Peter Riva's Blog, page 2

No Contrition & No...

                         No Contrition & No Forgiveness
America needs to remove the remnant ethics of slavery in the same way Germany needed denazification at the end of WWII. When the horrors the Nazi ethic had imposed on selected peoples was fully revealed, part of the Marshall Plan and the aims of new political regime in Germany were to begin the process of stripping away the ethic of Nazism. They did this both culturally and by writing new laws into their criminal code (called the Strafgesetzbuch, section 86a) that did not permit the displaying of, the promotion of, nor the printing of symbols associated with that Nazi period, including the prime example, the swastika flag. Of course, section 86a did not limit itself to just the swastika but extended to any propaganda involving symbols of regiments, special forces associated with atrocities, and so on.
Contrition has to start somewhere. If the law makers and the cultural backbone of a country remove offensive symbols and portray their sordid past accurately – a learning process can begin devoid of hanger-on propaganda still praising the glory of the old regime. Now all this has happened in a country with a terrible history to overcome, one every single German I know is deeply ashamed of and is, somehow, content to see that history accurately portrayed, if only to show they do not forget and that they have sincere regret. Some call this contrition false, like a hair shirt to prove newfound piety. That has not been my experience. I feel the contrition is both genuine and, because it represents the whole country, its laws and culture, allows for some healing to actually take place and generational change. Healing can lead to forgiveness.
The problem we have here in the USA is that we’ve never, not for one moment, exposed the shameful parts of our history accurately. Unlike the concentration camps, meticulously photographed to provide visual proof for generations to come, the true horrors of slavery are couched in prose or anecdotes all too easily discounted as exaggerated or untrue.
Furthermore, we see the Civil War as a series of hard fought battles between brave men (true), completely side-stepping the moral ethic of the opposing forces and, what’s worse, allowing the adage of “they were only following orders” to portray those fighting to keep slavery intact as innocent of such (now recognized) racial motives. Yet, if you read the edicts of the southern states’ representatives from the moment they allocated 3/5 value to any negro in assessing population proportionality for congressional seat allocation all the way through those who lead, commanded, or were foot soldiers of the southern forces in the Civil War – their adherence to the principles (and therefore brutality) of slavery are crystal clear. They liked slavery and wanted it to continue unabated.
Would we, as any civilized nation, stand for a party in Germany to be reformed with the swastika as its emblem? It’s only a flag. It was only a soldier’s banner. So too with the Confederate flag. Allowing the continuation of the ethic of slavery in any form, visual or rhetoric, discrimination or hate speech, is just wrong, immoral and denigrates all those who died to overturn slavery and rid this country of such base, inhuman behavior. My argument is, therefore, on behalf of those who died in battle, the many, many thousands of Americans, who fought under the Stars & Stripes for freedom for all men and women. Their memory should not be tarnished by allowing the symbol, culture and ethic of that they sought to oppose to continue to be proudly flown, worn or portrayed – especially a flag propagandizing an ethic of slavery.
When that symbol is gone and truthful acceptance of the evil it still represents in the hearts of many is openly acknowledged and taught in schools, then, maybe, we can ask victims to “begin the healing and process of forgiveness.” If, on the other hand, we continue to allow the evil to be promoted as a publicly condoned measure of value, flying anywhere in public view, I strongly suggest that the victims do not forget at all, let alone begin to forgive anyone.

Balanced State Budgets?There...

                                   Balanced State Budgets?
There is always such nonsense spoken about balancing State budgets. Those who want smaller government, especially at the state level, slash budgets, slash programs’ budgets (even programs often underway), and refuse to raise taxes because they want to be seen as conservative. Meanwhile, in a recession, the notion that the federal government is going to “trickle down” additional funds to cover shortfalls is unlikely, especially with Congressional control as it is.
When the state houses and governors slash budgets or, at best, “stabilize” spending (another way of saying pay no more than already allocated) to so-called balance the state budget, all they are doing is kicking the can down the road to county and city administrations who, in turn, will either have to forgo plans, repairs and support of the people in their community, or they will have to raise taxes.
As inflation starts to creep up, the burden on municipalities and county budgets is going to get intense. The only way those two entities can raise sufficient funds to continue programs and government services at a reasonable level is to raise taxes. These come in two guises: purchase tax and property tax. Of those two, property tax is usually the easier for them to get behind because commercial interests always oppose purchase tax, arguing that people will only go to another county or state to make their purchases. As for property tax, usually the argument goes that rich people who own property can help pay for the least well off. I’ve been at town meetings where ordinary working folk who rent apartments and houses do not oppose a property tax because they think they won’t have to pay anything since they don’t own the house or apartment where they live. In fact, property tax affects the least well off more than it does the better well off because landlords need to finance the property tax increase so they pass 110% of the tax hike on to renters in the way of rent increases – and that includes rent stabilized and rent controlled properties.
Let’s say your family earns only $1500 at work per month as an example. Of that $1500 you will lose about $93 to Social Security, $22 for Medicare, about $46 for state tax, and only $4 for federal tax leaving you about $1260 to live off of. But your taxes are not through yet… if you live in Dutchess County, NY in a house (rented or not) you pay about $4000 a year in taxes (property and school), so knock off another $333 per month. Then if you buy anything, drive, have insurance, or enjoy any TV (cable or satellite), you are laying out (for that average family making $1500 a month) another $600 a month of which 8% was purchase tax. Of the total amount of your $1500 a month, your total tax bill is probably north of $250. And that’s 16% of what you earn. When you hear someone say that less well-off people pay no tax, tell them they are dead wrong.
Now, if you are the so-called average American family, making $63,700 before taxes, you will spend (according to the Dept. of Labor) about $17,100 on housing, $9,000 on transportation, $6,600 on food, $5,500 on insurance and pensions, $3,3  on spending generally, $3,600 on healthcare, $2,400 on entertainment, $1,600 on clothing, and maybe give away $1,800.  But, every month, you would also have paid $590 in property tax, $300 to Social Security, $72 to Medicare, $430 to the IRS, $325 to NY State and approximately $110 in purchase taxes. That’s $1,827 per month or $21,924 per year – or about 33% of what you earn.
So when the State says they have balanced the budget, cutting services to police, fire, ambulance, road projects, water and sewage works (the list is endless), then those responsibilities fall to your local government. You can see how the tax burden trickle-down will adversely affect you, especially for those less well off. Property taxes are a huge chunk of our income and every time they are increased, evictions and mortgage failures rise. The only way we’ll deal with this at election time is to look at the whole tax picture – IRS right down to that local 8% you pay on your phone bill, or the portion of your rent going as property tax, or that 8% on the toy little Jimmy got for his birthday. Taxes are taxes. Who collects them and who controls them are serious issues affecting your daily life.

$17 Trillion? Are They...

                                     $17 Trillion? Are They Kidding?
First of all, let’s look at what $17 trillion means. $17,000,000,000,000. Yup, that’s a lot of zeros. Put another way that is one dollar for every person in the states of New York and Connecticut (19.75 million and 3.6 million) 826,000 times over, or $48,571 dollars for every person in the USA, man, woman, child, retiree, every single one of us.

What’s the $17 trillion for? The F-35 program spread over ten years. You see, what had been a game of smoke and mirrors has suddenly emerged as a boondoggle of the finest order. Yes, the planes can supercruise (run supersonic without afterburners, saving fuel). Yes the planes are more capable in a fight (meaning they should win more often and need less replacements in time of war). But the details of the planes’ failures in design (still not resolved, needing costly upgrades), changes in warfare planning (costly revamping of deployment and strategic supplies), pilot training increases, bases, maintenance re-planning… the list seems almost endless.

Let’s look at one example. The USS America (LHA-6) is the first of the America-class amphibious assault ships for the U.S. Navy. It was built in 2012 for more than a billion dollars and from the day her keel was laid down, she was built for the F35s – either the Marine’s F-35B jump-jet or the Navy’s F-35C with tail hook. Now, imagine everyone’s surprise (not) when the USS America was returned to dock for a complete refit, ripping out its flight deck and spaces directly underneath to undergo a costly modification to support the F-35s – in effect an admission of failure of Navy planning since, in the original specifications presented to Congress, the LHA-6 was “built with the F-35 as its backbone of operations.” Cost to refurbish? Many, many millions.

Okay, each F-35 is costly enough, with the Navy version costing $337 million each and the Marine version costing $251 million. Meanwhile the Air Force is sticking to its $100 million price tag because it does not include amortization of the program nor the upgrades they too are already having to install to try and keep the pilots alive. And what is worse is that these figures – and that overall cost of implementing the F-35 program – are just the beginning since the Air Force has already said it wants to double its purchase commitment (meaning they want more planes, no matter what the cost).

And there is another way to look at this spend of $17 trillion. If the Pentagon and Congress are openly talking about the overall spend, and if the branches of the military are already calling for more planes (one argument being that it would bring the unit cost down – but not the overall spend of course), all that “openness” of the discussions only highlights the smoke and mirrors of what is really going on. What, you thought this openness is really “all the facts?” Ten years ago the F-35 program was supposed to cost, over ten years, as stated in Congressional hearings less than $1.7 trillion. It is now 10 times as much. So when you hear Congressional testimony that their projected cap is now $17 trillion, what do you suppose the real number is?

My message to Congress and the Pentagon? “Fellows, I am all for strong defense but, sorry, I personally do not have north of $48,000 for each and every member of my family to support your “super” (but faulty) weapon system.”

Really? Would Want To Use Clouds? Ha! Try Protecting...

      Really? Would Want To Use Clouds? Ha! Try Protecting Yourself
What’s a cloud? A cloud is a fuzzy definition of loads of servers, all across the country and abroad, servers with hard drives storing all, part, or only bits of your information that really belongs together. With every software manufacturer and developer rushing to force you to use a subscription based model of software that resides on the cloud instead of handing you a CD or DVD with your program (that can be loaded on the computer of your choice), the time is fast approaching when you will have no control whatsoever of your programs or, in fact, the data you post to work with those programs.
It goes like this… you want to write a letter? You open MS Word on your computer and write the letter. In the past, all that could happen on your computer, even a computer unattached to the Internet. But these new programs do not allow that. Now you have to be attached to the Internet to activate the new versions of Adobe Cloud, MS Office 365, QuickBooks Cloud, and a host of others. For those Apple users feeling snug, think again, you are in the same boat here. The argument is that the cloud versions of these programs can be constantly updated by the designers (that’s good, no more lengthy updates). And if you decide to store all your data on the cloud using Dropbox or Kindle or Apple’s iCloud your use of the Internet will go way up. Every time you want to write a Word document, your computer will download Word as an operating program (just the bits your computer needs to get you started). Then it will search for your template (the starting page) from your data location on the cloud. Then you type away not knowing that every word you type is being spell and grammar checked using the connection with the Internet – your letter streaming up to their servers and back. Thinking of using QuickBooks to write a check? Everything you do is passed, back and forth, over your Internet connection: your passwords, your data, your bank balance, everything. Okay, yes, it is all encrypted. Safe as the IRS or government security clearances, right? Right, just about that secure; meaning not very.
Everything we do today goes across the Internet. Every cell phone IM, every email, every Facebook posting or Twitter posting. And where is the Internet pipeline or tube (to use Al Gore’s phrase)? Everywhere globally, Nigeria gets the same access to your emails, files, programs as does Japan and Canada. Try this web site (looks like a map of the night sky): http://internet-map.net/#7-68.87901870596976-91.61581095800433 The big dots are Google servers, but each and every one of these is connected, instantaneously, all the time. Each and every one knows all your data, all your profiles, all your most personal messages, emails and photographs. Now, do they have any malicious intent? Probably not, but as your programs and phone and tablet applications move physically (electronically) off your physical machines (including your phone) you really cannot be surprised if someone, somewhere, gains access to something you thought was yours and yours alone. It isn’t. It’s on the cloud way out of your control.

Are They Crazy? Earthquakes Anyone?In the...

                       Are They Crazy? Earthquakes Anyone?
In the coming decades, the international lawyers are going to get awfully rich. Part of the free trade agreements are terms that seem like common sense: legal protection and the capability to bring suit internationally. On the face of it, that makes sense for consumer protection and corporate claims. Where it is going to cost American companies untold billions of dollars is in lawsuits for earthquakes.
Any student of seismology (the study of earthquakes) could explain in better detail but the paths of principle pulses resultant from earthquakes resonate through the earth, bouncing off the mantle at the core and, like a tidal wave, pop up on some distant shore or mountain range. Some of these pulses go down, bounce off and rebound directly upwards resulting in initially small quakes called pre-quakes, resonating until they are added to and become full blown earthquakes, then subsiding and still bouncing off and back up as after-shocks. So you start with a preliminary tremor, then the principle portion followed by the end portion.
What scientist Robert Mallet (1846) and then M. S. de Rossi (1874) found was that the preliminary tremor did not always result in a principle portion in the same locale. You could have a preliminary tremor in, say, Sicily near Mt. Etna, to be followed by the principle portion and a massive earthquake some 200 miles away in the Italian countryside, killing hundreds. The greatest earthquake we know of, Lisbon on Nov. 1, 1755, destroyed the city and caused tidal waves that even breeched the walls in Amsterdam 800 miles away by sea. And when John Milne founded the Seismological Society of Japan in 1880, his study there convinced him that minor earthquakes around the world could set off – and maybe did set off - major quakes in Japan.
Why? Because seismological study has since shown that the tectonic plates that form the earth’s crust have fracture points created when one plate rubs up against another. But in a sense they are all touching. An energy wave can flow from, say, a slight plate rupture in Indonesia, rippling, bouncing energy, all along the plates until it hits a weaker spot off of California already straining under pressure, ready to release. He postulated this may have been the trigger for the San Francisco earthquake. The energy from Indonesia would have diminished greatly by then but it may have been sufficient to cause the pressure in the fault in SF to release, killing thousands.
So why are the lawyers going to get rich? Oklahoma has had a series of earthquakes because of fracking. Thousands of them in less than a year when previously they had a handful of minor tremors yearly. Where do their ripples end up? When the science of tracking these waves gets better (the science is there, the funding for tracking like the FAA tracks aircraft is missing), if the Oklahoma frackers are found to be culpable for the 6,00 dead in Nepal? Lawyers will be busy.
And in case you think that is too far away to worry about… California has allowed fracking right smack dab on and near the St. Andreas fault and all its dozens of lesser fracture points. Baldwin Hills (near LA, 1 million people live near there), at sea in the Santa Barbara Channel, and, worst of all in the Central Valley right atop the fault. Given the Oklahoma evidence linking fracking with earthquakes, are they not crazy?

Pretending Someone Wants Those JobsIn the past ten years, Japan...

Pretending Someone Wants Those Jobs
In the past ten years, Japan has come within seconds of three total meltdowns at a nuclear power plants – each one of which would have made Chernobyl look like a picnic. In one, the cooling water was manually shut off and radioactive reactor rods were stacked in piles under water at three times the maximum load (density). If that lot had gone up, the radioactive cloud would have spread across the Pacific, California and made its way across America in a matter of weeks, lingering for months.  And we all know about the present Tokyo plant, shut down because of leaks. Then there was the earthquake and tsunami at Fukushima.
When Chernobyl went up, the resultant poison gas cloud caused the enforced destruction of all milk, food and consumable product across Scandinavia, Germany, Switzerland and Northern Italy. Where it went from there, no one is absolutely sure, but the Sahara is a good bet. Untold tons of food were wasted, destroyed, or treated as radioactive waste (buried deep underground). People were contaminated, died or, as we see now, can produce horribly deformed children already said to be in the hundreds.
The first Japanese disaster, seconds from total meltdown, was one of three such catastrophic errors in the same month that were uncovered by a random safety check. The cause of the near catastrophe was the employment of “disposable” workers, people hired off the streets, the homeless, who were then given scant training and assigned to radioactive areas’ cleaning tasks. To be sure, the areas they were assigned to clean are considered very low risk areas. What these areas were not designed to accommodate were untrained personnel who will, by accident or shortcut, operate water valves and overload radioactive storage facilities. When they misuse the equipment, equipment they are scantly trained to operate, the levels of radioactivity can climb alarmingly.
Part of the research into possible prior events or near events has centered on the contamination of personnel and resultant illness. Only 15 cases of employees with leukemia were officially reported in Japan in the last ten years as a result of mishaps at nuclear power plants. Yet, when inspectors visited only one hospital, they found 50 patients all recently contaminated, all of whom were previously homeless people who had taken temporary employment at the local power plant. They were employed for a short while and thrown back onto the streets. When they got leukemia, as they were no longer employees, they didn’t show up on official radiation exposure lists. It’s a neat trick: hire temporary workers, desperate for any job, give them a nuclear reactor job in close proximity to what are terminal levels of radiation, fire them after a few weeks and let them die a slow agonizing death on the country’s dime. Will those workers complain? Sure, but to whom? They have no voice, they have no constituency.
Before you shake your head at the Japanese, think again. Ever seen the jobs we let the homeless hire onto for fracking wells, chemical plants, and so-called water plants dealing with fracking effluent? How about the homeless now working down sewers or picking strawberries or carrying cement bags, faces covered in lung clogging dust? Ever seen the sugar cane fields in Florida and the workers we boat in from Haiti and treat in ways we wouldn’t dream of treating an American simply because “they need the work and the US dollar?” Ever seen who handles your garbage dumps or where we send all that trash? Ever stop to think how or why GE thought it could dump dioxins in the Hudson River? Was it because they thought there were enough powerful people in the impoverished dumping ground to object? Or was it because the destitute don’t bite the hand that hires them and, anyway, they can’t complain and keep the job?
It’s an age-old tradition, use the poor to further the aims of the powerful and unseeing. In Japan they’ve taken it one step further, deliberately hiring the homeless, using what’s left of use in them, and discarding them; disposable humans. What’s next? Recycling these radioactive people as nuclear fuel? Lab experiments for new treatments for leukemia? Who’s going to publically object? Like Dr. Mengele during the holocaust, the voices in opposition of a disenfranchised people are sparse indeed. And while we Americans may not be quite as draconian (although if you ask Erin Brockovich she thinks there is real evil by the water users in fracking), the unfair work practices that we condone here are, in the end, hardly fair either. It’s time for a fresh look at how we treat and abuse the less fortunate. After all, there but for the grace of God, go you and your children in the near future.

gilapeter:Date: April 10, 2014 The Hawks Are Coming Out To...

gilapeter:

Date:  April 10, 2014
The Hawks Are Coming Out To Play
There is a law, congressional law, to stick to budget spending limits. The Republicans insisted that they always want limits as part of “fiscal responsibility.” And yet, they are about to flagrantly break those limits again in favor of the need to exercise American offense (defense is hardly the appropriate word any more).
The Defense Department, the Pentagon, has said they need $534 billion to fund day-to-day operations worldwide and another $51 billion for what they call “fluctuating needs associated with warfighting.” According to AvWeek, “Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have told lawmakers that the military’s plans are based on the budget it put forward.” Now let’s be fair, that’s a huge budget.
Well, it is not big enough for the hawks in Congress. Now that they have seized control of both Houses, they are focusing on their own budget demands of $612 billion plus $90 billion for “overseas contingency operations.” Yup, they want an additional $117 billion, or an additional 20% increase. Twenty percent!
Okay, sometimes one side or the other asks for more, or as in this case the President and the Pentagon are asking for a reduction of 4% over last year. It is part of the bargaining dance due to end by September (one hopes, to avoid a shutdown). However, no one has ever seen a 20% increase proposed. The increased figure represents, as a source says, “that’s not just an upper limit, that’s a reality they want to force through.”
Now, no one ever heard of the military turning away money, especially since the Pentagon has come up with a list of “unfunded requirements”—lists of items that did not make the cut in the overall budget. AvWeek: Secretary “Carter has said these should be used only if Congress exceeds its own budget caps…” Which he knows they plan to – in an effort to appear strong in the 2016 election year. Military might is often seen as patriotic, that is, vote worthy.
What’s on that Pentagon list? Well, since they are actually using equipment, the so-called “lifespan” of some high-tech items is shortening, require replacements “sooner than expected.” It’s not a small list, a few tens of billions… 22 EA-18G Growlers, 12 F/A-18A-D Super Hornets, 8 F-35C, and 6 F-35Bs… just to get started.
Oh, and one more little budget item… seems we’re pals with Egypt again. Remember when President Barack Obama put a hold on the delivery of F-16 aircraft, Harpoon missiles and M1A1 tank kits? Well, now, to enlist Egypt’s help in providing stability to the Middle East, the USA is returning to its friendship program with the Egyptian military, lifting its hold on the delivery of weapons, and resuming more than $1 billion in annual military assistance. Yes, every year, $1 billion.
The cost of one child per year at a public school (including colleges if they were taxpayer funded) is $10,000 including everything (buildings, teachers, supplies, busses, everything). The Pentagon budget alone would pay for 60 million children’s school years. Hey, I have an idea… Why don’t we declare peace, keep defense strong, and only cut the military budget by 20% in favor of education – that’s 12 million kids, 2/3rds of all college students, who could go to college free!

gilapeter:Free Trade? Free Movement!The business of America...

gilapeter:

Free Trade?  Free Movement!
The business of America is business, or so Republican President Calvin Coolidge professed against the anti-trust policies of his predecessor Teddy Roosevelt. This was a major turning point for the Republican Party away from conservancy, individual enterprise, and fair play for the common man and woman. And since he said that, the goal of all successive administrations, including Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton, has been to hitch up to that express train, ride the rails towards American prosperity, and full speed ahead on the plan to govern the global economy. And, largely, we have been pretty darn good at that too.
The major tenets of the plan to make us the leaders in the global economy were two:  1. to control the money with The World Bank (a family of five international organizations including the EU that make leveraged loans to developing countries), Wall Street, NASDAQ, Commodities Exchange and the Federal Reserve, and 2. Strike free trade agreements with developing countries and major trading countries like China, Canada and Mexico.  Free trade is, critically, a key stone of America’s desire to lead and control world trade and therefore world business. Free trade zones affect American major corporations, allowing them the flexibility to meet global trends, pare down employment that provides less profit, and generally expand their businesses – American business leveraging both US-developed intellectual properties (inventions, financial instruments) as well as US-political aims to ensure continued growing revenue streams.
All sounds good, right? Well, there is, as in most things thought up by mono-focused leaders, a serious flaw in their plan. With free trade comes the human element of free movement. Humans want the same access and freedom of enterprise promised to the corporations. Want proof? Nafta opened the border with Central America for trade… quickly followed with increased human movement towards the land of plenty. The World Bank financed economic expansion in Africa, especially northern and Eastern Africa and, presto, the influx of humans commenced in earnest to Europe and the USA.
And make no mistake, if you trade globally, especially with the new Asian Rim trade agreement currently being passed through Congress, you are enlightening and empowering people outside of the USA to move to the origination of that opportunity, the place that made all that free trade possible. The influx from China and the Asian Rim into America will make the Central American immigrant situation seem like an appetizer compared to the full course feeding we will soon be trying to stave off.
And for anyone out there who thinks this is fear mongering, think about Britain. The British handled free trade and expansion (via the East India Company) by annexing the nationality of foreign lands. And, with the rights that such annexation implied, people from India, Pakistan, Kenya, Uganda, Jamaica and a host of British Commonwealth countries moved to and claimed residency in Britain. The issue here is not racism, the issue we’ll be facing will appear like racism in much the same way people refer to illegal immigration from Mexico always as Hispanics rather than refugees or migrants.  The problem we are facing, at the hands of those who still believe that the real business of America is business,  is cultural, deeply in conflict with a majority of American’s desires (often looking backward to a “more American time”). If these businesses really want to expand their influence and American trade hegemony, they must  be made to understand they are responsible for the cultural aftermath. In my opinion, they are myopic to the real dangers cultural disaffection and destruction can engender. Wars, civil wars, have been fought over less.

Free Trade? Free Movement!The business of America is business,...

Free Trade?  Free Movement!
The business of America is business, or so Republican President Calvin Coolidge professed against the anti-trust policies of his predecessor Teddy Roosevelt. This was a major turning point for the Republican Party away from conservancy, individual enterprise, and fair play for the common man and woman. And since he said that, the goal of all successive administrations, including Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton, has been to hitch up to that express train, ride the rails towards American prosperity, and full speed ahead on the plan to govern the global economy. And, largely, we have been pretty darn good at that too.
The major tenets of the plan to make us the leaders in the global economy were two:  1. to control the money with The World Bank (a family of five international organizations including the EU that make leveraged loans to developing countries), Wall Street, NASDAQ, Commodities Exchange and the Federal Reserve, and 2. Strike free trade agreements with developing countries and major trading countries like China, Canada and Mexico.  Free trade is, critically, a key stone of America’s desire to lead and control world trade and therefore world business. Free trade zones affect American major corporations, allowing them the flexibility to meet global trends, pare down employment that provides less profit, and generally expand their businesses – American business leveraging both US-developed intellectual properties (inventions, financial instruments) as well as US-political aims to ensure continued growing revenue streams.
All sounds good, right? Well, there is, as in most things thought up by mono-focused leaders, a serious flaw in their plan. With free trade comes the human element of free movement. Humans want the same access and freedom of enterprise promised to the corporations. Want proof? Nafta opened the border with Central America for trade… quickly followed with increased human movement towards the land of plenty. The World Bank financed economic expansion in Africa, especially northern and Eastern Africa and, presto, the influx of humans commenced in earnest to Europe and the USA.
And make no mistake, if you trade globally, especially with the new Asian Rim trade agreement currently being passed through Congress, you are enlightening and empowering people outside of the USA to move to the origination of that opportunity, the place that made all that free trade possible. The influx from China and the Asian Rim into America will make the Central American immigrant situation seem like an appetizer compared to the full course feeding we will soon be trying to stave off.
And for anyone out there who thinks this is fear mongering, think about Britain. The British handled free trade and expansion (via the East India Company) by annexing the nationality of foreign lands. And, with the rights that such annexation implied, people from India, Pakistan, Kenya, Uganda, Jamaica and a host of British Commonwealth countries moved to and claimed residency in Britain. The issue here is not racism, the issue we’ll be facing will appear like racism in much the same way people refer to illegal immigration from Mexico always as Hispanics rather than refugees or migrants.  The problem we are facing, at the hands of those who still believe that the real business of America is business,  is cultural, deeply in conflict with a majority of American’s desires (often looking backward to a “more American time”). If these businesses really want to expand their influence and American trade hegemony, they must  be made to understand they are responsible for the cultural aftermath. In my opinion, they are myopic to the real dangers cultural disaffection and destruction can engender. Wars, civil wars, have been fought over less.

Date: April 10, 2014 The Hawks Are Coming Out To PlayThere is a...

Date:  April 10, 2014
The Hawks Are Coming Out To Play
There is a law, congressional law, to stick to budget spending limits. The Republicans insisted that they always want limits as part of “fiscal responsibility.” And yet, they are about to flagrantly break those limits again in favor of the need to exercise American offense (defense is hardly the appropriate word any more).
The Defense Department, the Pentagon, has said they need $534 billion to fund day-to-day operations worldwide and another $51 billion for what they call “fluctuating needs associated with warfighting.” According to AvWeek, “Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have told lawmakers that the military’s plans are based on the budget it put forward.” Now let’s be fair, that’s a huge budget.
Well, it is not big enough for the hawks in Congress. Now that they have seized control of both Houses, they are focusing on their own budget demands of $612 billion plus $90 billion for “overseas contingency operations.” Yup, they want an additional $117 billion, or an additional 20% increase. Twenty percent!
Okay, sometimes one side or the other asks for more, or as in this case the President and the Pentagon are asking for a reduction of 4% over last year. It is part of the bargaining dance due to end by September (one hopes, to avoid a shutdown). However, no one has ever seen a 20% increase proposed. The increased figure represents, as a source says, “that’s not just an upper limit, that’s a reality they want to force through.”
Now, no one ever heard of the military turning away money, especially since the Pentagon has come up with a list of “unfunded requirements”—lists of items that did not make the cut in the overall budget. AvWeek: Secretary “Carter has said these should be used only if Congress exceeds its own budget caps…” Which he knows they plan to – in an effort to appear strong in the 2016 election year. Military might is often seen as patriotic, that is, vote worthy.
What’s on that Pentagon list? Well, since they are actually using equipment, the so-called “lifespan” of some high-tech items is shortening, require replacements “sooner than expected.” It’s not a small list, a few tens of billions… 22 EA-18G Growlers, 12 F/A-18A-D Super Hornets, 8 F-35C, and 6 F-35Bs… just to get started.
Oh, and one more little budget item… seems we’re pals with Egypt again. Remember when President Barack Obama put a hold on the delivery of F-16 aircraft, Harpoon missiles and M1A1 tank kits? Well, now, to enlist Egypt’s help in providing stability to the Middle East, the USA is returning to its friendship program with the Egyptian military, lifting its hold on the delivery of weapons, and resuming more than $1 billion in annual military assistance. Yes, every year, $1 billion.
The cost of one child per year at a public school (including colleges if they were taxpayer funded) is $10,000 including everything (buildings, teachers, supplies, busses, everything). The Pentagon budget alone would pay for 60 million children’s school years. Hey, I have an idea… Why don’t we declare peace, keep defense strong, and only cut the military budget by 20% in favor of education – that’s 12 million kids, 2/3rds of all college students, who could go to college free!