intellectual properties

the nobel prize now = an A for effort?

many discussions recently about entitlement, telling all children they are smart, beautiful, can do anything, ‘EVERYONE IS A WINNER’, and how this leads to false benchmarks, false hopes……seems to have leaked over to the Nobel arena.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15622

When war becomes peace,

When concepts and realities are turned upside down,

When fiction becomes truth and truth becomes fiction.

When a global military agenda is heralded as a humanitarian endeavor,

When the killing of civilians is upheld as “collateral damage”,

When those who resist the US-NATO led invasion of their homeland are categorized as “insurgents” or “terrorists”.

When preemptive nuclear war is upheld as self defense.

When advanced torture and “interrogation” techniques are routinely used to “protect peacekeeping operations”,

When tactical nuclear weapons are heralded by the Pentagon as “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”

When three quarters of US personal federal income tax revenues are allocated to financing what is euphemistically referred to as “national defense”

When the Commander in Chief of the largest military force on planet earth is presented as a global peace-maker,

When the Lie becomes the Truth.

Obama’s “War Without Borders”

We are the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US in partnership with NATO and Israel has launched a global military adventure which, in a very real sense, threatens the future of humanity.

At this critical juncture in our history, the Norwegian Nobel Committee’s decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to President and Commander in Chief Barack Obama constitutes an unmitigated tool of propaganda and distortion, which unreservedly supports the Pentagon’s “Long War”:  “A War without Borders” in the true sense of the word, characterised by the Worlwide deployment of US military might.

Apart from the diplomatic rhetoric, there has been no meaningful reversal of US foreign policy in relation to the George W. Bush presidency, which might have remotely justified the granting of the Nobel Prize to Obama. In fact quite the opposite. The Obama military agenda has sought to extend the war into new frontiers. With a new team of military and foreign policy advisers, the Obama war agenda has been far more effective in fostering military escalation than that formulated by the NeoCons.

QOTD: still hope

“We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it.”
~Barack Obama, 9/9/09

SUPPORT THIS.

the Whole Foods-Healthcare debate

the topic is a little dusty now, but Food Democracy Now has a poll on whether you got riled up enough about the CEO of Whole Foods’ editorial on healthcare to boycott WF:

__I am boycotting but would reconsider if Mackey resigned.
__I’m not boycotting, but Mackey should resign.
__I am done with Whole Foods.
__Mackey’s entitled to his views; I am not boycotting.

also, read the Food Democracy Now argument about why boycotting won’t help health care reform.

i am well aware that many food democracy advocates already hated WF before this happened (not to even mention all those who think they’re just making bank off of rich yuppie types susceptible to greensumerism/greenwashing) and don’t really actually care about justice issues – it’s all just savvy, savvy marketing). i myself only shop there when i am in need of certain organic items that can’t be found elsewhere, or during times when i’m hungry or need something and it’s the only non-Safeway grocer open within 20 minutes of my house (HELLO BERKELEY BOWL AND YOUR EARLY CLOSING HOURS.)

i know that while WF is expensive and their clientele is about as bourgeois as you can get, but their buying practices and messages are well-intentioned and they support a lot of small farmers.

as for this particular instance, i basically agreed with Mackey’s 8 points for reform, but what got the boycott started and where he lost his followers were his statements after the 8 points on the moral arguments for public healthcare, such as this:

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

and then goes on to say:

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

i pretty much agree with this taken at face value. i think we need to invest way more money in preventative healthcare and food and nutrition eduction, but for many of the liberal shoppers of whole foods, this sort of statement was unacceptable, with millions crying foul about how poor people don’t have the same kinds of access and choices that WF shoppers and employees have and so blaming them for their health problems and denying them access to public healthcare is unfair.

i don’t think that’s what he was saying though. i’m ALL FOR A PUBLIC HEALTHCARE OPTION (no matter how you cut it, it’s better than none), but i also think the American people need to be more responsible for their own well-being, and also that our food system needs some serious changes. i mean, did you see this, how that green “Smart Choice” label food companies have started putting on their processed foods somehow applies to things like Coco Puffs and Fruit Loops? (they’re made with whole grains!)

also, overall, while i am a huge proponent of voting with your dollars, and thus boycotts make sense to me, i generally find the ones that go around the internet to be baseless and ineffective (boycotting X gas company while filling your car up at Y does nothing to bring down gas prices, for example), and i’m also really not into armchair internet activism where you post some standard message to your Facebook status about healthcare (DO SOMETHING INSTEAD) or send around emails about how Barack Obama is a socialist while sitting there on your ass collecting social security and welfare checks.

anyway, i digress. no, i have not boycotted Whole Foods.

\m/ in baghdad

one day after work last week jason picked me up and we went to the berkeley marina for a walk. toward the end, he asked a question to the effect of “so why do you think people care so much about what is going on in Iran?”. there are democratic atrocities happening all over the world, every day, that Americans ignore.

my answer was two part:

1. we had an election stolen from us. we know how it feels. we are still angry. there is empathy.

2. throughout the GW years there was always the threat of war with Iran, and i think even though the Obama administration is less warlike, that threat is not gone. in most American minds, it is the next war. so now that the country is imploding, if this does not come out well, if the conservatives succeed in stealing this, is it not evident that there will be a call to war on the part of those in the American government who believe that is the right action? while Amercians support “democracy” and “freedom” and human rights for everyone, everywhere, and we are all grieving for the loss of these things in Iran right now, we cannot deny that, collectively, a large part of the attention right now is selfish: we do not want ourselves another war.

.::.

last night we watched the documentary “Heavy Metal in Baghdad“, about perhaps the only heavy metal Iraqi band ever, and what happened to the members once the war started. it’s a humanitarian piece, and not even really political. a well done docu, a totally unbiased look at the effect of our war on Iraqi people just like you and me. listening to them yearn for their homeland, saying that they’d rather die in Baghdad than live in “less than zero” refugee status in Syria where they have nothing and no one, seeing them struggle to even survive, let alone be musicians and artists, as we in America have the freedom to be, is heartbreaking. i think the most popular reviewer on netflix summed it up best: “I never gave a sh!t about the war until I saw this. This documentary really shows the human condition there and not the crap you see in the news.”

metalhead or not, watching this while sh!t is going down in Iran gives it a lot of current meaning. will Iran end up like Iraq? is that where this is headed? please, gods, do not let it be so.

a poem from the rooftops of Iran

with a heavy sigh on this beautiful sunny sunday here in oakland, as i pray for iran in the only way i know how, i am so grateful for my life.

things i learned reading the actual paper news today

144 people worldwide have died from swine flu.

every year, 500,000 people die from regular influenza.

i don’t mean to say that we shouldn’t cut a new flu virus off from spreading ASAP, but all this media etc seems a bit overdone given these numbers.

——-

first i read this and thought: hm.  how do i feel about a blogger being arrested because he ranted about taking up arms? seems like you should be able to rant all you want in a free-speech country.

then i read this about the white supremacist who just walked in the Holocaust Museum and shot a guard after ranting all over the internet about ‘blacks and jews’, and that changed my mind.

——

400,000 people die every year from tobacco-related diseases, according to government figures

do you know Obama is a smoker?

i support the new tobacco law. i think it’s smart that Phillip Morris supports it too. fighting against regulations involving public health and/or the environment does not make you competitive. just ask GM.

URGENT: california state parks

you may have heard that due to the state of california budget crisis, the state has said it will close 220 of the state parks. that’s 80% of them.
this will not solve the problem.
in fact, for every $1 invested in a state park, the state gets $2.35 back in tourist dollars.
it will only make the problem worse.
not to mention all the other issues with this preposterous idea. quality of life, jobs, protecting special places.

the savings derived from cutting the parks out of the budget would amount to 0.26 percent of the $24.3 billion budget gap.

“It’s a very, very tiny portion of the financial need, but the impacts would be draconian to say the least,” Goldstein said. “Not only is this bad for people who are relying on state parks more than they ever have for recreation and vacation, but it is also bad for the communities surrounding these parks.”

Stearns said 79.6 million people visited state parks last year. A huge number of reservations for campgrounds have already been made throughout the summer and into November, he said. Analysts estimate park visitors spend roughly $2.6 billion a year in and around the parks.

Goldstein said for every dollar spent, the state parks generate $2.35 in tax revenue from economic activity in the local communities surrounding the parks. That means the state could potentially see a reduction in revenue by closing the parks.

That’s not even counting the loss of day-use fees and the cost of patrolling the closed parks to make sure arsonists, vandals, transients, hunters and marijuana growers don’t move in, she said.
–SF Gate

this option should not be on the table.

please send a msg to the capital telling them so here or here. you can also donate to the California State Parks Foundation to help them fight the fight.

justice isn’t always on your side

the CA Supreme Court held this morning that Prop8 – the voter-passed amendment to the CA Constitution that defines “marriage” as only between a man and a woman – is to be upheld and not ruled unconstitutional.

The language of Justice George’s decision seemed almost regretful, as he wrote that “our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution.” Instead, he wrote, “our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.” — “California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage”, NYT

all over Facebook and Twitter and everywhere else people are saying “i’m so disappointed in the Court” and “WTF is wrong with California” etc., but i wasn’t expecting anything but what happened, because that is what i expect courts to do.

to be honest, while i’m extremely sad that Prop8 is still in effect and sickened that so many Californians are so closed-minded and homophobic and stuck to “traditional values” in a constantly-changing world, i totally don’t think that the courts should be overturning anything voter-passed unless there was some sort of legal reason why the act was invalid (which they determined it wasn’t), and i agree with George’s statement of why they did what they did. maybe i have too much blind faith in the supposed non-partisan function of the legal system, or i’m missing something, but i don’t want court justices deciding our morals and values, even if i agree with them.

QOTD

.

“My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings.”

–Richard Posner, a Reagan appointee, and an important figure in the conservative movement.

the comments/debate there on thinkprogress.org are interesting and worth reading, esp wrt the difference btw being an economic conservative and a social conservative.

~via

taught v. learned

on Miss California and her statement regarding gay marriage: this part of her answer is totally fine with me:

“I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other,” Prejean responded. “But in my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

i was with her up to that point. you think “it’s great” that people have the choice in America, but you don’t agree. i feel the same way about a lot of things. (i wonder if she feels the same way about abortion?) the part that put me off, however, which no one else seems to be focusing on, was the last sentence:

“No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”

first of all, anytime you start a sentence with “no offense”, YOU KNOW IT’S OFFENSIVE. and stating that makes you look like a bigot. as the most popular comment on the SF Gate article says: “Good for her to speak her mind! But her grand children will know her as the bigot that she was.”

secondly and more importantly, however, i can’t tell you how many times i’ve heard people defend their racism/sexism/ethically questionable position or action with “that’s how i was raised“. there was a time in america where the same thing defense could be said about believing black people are racially inferior and therefore not equal, or that it’s ok to beat your children as punishment. and you know what? not everything you were taught by your parents is correct. not all parents are saints. saying that, to me, is like saying: “I haven’t learned anything growing up, and I don’t have the ability to make my own conclusions. I believe what I was taught, even if the world changes and new information comes to light.”

i thought about all this when i heard it on the news, got irritated, and then sort of forgot about it. but then i read that bit in the paper yesterday about her going on The Today Show and defending it again by saying:

“It’s not about being politically correct,” she said. “For me, it’s about being biblically correct.”

and i thought my head was going to explode.

as @markmorford tweeted: “Meet the new face of Christian GOP marriage: blonde, skinny, not all that bright, does exactly what she’s told. Perfect.”

btw, here’s a pretty decent site discussing the context of homosexuality in the bible.