Military spending, peace and personal freedom - comparing US foreign aid and the NSA

As strides toward peace are ostensibly being made between Israel and Palestine I am put in mind of Ocean Colour Scene’s terrific song “Profit in Peace”:

All the people under broken homes

Don't wanna fight no more

All the people nursing shattered bones

Don't wanna fight no more

But there's no profit in peace

So we've gotta fight some more

 

In Shock Doctrine (2007) Naomi Klein posits that a previous iteration (c. early 2000’s) of the peace process was derailed not because of Palestinian bellicosity but due to Israel seeking to salvage a tanking economy (p. 435).  Indeed, ex-military and ex-military-business execs were finding their way into high places in government.  The largest recipients of US foreign military aid (2011): Afghanistan, Israel and Egypt.  And keep in mind that those aid dollars take a pit stop in those other gov’t’s hands until being spent.  Upon being spent it becomes profit for US defense contractors.

 

So too the NSA, only the money does not have to make the requisite overseas journey.  Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and in-the-news Eric Snowden’s old employers Booz Allen Hamilton all provide services for the NSA.  99% of Booz Allen Hamilton’s revenue comes from the US gov’t. 

 

Companies can then spend a fraction of their revenues engaging in free speech: lobbying politicians to approve military spending – the NSA operates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.  A recent wired.com article interestingly found that House members who voted to continue NSA funding received double the defense industry cash.  Here in Idaho, our Republican Reps. represented this trend.  Mike Simpson voted to continue funding and received $34,000.  He said, “We don’t need a thoughtless, visceral reaction that hurts our national security without protecting civil liberties.”  Raul Labrador said, “This wholesale snooping on innocent Americans is an unacceptable violation of one of our most basic freedoms: the right to privacy and the right to be free from government surveillance.”  He received a paltry $5,000 from defense contractors.

 

At least the money doesn’t have to take a circuitous route whilst supporting our economy.  And I guess I’ll take being snooped on instead of living in a war zone any day.

The DEA, ACC, ABA and Truth

            Here is an interesting tidbit about BPA and the American Chemistry Council (ACC).  And another and another (a Moyers report!).  There is definitely some contention involved in how BPA was introduced for public usage as well as what it’s future will be.

 

ACC President and CEO Cal Dooley

 

            If you haven’t seen this humdinger from Michele Leonhart of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) yet then enjoy.  Some of the ideas that she is espousing re: reefer are required to justify the agency’s funding.

 

Head of the DEA Michele Leonhart

 

            Check out minute 18 of this clip from the British documentary “The Men Who Made Us Fat”, with Susan Neely, President of the American Beverage Association (ABA).  When asked about the positive correlation between soda consumption and weight gain she says:

Well there’s, uhhh, the evidence, ehhh, says that obesity is caused by people consuming too many calories and not getting enough exercise to balance it up.  Certainly our full-calorie soft drinks – our regular soft drinks – are a source of calories.  I guess if you are consuming too many calories and watching too much television and not getting enough exercise then you’re going to have a problem.

 

Bizarrely enough – bizarre cuz I buy it – she also says the industry is helping to make the US healthier.

 

President of the ABA, Susan Neely
 

 

            To consider:

            All these groups are trying to protect their interests – but are their interests something that benefits all?

            Your judgment call on these issues depends on your background. 

            Does everyone have all the facts?  Definitely not.  Individuals that comprise the public do not.  As was demonstrated in the above links about BPA, the industry itself did have the facts and were the ones writing guidelines for the FDA to use.

            Should you be operating with all the facts at hand?  Yes.  For sure.  Why would you say, “I am ignorant of the facts but I still have my opinions and I am ready to make decisions”.

            The kicker is that facts are malleable – there are different pools of facts that can be drawn on for different purposes.

            The ACC, the DEA, and the ABA all are protecting the livelihoods of their members.  If adequate research on the effects of chemicals on human health were actually conducted and made know to the population at large, chemical manufacturers would see more regulation and less profit.  If there was a referendum on basing the actions of government agencies on what the majority of Americans state they believe then the DEA would have to shift its focus away from marijuana, perhaps losing funding.  As far as the ABA is concerned, dammit I want to say that individuals should be responsible enough on their own not to over-consume soda pop – if they should even consume it at all.  However, popular perception on the whole does not vilify soda pop and the ABA of course does its job and seeks to control that popular perception.

            The theory of relativity says measurements of space and time can alter depending on where the observer is.  Not to jump wholeheartedly into the moral relativist camp (perhaps just to share a campfire with them for a night) I think that truth can be altered depending on the observer’s relation to particularly strong forces: corporate interests and gov’t agencies.

Thoughts on NOVA, David Koch and climate science

             Recently watched an older Nova about research being carried out in Antarctica.  Global warming/climate change is at the forefront of this episode – but also more in the background.  Okay, let me explain why: researchers on the south continent dig out climate data that is old, like getting into geological time, i.e., tens or hundreds of millions of years ago.  Fossilized moss is found and was shown to be preserved due to rapid climate change.  So in one regard the show looked at ancient climate that could happen again.  Since human-caused CO2 was not the culprit of so ancient a change there is a decoupling of our actions today from what is going on climatically today.

 

Sweet ancient moss!

 

            Is this an underhanded tactic from Koch-funded Nova?  I mean, not to come to any steadfast conclusions about climate change, you know, let’s let science keep reasoning this out – heck, that is what more explicit Koch-funded propaganda has succeeded in accomplishing.  Sleight-of-hand delay tactics that get results.  Tactics that let folks conclude that current climate change is not actually being caused by people.  I’m all for the possibility of some black swan being the cause of climate change but also I am compelled by the overwhelming scientific consensus re: this issue.



David Koch - cancer survivor

            I’ve already discussed one man’s take on the climate issue – even if nothing is done and things get worse we will still carry on.  In the conspiracy circles I am familiar with there is a perception that climate change is just a gimmick to manipulate folks in various ways.  I accept that as an individual – if things are as dire as they appear to be and the interests sanctioning these changes are as intractable as they seem – I can’t do much.  I also accept that things won’t change even if I flip out and become a consummate activist and radically curtail my way of life. 
 

Victim of Koch-caused cancer

             Still, it is interesting to be aware of things and understand motives.  Of the scientists on the Nova Antarctica show I would guess most accept the reality of human-caused climate change.  Appearing on a show funded by David Koch is strange, though.  Scientists are providing information for people, only at this point they seem to just be making refinements.  Guess making a career out of refining knowledge – just for knowledge’s own sake – is at least interesting.  As I’ve stated for myself, just because you know it is going on – or if you are providing the data letting us know it is going on – doesn’t mean you actually have do anything to stop it.



Carpenter's They Live and the US today

 

            Carpenter’s They Live is one of my favorites, definitely top five.  Why does it resonate so with me?  It presents a world where secret, alien forces control mankind – to the alien’s benefit and mankind’s detriment.  Throw in Roddy Piper as protagonist engaging in five-minute fights and issuing declarations re: running out of bubblegum and you have stellar cinema.

“I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I’m all out of bubblegum”

 

            So today, or in the Reaganite eighties that the film capped off, it is easy to image our leaders – political and from industry – being in disguise, a powerful skyscraper-top energy beam cloaking their appearance/befuddling the minds of men. 

            Now, let’s say that in our realm (i.e. non-Carpenter-scripted) there is no alien based collusion with America’s leaders.  And no leaders are really reptilians in disguise.  No, we just have naked greed for money and power operating in the world, the world of humans and human nature.  A bullet stops the mind-control machine in Carpenter’s world – what shuts off the beam in ours?

The world revealed for what it is.

            It is nice to imagine there is some beam, something out there commanding us to OBEY, WATCH TV, and CONFORM that could be shut down, revealing the world in a way to truly spark outrage and dissent.  Of course one man’s conformity is another man’s peace – who is critical of what in what way and does that necessitate action?

            Remember the Great Recession a few years ago?  With the banks and the loss of investments and the loss of real estate values and all that?  The dissent that was spurred by those times has passed, at least popularly.           

Bulldozer and cops move in on the They Live shantytown.
 

They Live riot police!

 

Police TSD@ Occupy shantytown.
 

Occupy police line.

            Bless his heart, former-Gov. Jesse Ventura has offered his explanation for why folks are not more outraged and thusly act on that outrage.  Part of the appeal of They Live is that there is a concrete solution: at least when Piper’s character John Nada caps the control broadcast-beam the aliens are revealed in all their scariness.  From there you can only imagine the reaction of the folks within the film – revolt, revolution, the OBEY and CONFORM signs written on everything revealed.  It seems like the actions of Wall Street that caused the Great Recession would have served a similar galvanizing purpose.

Why I drive - thoughts after a road trip

            Recently completed a cross-country road trip, pleasure being ancillary.  My fellow travelers and I were at times outnumbered by hurtling trucks operating under business mandates.  We cast up our exhaust naively, our relation to the greater world intangible to our minds but still deliberately obscured by those operating according to the business prerogative.  We passed or were passed by cars from distant states, the people inside sometimes engaged in happy and animated conversations.  Other outsiders we pass have grim-set faces as though travelling towards some unwanted task.

            Many of the out of state people including us are chasing opportunities, performing business only in a different way than the truckers.

            Consider what is wrought in the name of the auto.  We’ve weaved asphalt ribbons across the country, fetish objects derived from Middle Eastern tars.  The ancients in Iraq used this resource too, ruins today featuring bitumen used as a sealant.  In the open farmland of Nebraska the farms all rely on fossil fuels to run their farm equipment and fertilize their crops.  The landscape could not exist as it does without oil.

            Why question driving?  My Catholic background must bear the appropriate blame: guilt may be the result sundry actions.  The environmental movement is the updated guilt-bringer – perhaps you’ve felt it, the twinge when throwing away (like, in the trash) a plastic bottle or aluminum can.  In eliciting a response the greens are as successful as the Kochs.

            I’m still trying to wrap my head around the idea that imperialist hardships imposed abroad correlate to greater freedom at home.  The control and manipulation of other countries has provided an unparalleled lifestyle that feels good to live, though of course I am questioning it – founding something good on a crime is bad.  Ignorance is washed away and no foundation for an argument.  That a crime has occurred is not mitigated by degree of severity and some of the crimes are great.  How do you differentiate between a foreign policy that kills, like pre-2003 sanctions on Iraq, and policies strictly for monetary benefit – well in the case of Iraq our policy to bring Saddam to heel was ultimately related to oil, money and control.

            Driving settles down into the background of our daily lives – traffic conditions are talked about in the breath after an observation of the weather.  Drive times are calculated into many decisions.  When deciding where to work, where to live, where to recreate – perhaps the need to drive, the hassle or potential hassle of it, is an inducement to stay home and watch TV.  Houses have become our “third place” – instead of restaurants or cafes we have our well-equipped and stocked-with-brand-name-frozen-meals kitchens.  Fitness gyms are incorporated into people’s homes.  Most popular and what is most used is the home theater – trips out to real theaters just practice for the appreciation done at home.

            Who would volunteer to be car-less?  Who doesn’t have far-flung family members?  Fuel has proved to be in this case a tax on the human heart – hard to countermand something if it is right on this level.  I will not stop driving.  I will appreciate what it brings and continue to be aware of what goes on in the world to allow for this gift.

DeChristopher compared with David Icke and his ilk (but hey, I like Icke!)

   

            Could there possibly be a link between Tim DeChristopher and David Icke?  Perhaps similarities – both are fighting an organization (perhaps a loose but effective organization in TDC’s case and a concentrated and effective organization in DI’s case) that is bent on running the world while also destroying the world.  Both have clear outlines of actions needed to be done in order to stop this organization.  Both see an end game of strife and population loss.
 

             Tim DeChristopher: climate activist.

 

             David Icke: proponent of radical views that fall under the aegis of conspiracies.

            Must say that Tim D is much more rational – in the sense of the word rational intending prosaicness.  Do corporations want to reduce the population of the world in a focused and genocidal set of plans?  For Tim D and for most people if population decline happens it will be merely a byproduct of inattentiveness to climate/environmental concerns.  People will die if the too-big-to-fail food chain suffers and major disruptions occur via, say, drought or extreme weather events.  Any human misery will be the cause of corporate overreach and the collusion between corporations and consumers that sees people (right now corporations fall under this purview) not planning for the future and only thinking about their next paycheck whether it be to have money to buy that new consumer product or to have money to simply survive.  The world is a complex system run by people with an understandably small capacity for foresight and a very large capacity for greed.

            That the world is complex, perhaps David Icke would not argue.  That there is a guiding hand behind that complexity, however, is what he has staked his career and reputation on.  A DeChristopherian, prosaic worldview would posit corporate rule based on directed corporate action to raise profits/please shareholders/subvert democratic processes.  Icke sees a malign group of people associated with secret societies whom are aligned with otherworldly, demonic actors bent on evil and control.  A prosaic, but still radical view, sees corn syrup added to the food supply to boost corporate profits, the health of the consumer be damned.  On the other hand, folks in David Icke’s coterie see the introduction of corn syrup (and any other food additive – or even chemtrails) as a means of intentionally killing off a large part of the population.

            Re: population decimation, the perceived stakes of Tim and David are equally high.  But they care, both of them.  They care about the present population and care for everyone comprising it.  DeChristopher is actually going to seminary to, in part I’m sure, better understand the moral dimension of the climate argument.  David Icke has us all being connected by cosmic thread – a cosmic thread in need of defense against evil.

            Let’s take an agnostic view.  Let’s hold judgment on Tim and David’s views – chances are most Americans do this already.  The roads that these two gentlemen take are different, separate roads, neither travelled by many folks.  And understanding their views is one thing – living in a way that addresses the issues raised is another.  DeChristopher and Icke both walk the walk.  Interesting the answer to the question that will be asked of both: “Was he right?”.

Thoughts on Tim DeChristoper talking with Bill Moyers

            Was greatly impressed with Tim DeChristopher’s visit to Bill Moyers’ and Co. recently.  Hadn’t heard of his story which has occurred/is occurring on the frontlines of the climate issue.  He is passionate and articulate and speaks knowledgeably about all aspects of the climate issue.  One thing that impressed me was his speaking critically of the groups that want to work with Congress to affect change – these efforts cannot move forward without getting the corporate thumbs up and have proven to be ineffectual.  There were many parts of his appearance that are grist for thought, I recommend you watch it (link above).  Here are two directions my thoughts took me:     

            Moyers mentioned that people today are less concerned with the environment than we were after the start of Earth Day, the annual event held on April 22, which started in 1970.  Of this DeChristopher says:

One of the weaknesses of the environmental movement and parts of the climate movement [check out the interview for the sound differences between the two] is its always encouraged people to think as consumers, about what they can do in their consumer purchases – driving a hybrid, buying the right light bulb, and that sort of thing.  That is understandable because we have so many reminders of our role as a consumer.  We see 3,000 advertisements a day that all remind us: you’re a consumer, that’s who you are.  And we don’t have nearly as many reminders that we are also citizens in what was once the greatest democracy in the world. 

 

This is important because it speaks of a fundamental mold that our approaches to the climate issue are cast from.  That we are consumers must be understood in order to make sense of the issue and understand what conditions must be addressed/met in order to even theoretically approach the problem.  And as Moyers and DeChristopher mentioned, getting the “right” kind of light bulb ain’t gonna do it.

            Another question: Is it right to compare the struggle for defense of the climate with African-American civil liberties struggle of the past?  This comparison is made in light of climate activists being arrested, or, in DeChristopher’s case, being put in prison.  In asking if it is right – that is a moral question.  What are the salient facts besides the moral question?  Biggest is the economic backdrop and the correlative different time periods in which the events are taking place.  Taken from some impossible birds-eye-view, the battle against segregation almost seems blessed by the upswing in the economy that occurred in the post-WWII era.  Those economic factors may be traced to today where they represent some of the factors causing global warming (or as some have referred to it: “global death”).  Put another way, the civil-rights movement capitalized on a world where expansion was occurring in the economic sector, where there were more jobs coming online and the US was transforming into the world it is today.  That world, one of enterprise and job creation, is now the culprit – much of the energy we need to run our world coming from fossil fuels be they oil, coal or natural gas.  The conditions that helped one movement are the conditions that the other is fighting against.

            Dealing with the consumerist psyche and the historical place we find ourselves at add to the complexity of the issue. To mention one the other aspect of the issue touched upon was the idea of that no matter what, our species will carry on - only in reduced numbers.  Had to at least refer to the apocalyptic territory the interviewed entered.  In the end though, thank goodness for the Tim DeChristophers (and of course the Bill Moyers) of the world for accepting the challenge.