peace. He was sent to prison, and spent the remaining six months in confinement.
Upon receiving his Master of Arts degree, Galtung moved to Columbia University, in New York City, where he was an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology. Determined to work for peace, he returned to Oslo in 1959 where he founded the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). Under his guidance as the Institute’s Director, it grew into an independent research institute and became eligible for government funding. In addition, the Journal of Peace Research was established as a result of his efforts.
Once the institute was well under way, he accepted a position as professor of peace and conflict research at the University of Oslo. He then served as the director general of the International University Centre in Dubrovnik, and also was the president of the World Future Studies Federation. He subsequently was invited to other universities located in such diverse places as Santiago, Chile, the United Nations University in Geneva, Columbia and Princeton universities in the United States and the University of Hawaii. In 1993, he co-founded "Transcend - A Peace, Development and Environment Network," an organization dedicated to resolve conflicts through peaceful means. This organization was created for the purpose of directly applying the principles he developed; some of which will be described below.
Galtung has persisted over the years in his pursuit of understanding the nature of human conflict and ways to peace. He learned to apply his academic knowledge in the fields of mathematics and sociology to this pursuit. He has become a renowned theoretician in regards to conflict resolution through peaceful means. He has attempted to deconstruct the origins of human conflict and conflict resolution in order to devise painstaking and orderly techniques to meet the challenges that methodologies focused on peace invariably face.
Galtung has applied logical analysis to formulate pathways to achieve peaceful non-violent solutions to conflict. He has developed a series of paradigms to describe the process. He compares the path to peace to the path taken in medicine to understand the disease process and regain health. He refers to this as a process involving three stages – diagnosis, prognosis and therapy. He likens disease to violence, and proposes that creating peace involves two possible approaches – reducing violence regarded as a cure and avoiding violence regarded as prevention. Within this model, violence can be regarded as:
• Direct Violence
• Structural Violence – indirect, emanating from social structures such racism or sexism
• Cultural Violence – represented by repression and exploitation.
The motivating force behind such violence is, of course, power. Power can take many forms – cultural, economic, military and political. Peace policies can, likewise, take different routes. These dimensions echo the kinds of power enumerated – political, military, economic and cultural. Galtung also makes distinctions between what he refers to as Negative Peace versus Positive Peace. For example, negative peace in the economic realm would involve self-reliance, the use of local resources, etc.; whereas, positive peace would involve sharing externalities, horizontal exchange and South-South cooperation. Positive peace would be more inclusive and extend beyond the borders of local communities or state and would be global in dimension.
According to this approach, in order to successfully develop paths to peace it is important to understand what sustains war and what prompts people to kill. It is evident from recent human history that the political system of a country does not prevent it from using violence towards other sovereignties. For example, democratic countries have not inhibited their governments from being involved in slavery, colonialism and other belligerent activities. According to Galtung, an answer might be to, “democratize the inter-state system.” This would also apply to the arena of human rights.
Galtung is convinced that many of the factors that uphold war encompass patriarchy – rule by the male gender. In his view, males have a propensity towards violence to a much greater degree than females. To counter this tendency is exceedingly difficult since it has strong cultural dimensions as well as biological factors. He suggests that, “The struggle against the tendency of states to seek recourse to military power goes by way of alternatives that are more compelling.”
As to the issue of why people kill, he maintains that culture is a potent legitimizer of violence, but also has the potential to support the concept of peace rather than war. Religions or ideologies can either be the purveyors of violence or peace. Galtung delineates what he refers to as, “hard and soft” aspects of ideologies. The hard variety would tend to be more abstract and aloof from human experience; it would tend to invoke the concept of a chosen people. According to Galtung, this idea is particularly dangerous and essentially inimical to peace. The softer variety is more cognizant of the plight of humanity and more closely connected to the tangible nature of human existence and, therefore, more empathic. The major religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – are not monolithic in this regard, but have mixtures of both. Galtung is strongly convinced that we are all carriers of peace strategies.
In his pursuit of the study of peace, Galtung has come up with two overlapping definitions of peace:
• Peace is the absence and/or reduction of violence of all kinds
• Peace is the by its nature nonviolent and the result of “creative conflict transformation.”
The first definition is oriented towards violence; whereas, the second is directed towards conflict. From this starting point, peace work is involved in reducing violence through peaceful means, and peace studies delineate the conditions required for peace work. In addition, these definitions relate to social conditions; the study of peace is, therefore, a social science. It is apparent that Galtung used his professional grounding in mathematics and sociology to construct his approach towards the study of peace.
According to his paradigm, the study of peace involves three tiers – Data, Theories, Values. Data is collected from what is known and what can be measured. It is this data that are used to formulate theory. Values determine what is desired and what is rejected. The inclusion of values sets peace studies apart from other social sciences, for peace always is the desired outcome.
In regards to the diagnosis, prognosis and therapy approach to wellness as described earlier, the goal of intervention is to achieve a range of possible outcomes that can be exemplified by the following:
• Best outcome – cured but also left with a health benefit and therefore can lead to a very favorable prognosis
• Second Best - symptom free but not necessarily protected from recurrence
• Third Best – chronic, long-lasting but acceptable illness
• Fourth Best – Unacceptable illness but alive.
There are obvious limitations in applying this approach to implementing peace, but according to Galtung it can be used as a reliable model in the study of peace in the following way:
• Diagnosis – refers to states of violence
• Prognosis – refers to the progression of violence through time i.e. increase, decrease or stays the same
• Therapy – equivalent to peace work.
Within this model, violence can be categorized in the following ways:
• Nature violence- originating in nature
• Direct violence – perpetrated by human beings either individually or within the broader context of society
• Structural violence – indirect violence built into social structures and essentially unintended
• Cultural violence – legitimizes structural violence
• Time violence – violence having negative impact of future generations.
In addition, therapy can take two distinct forms – violence reduction or negative peace and life enhancement or positive peace. Although this kind of study of peace may seem cumbersome and appear to be merely an academic exercise, it affords a reliable and predictable approach to the overall understanding of human conflict and its resolution through peaceful means.
Galtung used his approach to analyze the methodologies of Mahatma Gandhi who he described as, “the leading theoretician and practitioner of nonviolence. He also described him as a puritan in his approaches to conflict resolution. According to Gandhi, nonviolence is a struggle against both direct and structural violence and, by its nature, avoids such violence in the struggle itself. Gandhi relied on satyagraha – a term that can be defined as truth force – and, accordingly, there is no way to peace; rather, peace is the way.
Furthermore, Galtung determined that Gandhi’s process involves disintegration so that non-cooperation becomes essential; integration or all-inclusiveness so that there are no boundaries such as gender, race, class etc.; compromise for the purpose of affecting a remedy over a shorter period of time; transcendence so that what previously seemed incompatible becomes viewed as compatible. Gandhi was also an optimist who saw the potential of the ultimate integration of all of humankind into the fabric of peace.
In Galtung’s mind, the search for peace is a road to transcendence where the usual path of social disintegration – Conflict, Polarization and ultimately Violence and War – can be upended by preventive therapy. The goal would be to transform violent culture to peace culture and violent structure to peace structure. The peace narrative involves the transformation to peace through depolarization of attitudes, culture and ultimately behavior. Johan Galtung has taken a theoretical approach to achieving peace and social justice and has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the roots of conflict and pathways to viable peace and social justice.
Both of his parents are from Norway and his father and paternal grandfather were physicians. His mother’s maiden name was Helga Homboe. Galtung has been married twice, and has two children by his first wife Ingrid Eide, and two by his second wife Fumiko Nishimura.
Galtung lived through the German occupation of Norway during World War II as a young and impressionable boy. When he was only twelve years old, he was present when the Nazi’s arrested his father. His direct experience with the horrors associated with war, convinced him to devote his professional energies to the cause of peace. As a matter of fact, in 1951 he chose to do 18 months of social service instead of the mandatory military service. After twelve months of such service, he insisted that the remainder of his obligation be spent working directly for peace. He was sent to prison, and spent the remaining six months in confinement.
Upon receiving his Master of Arts degree, Galtung moved to Columbia University, in New York City, where he was an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology. Determined to work for peace, he returned to Oslo in 1959 where he founded the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). Under his guidance as the Institute’s Director, it grew into an independent research institute and became eligible for government funding. In addition, the Journal of Peace Research was established as a result of his efforts.
Once the institute was well under way, he accepted a position as professor of peace and conflict research at the University of Oslo. He then served as the director general of the International University Centre in Dubrovnik, and also was the president of the World Future Studies Federation. He subsequently was invited to other universities located in such diverse places as Santiago, Chile, the United Nations University in Geneva, Columbia and Princeton universities in the United States and the University of Hawaii. In 1993, he co-founded "Transcend - A Peace, Development and Environment Network," an organization dedicated to resolve conflicts through peaceful means. This organization was created for the purpose of directly applying the principles he developed; some of which will be described below.
Galtung has persisted over the years in his pursuit of understanding the nature of human conflict and ways to peace. He learned to apply his academic knowledge in the fields of mathematics and sociology to this pursuit. He has become a renowned theoretician in regards to conflict resolution through peaceful means. He has attempted to deconstruct the origins of human conflict and conflict resolution in order to devise painstaking and orderly techniques to meet the challenges that methodologies focused on peace invariably face.
Galtung has applied logical analysis to formulate pathways to achieve peaceful non-violent solutions to conflict. He has developed a series of paradigms to describe the process. He compares the path to peace to the path taken in medicine to understand the disease process and regain health. He refers to this as a process involving three stages – diagnosis, prognosis and therapy. He likens disease to violence, and proposes that creating peace involves two possible approaches – reducing violence regarded as a cure and avoiding violence regarded as prevention. Within this model, violence can be regarded as:
• Direct Violence
• Structural Violence – indirect, emanating from social structures such racism or sexism
• Cultural Violence – represented by repression and exploitation.
The motivating force behind such violence is, of course, power. Power can take many forms – cultural, economic, military and political. Peace policies can, likewise, take different routes. These dimensions echo the kinds of power enumerated – political, military, economic and cultural. Galtung also makes distinctions between what he refers to as Negative Peace versus Positive Peace. For example, negative peace in the economic realm would involve self-reliance, the use of local resources, etc.; whereas, positive peace would involve sharing externalities, horizontal exchange and South-South cooperation. Positive peace would be more inclusive and extend beyond the borders of local communities or state and would be global in dimension.
According to this approach, in order to successfully develop paths to peace it is important to understand what sustains war and what prompts people to kill. It is evident from recent human history that the political system of a country does not prevent it from using violence towards other sovereignties. For example, democratic countries have not inhibited their governments from being involved in slavery, colonialism and other belligerent activities. According to Galtung, an answer might be to, “democratize the inter-state system.” This would also apply to the arena of human rights.
Galtung is convinced that many of the factors that uphold war encompass patriarchy – rule by the male gender. In his view, males have a propensity towards violence to a much greater degree than females. To counter this tendency is exceedingly difficult since it has strong cultural dimensions as well as biological factors. He suggests that, “The struggle against the tendency of states to seek recourse to military power goes by way of alternatives that are more compelling.”
As to the issue of why people kill, he maintains that culture is a potent legitimizer of violence, but also has the potential to support the concept of peace rather than war. Religions or ideologies can either be the purveyors of violence or peace. Galtung delineates what he refers to as, “hard and soft” aspects of ideologies. The hard variety would tend to be more abstract and aloof from human experience; it would tend to invoke the concept of a chosen people. According to Galtung, this idea is particularly dangerous and essentially inimical to peace. The softer variety is more cognizant of the plight of humanity and more closely connected to the tangible nature of human existence and, therefore, more empathic. The major religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – are not monolithic in this regard, but have mixtures of both. Galtung is strongly convinced that we are all carriers of peace strategies.
In his pursuit of the study of peace, Galtung has come up with two overlapping definitions of peace:
• Peace is the absence and/or reduction of violence of all kinds
• Peace is the by its nature nonviolent and the result of “creative conflict transformation.”
The first definition is oriented towards violence; whereas, the second is directed towards conflict. From this starting point, peace work is involved in reducing violence through peaceful means, and peace studies delineate the conditions required for peace work. In addition, these definitions relate to social conditions; the study of peace is, therefore, a social science. It is apparent that Galtung used his professional grounding in mathematics and sociology to construct his approach towards the study of peace.
According to his paradigm, the study of peace involves three tiers – Data, Theories, Values. Data is collected from what is known and what can be measured. It is this data that are used to formulate theory. Values determine what is desired and what is rejected. The inclusion of values sets peace studies apart from other social sciences, for peace always is the desired outcome.
In regards to the diagnosis, prognosis and therapy approach to wellness as described earlier, the goal of intervention is to achieve a range of possible outcomes that can be exemplified by the following:
• Best outcome – cured but also left with a health benefit and therefore can lead to a very favorable prognosis
• Second Best - symptom free but not necessarily protected from recurrence
• Third Best – chronic, long-lasting but acceptable illness
• Fourth Best – Unacceptable illness but alive.
There are obvious limitations in applying this approach to implementing peace, but according to Galtung it can be used as a reliable model in the study of peace in the following way:
• Diagnosis – refers to states of violence
• Prognosis – refers to the progression of violence through time i.e. increase, decrease or stays the same
• Therapy – equivalent to peace work.
Within this model, violence can be categorized in the following ways:
• Nature violence- originating in nature
• Direct violence – perpetrated by human beings either individually or within the broader context of society
• Structural violence – indirect violence built into social structures and essentially unintended
• Cultural violence – legitimizes structural violence
• Time violence – violence having negative impact of future generations.
In addition, therapy can take two distinct forms – violence reduction or negative peace and life enhancement or positive peace. Although this kind of study of peace may seem cumbersome and appear to be merely an academic exercise, it affords a reliable and predictable approach to the overall understanding of human conflict and its resolution through peaceful means.
Galtung used his approach to analyze the methodologies of Mahatma Gandhi who he described as, “the leading theoretician and practitioner of nonviolence. He also described him as a puritan in his approaches to conflict resolution. According to Gandhi, nonviolence is a struggle against both direct and structural violence and, by its nature, avoids such violence in the struggle itself. Gandhi relied on satyagraha – a term that can be defined as truth force – and, accordingly, there is no way to peace; rather, peace is the way.
Furthermore, Galtung determined that Gandhi’s process involves disintegration so that non-cooperation becomes essential; integration or all-inclusiveness so that there are no boundaries such as gender, race, class etc.; compromise for the purpose of affecting a remedy over a shorter period of time; transcendence so that what previously seemed incompatible becomes viewed as compatible. Gandhi was also an optimist who saw the potential of the ultimate integration of all of humankind into the fabric of peace.
In Galtung’s mind, the search for peace is a road to transcendence where the usual path of social disintegration – Conflict, Polarization and ultimately Violence and War – can be upended by preventive therapy. The goal would be to transform violent culture to peace culture and violent structure to peace structure. The peace narrative involves the transformation to peace through depolarization of attitudes, culture and ultimately behavior. Johan Galtung has taken a theoretical approach to achieving peace and social justice and has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the roots of conflict and pathways to viable peace and social justice.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
World Water Day
World Water Day has been observed on March 22 since 1993 when the United Nations General Assembly declared March 22 as World Day for Water.
This day was first formally proposed in Agenda 21 of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Observance began in 1993 and has grown significantly ever since; for the general public to show support, it is encouraged for the public to not use their taps throughout the whole day, the day has become a popular Facebook trend.
In addition to the UN member states, a number of NGOs promoting clean water and sustainable aquatic habitats have used World Day for Water as a time to focus public attention on the critical water issues of our era. Participating agencies and NGOs have highlighted issues such as a billion people being without access to safe water for drinking and the role of gender in family access to safe water.
(read more)
Water is an essential resource for life and good health. A lack of water to meet daily needs is a reality today for one in three people around the world.
Globally, the problem is getting worse as cities and populations grow, and the needs for water increase in agriculture, industry and households.
This fact file highlights the health consequences of water scarcity, its impact on daily life and how it could impede international development. It urges everyone to be part of efforts to conserve and protect the resource. (WHO water facts)
Japan’s Nuclear Crisis Causes Run on Radiation Detectors
from today's NYT (Nuclear Crisis Causes Run on Radiation Detectors) ... interesting ... back in the day I remember that someone at The Farm was selling kits, it is a tricky issue, 'a little learning is a dang'rous thing' like the man says, but there seem to be a lot of people (like myself) who do not trust the powers that be to speak truth so it makes sense to equip yourself with the means of detecting what is going on around you
Monday, March 21, 2011
In Theory
I am led to believe that each human individual has many Spirit Guides and/or Soul Mates.
These are energies associated with one's own energy and life force that
sometimes exist on the same plane
(like two humans who fall in love and spend their lives' together)
and sometimes exist on alternate planes of reality
(like my what people often refer to as his/her "Guardian Angel")
and are always interconnected because they are somehow involved in one anothers' lives, most often to help one another through their relative states of being.
All of this sounds so technical.
the moral of the story,or what I believe, essentially
is that existance is composed of many different beings experiencing many different corresponding but different journeys at approximately the same relative time,
and that those existances tend to overlap and intertwine with one another...
and so it can only be assumed that that interference is felt on many different levels and only when that connection is cherished will existance become intentional and positive, on the whole.
Thesis: neccesity and positives of obtaining a "the whole" soon to come.
These are energies associated with one's own energy and life force that
sometimes exist on the same plane
(like two humans who fall in love and spend their lives' together)
and sometimes exist on alternate planes of reality
(like my what people often refer to as his/her "Guardian Angel")
and are always interconnected because they are somehow involved in one anothers' lives, most often to help one another through their relative states of being.
All of this sounds so technical.
the moral of the story,or what I believe, essentially
is that existance is composed of many different beings experiencing many different corresponding but different journeys at approximately the same relative time,
and that those existances tend to overlap and intertwine with one another...
and so it can only be assumed that that interference is felt on many different levels and only when that connection is cherished will existance become intentional and positive, on the whole.
Thesis: neccesity and positives of obtaining a "the whole" soon to come.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Great Teacher
The Art of Peace begins with you. Work on yourself and your appointed task in the Art of Peace. Everyone has a spirit that can be refined, a body that can be trained in some manner, a suitable path to follow. You are here for no other purpose than to realize your inner divinity and manifest your innate enlightenment. Foster peace in your own life and then apply the Art to all that you encounter.
All things, material and spiritual, originate from one source and are related as if they were one family. The past, present, and future are all contained in the life force. The universe emerged and developed from one source, and we evolved through the optimal process of unification and harmonization.
The Art of Peace is medicine for a sick world. There is evil and disorder in the world because people have forgotten that all things emanate from one source. Return to that source and leave behind all self-centered thoughts, petty desires, and anger. Those who are possessed by nothing possess everything. (read more)
Morihei Ueshiba (植芝 盛平, December 14, 1883 – April 26, 1969) was a famous martial artist and founder of the Japanese martial art of aikido. He is often referred to as "the founder" Kaiso (開祖?) or Ō sensei (大先生/翁先生?), "Great Teacher".
The real birth of Aikido came as the result of three instances of spiritual awakening that Ueshiba experienced. The first happened in 1925, after Ueshiba had defeated a naval officer's bokken (wooden katana) attacks unarmed and without hurting the officer. Ueshiba then walked to his garden and had a spiritual awakening.
"...I felt the universe suddenly quake, and that a golden spirit sprang up from the ground, veiled my body, and changed my body into a golden one. At the same time my body became light. I was able to understand the whispering of the birds, and was clearly aware of the mind of God, the creator of the universe.
At that moment I was enlightened: the source of budo is God's love - the spirit of loving protection for all beings... Budo is not the felling of an opponent by force; nor is it a tool to lead the world to destruction with arms. True Budo is to accept the spirit of the universe, keep the peace of the world, correctly produce, protect and cultivate all beings in nature."
His second experience occurred in 1940 when,
"Around 2am as I was performing misogi, I suddenly forgot all the martial techniques I had ever learned. The techniques of my teachers appeared completely new. Now they were vehicles for the cultivation of life, knowledge, and virtue, not devices to throw people with."
His third experience was in 1942 during the worst fighting of WWII, Ueshiba had a vision of the "Great Spirit of Peace".
"The Way of the Warrior has been misunderstood. It is not a means to kill and destroy others. Those who seek to compete and better one another are making a terrible mistake. To smash, injure, or destroy is the worst thing a human being can do. The real Way of a Warrior is to prevent such slaughter - it is the Art of Peace, the power of love." (read more)
(Morihei Ueshiba in 1935)
Friday, March 18, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Godzilla: the nuclear monster
Godzilla (ゴジラ, Gojira?) is a daikaijū, a Japanese movie monster, first appearing in Ishirō Honda's 1954 film Godzilla. Since then, Godzilla has gone on to become a worldwide pop culture icon starring in 28 films produced by Toho Co., Ltd.
With the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still fresh in the Japanese consciousness, Godzilla was conceived as a monster created by nuclear detonations and a metaphor for nuclear weapons in general. As the film series expanded, the stories took on less serious undertones portraying Godzilla in the role of a hero, while later movies returned to depicting the character as a destructive monster.
Although his origins vary somewhat from film to film, he is always described as a prehistoric creature, who first appeared and attacked Japan at the beginning of the Atomic Age. In particular, mutation due to atomic radiation is presented as an explanation for his size and powers. The most notable of Godzilla's resulting abilities is his atomic breath: a powerful heat ray of fire from his mouth.
Godzilla is one of the most recognizable symbols of Japanese popular culture worldwide and remains an important facet of Japanese films, embodying the kaiju subset of the tokusatsu genre. He has been considered a filmographic metaphor for the United States, as well as an allegory of nuclear weapons in general. The earlier Godzilla films, especially the original, portrayed Godzilla as a frightening, nuclear monster. Godzilla represented the fears that many Japanese held about the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the possibility of recurrence. (read more) (godzilla trailer) (nuclear boy)
This is a message to every UK police man and woman before the Anti Cuts Demonstration in London on March 26th
“Before the possibility that on the March 26th London demonstration MET police are ordered to kettle us; use their shields as a weapon, or even draw their baton please remember that we are your teachers, your nurses and doctors, your neighbours, your checkout assistant, your child’s best friend’s parent, the disabled, the elderly, the students and the children. We are all here to stand against cuts that affect us all, you included.
We are all marching to say we oppose EVERY cut. Many of us are marching to try to protect our children’s future; knowing that without changes our children can never afford to go into further education; could you afford for your child to go to university on your wages? These cuts in public spending are going to affect everyone who is not either a banker or politician, or has a similar wage packet as either. And to make matters worse, this all comes at a time when the cost of food, fuel, and gas, and electric are rising, when youth unemployment is higher than it has ever been; when thousands face losing their jobs and homes as a result of these cuts.
This government uses the word ‘fair’ to describe what they are doing to our society, yet is it fair that this government indulges in “legitimate” criminal activities? Stealing tax payers money and giving it to corporations to run our services and makes the poor and hard-working pay? Is it fair that huge companies get away without paying their taxes; the tax that Boots alone evade could stop the cuts on the NHS, the £7 billion tax Vodaphone evades could help thousands of families get out of the poverty trap. The tax that banks such as Barclays evades could be spent on police funding and so much more. Billions more is avoided by Tesco and Amazon on their offshore tax havens. All of this money could be used to pay of this country’s debt, while not making one single cut to public spending.
The government is saying these cuts are necessary, but they are not. We are told that we ‘are all in this together’ but so far the widely supported Robin Hood tax is not being implemented. The legal loopholes that allow individuals and companies to evade millions even billions in tax have not yet been closed. We are told that it is spending on welfare, the NHS, the police force, local councils that are to blame for the financial position our country finds itself in; but it is the tax avoiders, the corporations and the banks who are REALLY responsible for this debt; as they suck out money from the system into tax havens and hidden accounts and avoid tax. They remain unchallenged by government, who are working to give them even more control over the things in our communities that matter.
How can we afford to lose the tax payers’ public sector; the things that protect us, that we pay for; the NHS, the schools, the libraries, the nurseries, elderly care services, the police on our streets, the rape crisis centres, the voluntary and community organisations; just so that already greed-driven corporations can get their claws into our tax-payer state, then be paid by us to run vital services badly. Once these changes are made it is very unlikely we will be ever able to go back to the things that mattered. The corporations, the banks and stock-market racketeers continue to get fatter salaries, bigger bonuses, larger investments while the poor and weak struggle to survive. . That is why we are fighting these cuts and we are asking YOU to join us, we are at a crucial, historical moment.
We all understand that you have to uphold the law; that is your job. What we are all asking is for you to allow us to march, not kettle and beat us. We are peaceful protesters in the main; many of us are mothers who are bringing our children with us as these cuts affect them too. We are marching to tell our politicians that we are NOT going to pay for their mistakes any longer. It would be amazing if you joined us like the police in Wisconsin did when faced with a similar situation.
We are marching to protect your jobs too!
Please, join the people. The people who care about this country!
With love and solidarity, the concerned, peaceful, law-abiding citizens of Britain”
http://achancetospeak.wordpress.com/
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Daniel and Philip Berrigan and the Peace Movement
Philip and Daniel Berrigan were ushered into the national attention by their radical demonstrations against the Vietnam War. They were Catholic priests with a powerful affinity to the issues of peace and social justice. In response to a question as to the motivation for their actions, the answer was, "How could one live under "sane" leaders threatening violence on a grotesque and epic scale do otherwise." They also stated that, "We resist because we believe and we believe because we resist." For a time, the Berrigan brothers were listed as one of the FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives.
In the 1890s Freda Fromhart grew up in the forests north of Lake Superior. It was a harsh and hostile environment. The forty acres of land that she and her parents lived on were secured under the Homestead Act. Her family had emigrated from the Black Forest of Germany. Freda met Tom Berrigan at a local dance. They were married on June 21, 1911. They were Catholics who were influenced by a Catholic priest who was an uncompromising advocate of tolerance. The Berrigans emigrated from Ireland during the potato famine. Between 1845 and 1849, some three million Irish came to the United States to flee horrific conditions in their homeland. The Berrigans settled in South Onondaga, New York. In 1879, Tom's father suffered a horrible death. This experience took its toll on the son.
Daniel and Philip Berrigan, the sons of Tom and Freda, were born on May 9, 1921 and October 5, 1923, respectively, in Two Harbors, Minnesota. Their father was given to fits of horrible rages, self-pity and confusing bursts of affection.
The family lived in the humblest of circumstances. They lived in a tar-paper shack in a desolately cold and hostile climate. Their father drove steam engines across Northern Minnesota; a job that took him away from home for weeks at a time. The Berrigan brothers were two of six boys, of which Daniel, the fifth born, was the least robust; a reality that did not please his father, but gained his mother's protection.
Daniel entered Catholic seminary at age 18. The Church offered a kind of solace and order to his existence. He entered St. Andrew's on the Hudson Seminary in Poughkeepsie, New York. The seminary was run by the Society of Jesus – Jesuits. Daniel had always demonstrated a love of books and poetry. This proclivity was probably instrumental in his choice of the Jesuits on account of their reputation for serious achievement and academic excellence. Daniel grew up in a working class environment and his professional choices were few; the priesthood, therefore, offered him away to pursue his academic interests.
His mother, Freda was torn by son's leaving. For the next fifteen years he was involved in what was referred to as "training." He compared this experience to birth. It was an austere and demanding life – profoundly satisfying to him. It provided a strong sense of belonging. While Daniel was in the seminary, his brother, Philip, was finishing high school.
When Fascism had begun to overwhelm Europe under the crazed leadership of German Chancellor Adolf Hitler, The Berrigans were your men. Philip served in World War II as an artillery man during the Battle of the Bulge (1945). He was profoundly influenced by the violence that he witnessed firsthand. Daniel, for his part, was deeply concerned by the fact that the Church had not responded adequately to the challenge of fascism; it was docile and self-serving during Hitler's reign. This further convinced him that he needed to become more directly involved in social issues. His brother, Philip, was also deeply impacted by the racism that he experience directly from Army boot camps located in the American South.
In 1954, Daniel was called to serve in France. This experience exposed him to priests who were very active in their local communities and attracted him to the idea of the "worker-priest." Philip went onto college; he enrolled in the small Catholic college of St. Michael's in Toronto. He was drafted into the army in 1943 as was described previously. On his return from the war, Philip came back as a changed man determined to address what he felt was the twin horrors of war and racism. He was scarred by the war and profoundly influenced by plight of black Americans in the American South, who were forced to live under the oppressive conditions imposed by Jim Crow. Using the benefits of the GI Bill that was enacted to offer assistance to those veterans returning from war, Philip entered Holy Cross College. It was here that he began to consider moral action based on conscience. He graduated in 1950 and joined the Josephite Seminary. A Josephite is a member of the St. Joseph's Society of the Sacred Heart formed in 1871 in Baltimore, Maryland devoted to missionary work among black Americans. In this role, he became intimately involved in the Civil Rights Movement. In this capacity, he felt he could make a difference.
Philip was an exciting, admired and a stimulating teacher at Loyola University in New Orleans, a Catholic university. He was regarded as a charismatic leader determined to work for the common good. He also had an outgoing and contagious personality. In 1957, Archbishop Romell mandated the integration of the Catholic institutions of Archdiocese of New Orleans. Philip's students asked how they could help. In response, Philip suggested that they should go to the nearest Catholic Church to serve as a witness. They attended an all-white church where they were cursed and threatened. Sometime later some of the contingent were jumped and beaten by enraged whites with tire irons.
Daniel was teaching at Brooklyn Prep where he felt terribly stifled. He was later hired as Assistant Professor of Dogmatic Theology. There he encouraged his students to investigate the slum housing conditions that existed in Syracuse. As a consequence, his students uncovered an uncomfortable relationship between the college and local landlords. As a consequence, some called for his resignation. Daniel got into further trouble for supporting a vocal pacifist and war resister. He founded the International House off campus with the purpose of serving as a gathering place for students whose interests coincided with moral discussions, inner-city activism, social work and possible tours of duty in developing nations.
Eventually, the passions and activism of the Berrigan brothers come together. Between the years of 1960 through 1963, Daniel dispatched his students to his brother Philip to assist the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in its civil rights campaigns. In 1963, the brothers were invited to join with other clergy in an attempt to integrate the facilities at the Jackson, Mississippi airport. There they were to meet with James Farmer of CORE to plan a strategy. They realized that their involvement might result in physical beatings and jail time. Bishop Jackson, who was Daniel's superior, fearing retaliation against the local churches, prohibited Daniel from going. Daniel sought guidance from his mentor Thomas Merton, author of the famous theological and philosophical work, Seven Story Mountain. Merton advised him to follow his superior's wishes, but to persist in his wider mission. Daniel ultimately obeyed his superior. His brother, Philip, as a Josephite, continued to confront Jim Crow in the South and got involved in the distribution of food and clothing. Philip's continued activist and confrontational involvement both in the civil rights movement and as an outspoken critic in the 1960s resulted in his forced transfer from his community. He was also told to maintain public silence regarding the Vietnam War. He did not maintain this silence for long. He continued to draw parallels between war and racism. He joined with SANE and CORE to speak out against the U.S. military intervention in Southeast Asia.
It was the Gulf of Tonkin affair that was the turning point in the U.S. involvement in Vietnam; President Lyndon Johnson used this spurious incident to justify the continuation and acceleration of the war. This new reality solidified the Berrigan brothers' opposition to the conflict. In addition, the attitude of African-Americans towards their continued oppression shifted to greater militancy as exemplified by the rise in influence of Malcolm X. The Watts riots of 1965 further added to national uncertainty. Catholic Workers, who represented the progressive wing of the Catholic Church founded in 1933 by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, became more involved in the anti-war activities with a number of their members burning themselves alive in protest much like their Buddhist counterparts in Vietnam. One of these was Roger LaPorte. Daniel did know LaPorte; as a consequence, Bishop Cardinal Spellman attempted to have Daniel expelled from the Archdiocese of New York. As a compromise he was sent to Chile. There, he did some significant soul searching.
The following are some of the well-known involvements of the Berrigans in the anti-war effort.
On October 27,1967, the Baltimore Four (Philip Berrigan, artist Tom Lewis, poet, teacher and writer David Eberhardt and United Church of Christ (UCC) pastor Rev. James L Mengel) poured blood on the selective service records in the Baltimore Customs House. In their defense they stated that, "This sacrificial and constructive act is meant to protest the pitiful waste of American and Vietnamese blood in Indochina." They were subsequently sentenced to six years in prison.
On May 17, 1968 nine Catholic men and women including the Berrigan brothers entered the Selective Services offices in Catonsville, Maryland. They proceeded to remove hundreds of draft records and ceremonially burned them with homemade napalm in protest of the war. In defense of their actions, they released the following statement, "We confront the Roman Catholic Church, other Christian bodies, and the synagogues of America with their silence and cowardice in the face of our country's crimes. We are convinced that the religious bureaucracy in this country is racist, is an accomplice in this war, and is hostile to the poor."
On September 9, 1980, Berrigan, his brother Daniel, and six others (the "Plowshares Eight") began the Plowshares Movement when they entered the General Electric Nuclear Missile Re-entry Division in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania where nose cones for the Mark 12A warheads were made. They hammered on two nose cones, poured blood on documents and offered prayers for peace. They were arrested and initially charged with over ten different felony and misdemeanor counts. On April 10, 1990, after nearly ten years of trials and appeals, the Plowshares Eight were re-sentenced and paroled for up to 23 and 1/2 months in consideration of time already served in prison. A documentary was made about this action called "In the King of Prussia" by Emile D'Antonio. Since this action over seventy Plowshares actions have taken place around the world against weapons of war, several involving Philip Berrigan himself.
Philip left the priesthood in 1973 and went on to marry Elizabeth McAlister. Together they founded the Jonah House in Baltimore to support war resistors. Their three children, Frida, Jerry and Kate all grew up to be anti-war activists. He died on December 6, 2002. His brother Daniel remains an ardent advocate of peace and social justice. Daniel now resides in New York City, teaches at Fordham University and is its poet in residence. These brothers have left behind a rich and often controversial legacy in regards to non-violent social action. They certainly drew attention to the horrors of the Vietnam War in particular and the dangers inherent in the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction.
In the 1890s Freda Fromhart grew up in the forests north of Lake Superior. It was a harsh and hostile environment. The forty acres of land that she and her parents lived on were secured under the Homestead Act. Her family had emigrated from the Black Forest of Germany. Freda met Tom Berrigan at a local dance. They were married on June 21, 1911. They were Catholics who were influenced by a Catholic priest who was an uncompromising advocate of tolerance. The Berrigans emigrated from Ireland during the potato famine. Between 1845 and 1849, some three million Irish came to the United States to flee horrific conditions in their homeland. The Berrigans settled in South Onondaga, New York. In 1879, Tom's father suffered a horrible death. This experience took its toll on the son.
Daniel and Philip Berrigan, the sons of Tom and Freda, were born on May 9, 1921 and October 5, 1923, respectively, in Two Harbors, Minnesota. Their father was given to fits of horrible rages, self-pity and confusing bursts of affection.
The family lived in the humblest of circumstances. They lived in a tar-paper shack in a desolately cold and hostile climate. Their father drove steam engines across Northern Minnesota; a job that took him away from home for weeks at a time. The Berrigan brothers were two of six boys, of which Daniel, the fifth born, was the least robust; a reality that did not please his father, but gained his mother's protection.
Daniel entered Catholic seminary at age 18. The Church offered a kind of solace and order to his existence. He entered St. Andrew's on the Hudson Seminary in Poughkeepsie, New York. The seminary was run by the Society of Jesus – Jesuits. Daniel had always demonstrated a love of books and poetry. This proclivity was probably instrumental in his choice of the Jesuits on account of their reputation for serious achievement and academic excellence. Daniel grew up in a working class environment and his professional choices were few; the priesthood, therefore, offered him away to pursue his academic interests.
His mother, Freda was torn by son's leaving. For the next fifteen years he was involved in what was referred to as "training." He compared this experience to birth. It was an austere and demanding life – profoundly satisfying to him. It provided a strong sense of belonging. While Daniel was in the seminary, his brother, Philip, was finishing high school.
When Fascism had begun to overwhelm Europe under the crazed leadership of German Chancellor Adolf Hitler, The Berrigans were your men. Philip served in World War II as an artillery man during the Battle of the Bulge (1945). He was profoundly influenced by the violence that he witnessed firsthand. Daniel, for his part, was deeply concerned by the fact that the Church had not responded adequately to the challenge of fascism; it was docile and self-serving during Hitler's reign. This further convinced him that he needed to become more directly involved in social issues. His brother, Philip, was also deeply impacted by the racism that he experience directly from Army boot camps located in the American South.
In 1954, Daniel was called to serve in France. This experience exposed him to priests who were very active in their local communities and attracted him to the idea of the "worker-priest." Philip went onto college; he enrolled in the small Catholic college of St. Michael's in Toronto. He was drafted into the army in 1943 as was described previously. On his return from the war, Philip came back as a changed man determined to address what he felt was the twin horrors of war and racism. He was scarred by the war and profoundly influenced by plight of black Americans in the American South, who were forced to live under the oppressive conditions imposed by Jim Crow. Using the benefits of the GI Bill that was enacted to offer assistance to those veterans returning from war, Philip entered Holy Cross College. It was here that he began to consider moral action based on conscience. He graduated in 1950 and joined the Josephite Seminary. A Josephite is a member of the St. Joseph's Society of the Sacred Heart formed in 1871 in Baltimore, Maryland devoted to missionary work among black Americans. In this role, he became intimately involved in the Civil Rights Movement. In this capacity, he felt he could make a difference.
Philip was an exciting, admired and a stimulating teacher at Loyola University in New Orleans, a Catholic university. He was regarded as a charismatic leader determined to work for the common good. He also had an outgoing and contagious personality. In 1957, Archbishop Romell mandated the integration of the Catholic institutions of Archdiocese of New Orleans. Philip's students asked how they could help. In response, Philip suggested that they should go to the nearest Catholic Church to serve as a witness. They attended an all-white church where they were cursed and threatened. Sometime later some of the contingent were jumped and beaten by enraged whites with tire irons.
Daniel was teaching at Brooklyn Prep where he felt terribly stifled. He was later hired as Assistant Professor of Dogmatic Theology. There he encouraged his students to investigate the slum housing conditions that existed in Syracuse. As a consequence, his students uncovered an uncomfortable relationship between the college and local landlords. As a consequence, some called for his resignation. Daniel got into further trouble for supporting a vocal pacifist and war resister. He founded the International House off campus with the purpose of serving as a gathering place for students whose interests coincided with moral discussions, inner-city activism, social work and possible tours of duty in developing nations.
Eventually, the passions and activism of the Berrigan brothers come together. Between the years of 1960 through 1963, Daniel dispatched his students to his brother Philip to assist the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in its civil rights campaigns. In 1963, the brothers were invited to join with other clergy in an attempt to integrate the facilities at the Jackson, Mississippi airport. There they were to meet with James Farmer of CORE to plan a strategy. They realized that their involvement might result in physical beatings and jail time. Bishop Jackson, who was Daniel's superior, fearing retaliation against the local churches, prohibited Daniel from going. Daniel sought guidance from his mentor Thomas Merton, author of the famous theological and philosophical work, Seven Story Mountain. Merton advised him to follow his superior's wishes, but to persist in his wider mission. Daniel ultimately obeyed his superior. His brother, Philip, as a Josephite, continued to confront Jim Crow in the South and got involved in the distribution of food and clothing. Philip's continued activist and confrontational involvement both in the civil rights movement and as an outspoken critic in the 1960s resulted in his forced transfer from his community. He was also told to maintain public silence regarding the Vietnam War. He did not maintain this silence for long. He continued to draw parallels between war and racism. He joined with SANE and CORE to speak out against the U.S. military intervention in Southeast Asia.
It was the Gulf of Tonkin affair that was the turning point in the U.S. involvement in Vietnam; President Lyndon Johnson used this spurious incident to justify the continuation and acceleration of the war. This new reality solidified the Berrigan brothers' opposition to the conflict. In addition, the attitude of African-Americans towards their continued oppression shifted to greater militancy as exemplified by the rise in influence of Malcolm X. The Watts riots of 1965 further added to national uncertainty. Catholic Workers, who represented the progressive wing of the Catholic Church founded in 1933 by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, became more involved in the anti-war activities with a number of their members burning themselves alive in protest much like their Buddhist counterparts in Vietnam. One of these was Roger LaPorte. Daniel did know LaPorte; as a consequence, Bishop Cardinal Spellman attempted to have Daniel expelled from the Archdiocese of New York. As a compromise he was sent to Chile. There, he did some significant soul searching.
The following are some of the well-known involvements of the Berrigans in the anti-war effort.
On October 27,1967, the Baltimore Four (Philip Berrigan, artist Tom Lewis, poet, teacher and writer David Eberhardt and United Church of Christ (UCC) pastor Rev. James L Mengel) poured blood on the selective service records in the Baltimore Customs House. In their defense they stated that, "This sacrificial and constructive act is meant to protest the pitiful waste of American and Vietnamese blood in Indochina." They were subsequently sentenced to six years in prison.
On May 17, 1968 nine Catholic men and women including the Berrigan brothers entered the Selective Services offices in Catonsville, Maryland. They proceeded to remove hundreds of draft records and ceremonially burned them with homemade napalm in protest of the war. In defense of their actions, they released the following statement, "We confront the Roman Catholic Church, other Christian bodies, and the synagogues of America with their silence and cowardice in the face of our country's crimes. We are convinced that the religious bureaucracy in this country is racist, is an accomplice in this war, and is hostile to the poor."
On September 9, 1980, Berrigan, his brother Daniel, and six others (the "Plowshares Eight") began the Plowshares Movement when they entered the General Electric Nuclear Missile Re-entry Division in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania where nose cones for the Mark 12A warheads were made. They hammered on two nose cones, poured blood on documents and offered prayers for peace. They were arrested and initially charged with over ten different felony and misdemeanor counts. On April 10, 1990, after nearly ten years of trials and appeals, the Plowshares Eight were re-sentenced and paroled for up to 23 and 1/2 months in consideration of time already served in prison. A documentary was made about this action called "In the King of Prussia" by Emile D'Antonio. Since this action over seventy Plowshares actions have taken place around the world against weapons of war, several involving Philip Berrigan himself.
Philip left the priesthood in 1973 and went on to marry Elizabeth McAlister. Together they founded the Jonah House in Baltimore to support war resistors. Their three children, Frida, Jerry and Kate all grew up to be anti-war activists. He died on December 6, 2002. His brother Daniel remains an ardent advocate of peace and social justice. Daniel now resides in New York City, teaches at Fordham University and is its poet in residence. These brothers have left behind a rich and often controversial legacy in regards to non-violent social action. They certainly drew attention to the horrors of the Vietnam War in particular and the dangers inherent in the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Curt's Page
In a society which is predicated on competition,
and really often the ruthless exploitation of
one human being by another, the profiteering
of other peoples problems, and very often
the creation of problems for the sole
purpose of profiteering, the ruling
ideology will very often justify
that behavior by appeals to some
fundamental and unalterable
human nature. So the myth
in our society is that
people are competitive
by nature and that they
are individualistic
and that they
are selfish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
