Connect with us

Editorials

Not War on Terrorism but Dialogue for Solutions

Published

on

Not War on Terrorism but Dialogue for Solutions

By Johan Galtung – TRANSCEND Media Service

I am sitting somewhere in Afghanistan. Across the table are three Taliban; Pashtuns like most Taliban.  My opening question is standard:  “What does the Afghanistan look like where you would like to live?” with some equally standard follow-up questions:  “What is the worst that happened to you?”, and “Was there a good period in the past?”

And they talk, and talk, and talk; it sounds like no Westerner ever asked them questions about what they think.  For them the answers were obvious, and they were very eager to explain the obvious:

  • The worst that happened to them was the (Sir Mortimer) Durand line in 1893, the 2,250 km border between Afghanistan and at the time the British Empire, today Pakistan, that cut the Pashtun and Baluchi nations in two. Today the Pashtuns, 50 million, are the largest nation in the world without their own state, so their first priority is to undo that line defining them as smugglers, “terrorists” escaping to safety “on the other side”.
  • Then the Western habit of invading, the UK three times, USSR once, now the USA and the “coalition of the willing”-still going on.
  • What does it look like? Afghanistan-Pakistan without a border.

And then: Afghanistan is not a Western unitary state with capital in Kabul, that is a Western illusion.  Afghanistan is a co-existence of 8 nations–7 of them also in neigh boring countries–and 25,000 villages, very poor, very autonomous.  And invincible: there is no central point from which an invader can conquer the whole country. Maybe a loose federation with villages as the basic unit and a small capital; maybe a community with the neighbors in spirit, Islam and language; the economic priority being the positive, not punitive aspect of Sharia, basic needs for all, all nations, both genders.

And there we have made terrible mistakes, now learning from more advanced brothers and sisters in Muslim countries.  We are improving.

We are very violent so we need some peacekeeping by our more advanced brother and sister countries, Tunisia, Turkey, Indonesia.  And then, West of whatever type, will you please stop invading us! Nobody has defeated us, but it has cost us millions of lives–.

Yes, it was better before Durand and in the periods between the invasions.  What we need now is a coalition government, a loose federation, a community with the neighbors, basic needs priorities for all, peacekeeping by brothers and sisters.  The Afghanistan we want.

 


We don’t need another smart phone. We need a smarter conversation.  Mobilized is building an empowering constructive solutions-based journalism network from the ground up. While most news is the story of disease and dysfunction, we believe that media can empower, inspire, inform, educate and enable healthier outcomes for us all.

We  are collaborators in creation of better together. 

Stay inspired and Discover how you can get involved with your vision and mission with the Mobilized Network!


 

I remember myself during my first visit to Afghanistan January 1968 asking myself my standard question, what does this country remind me of?  The answer was, of course, Switzerland; not 8 nations, but 4 (one only Swiss); not 25,000 villages, but 2,300 local communities, a federation with no nations running the country alone, permanent coalition government, neutrality since taking a stand in favor of one or the other neighbor would tear Switzerland apart.  A Swiss model?

I am sitting in the office of David Kucinich before they managed to gerrymander the major peace spokesman out of the US Congress, with 8 of his fellow representatives: “Professor Galtung here is back from Afghanistan and talks with the Taliban; up came a possible solution”.

The reaction in the major “state terrorist” country in the world?

“Very interesting.  But we are elected representatives of the US people and they are not interested in solutions.  They have elected us for this, V for victory, then we will tell them what the solution is.”

I said that victory would elude the USA given their devotion, and unlimited time perspective as opposed to an “administration” or two; that retreat with honor leaving behind a regime to the US taste would also elude them; why not help with a federal constitution and Central Asian Community, becoming their friends?  Answer: not our mandate.      Me: then you are heading for something worse than defeat and retreat.  They:  What?  Me: Becoming irrelevant.  The ball is in other courts.

I am sitting in State Department asking my standard question: “What does the Afghanistan look like that you would like to see?”  And the answer, predictable since it is US world policy: “with democracy in the sense of fair and free multi-party national elections, and a free market”.  And an Afghanistan that cannot attack us–9/11.

  • Me: But that style democracy presupposes an I-culture, the individual as his-her own decision-maker.  Afghanistan is 98% Muslim, more we-culture, for them voting cuts something organic in winners and losers, for them dialogue to consensus makes more sense.  No answer.
  • Me: And the free market leads to increasing inequality; no problem for Islam.  The problem would be misery at the bottom, basic needs not met.  How do you handle that?  Answer: trickling down.  My answer: Pumping up seems to be stronger. Laughter.  Problem unsolved.

I am sitting somewhere in Southeast Asia, in front of me are Al Qaeda.  Me:  “What does the world look like you would like to see?”

  • They: A world that respects, does not trample upon, Islam.”
  • Me: But don’t you trample upon women?  And the fourth stage of jihad–exerting yourselves for the faith–is very violent.
  • They: Violence against women is not Qur’anic but tribal traditions not yet overcome.  And the fourth stage of jihad is self-defense, legitimate in international law.  Against the Crusades, against Zionism, now also against the invasion of Afghanistan”.
  • Me: But there is much jihadism not legitimately declared?
  • They: A problem.  But moderate retribution is Islamic.

I am in Madrid at a Dialogue of Civilizations conference; in  front of me is Hamas with a tape-recording of Bush saying that God has chosen him to bring democracy to the Middle East. Bush?  A blasphemy.

  • Me: Is there an Israel you can recognize?  They: of course.  Me: Like 4 June 1967?
  • They: Yes, with some modifications, we’ll tell in due time when there are real negotiations.

I am sitting in an adjunct of Pentagon with a two-star general, charming and well informed:  it costs them US$10 to make an IED, a bomb–they can go on forever.  Our problem: no Plan B.

He was forbidden by a higher level from talking more with me.

A conference at a think tank in Washington.  An excellent talk by a State Department consultant on the history of Israel-Palestine-USA talks.  Question from the moderator: “And the solution?”  “No idea.”

So I am brought in to present the Transcend 1-2-6-20 plan–Palestine recognized also by Israel, with some Israeli cantons on the West bank and some Palestinian  cantons in Northwest Israel; cooperation between the two; inside a 6 state community of Israel with its five Arab neighbors; surrounded by an Organization for Security and Cooperation in West Asia, adding neighbors’ neighbors and some of their neighbors–about 20.  Silence.  No alternative Plan B.

Up come two State Department experts, the task of one being to disseminate US style democracy, of the other a federation.  The former got the I-culture/we-culture answer and in addition that you may need a federation first and then democracy in each part to prevent the most numerous nations from dominating all.  And for the latter: for a federation they must also identify something that binds them together, not only what divides them.  Maybe they want independence, ask them.

Conclusion I:  What the “terrorists” say is not unreasonable; what is unreasonable is not knowing what they say.  I know no case where there is not a basis for a reasonable–accepted, sustainable–solution.  The “state terrorists” in Washington seem so dedicated to military planning and execution that there is little time or manpower left for any Plan B; either nothing at all, or not thought through.  The insensitivity to cultural and structural factors is remarkable.

Conclusion II:  This has to change for the sake of all involved.

And all it takes is dialogues, preferably public, with all parties.

Let me now get into more detail on Afghanistan-Pakistan-USA. Washington, Carnegie Endowment, 18 April 2012:  Ladies and gentlemen, first, thanks to American Muslim Association Foundation for organizing a forum on this controversial topic in the heart of Washington!

You have given me the global perspective on this panel, taking into account much space and time; kind of einsteinian.  Seeing the world from above I sense five grand trends as a backdrop, a context, for the theme: the fall of the US empire; the de-development of the West; the decline of the state system to nationalisms from below and regionalisms from above; the rise of the Rest; and the rise of China.

And then, spiraling down toward the ground, we see those three actors and the countless sub-actors in deadly embraces, so well described by Ahmed Rashid in his Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.  Let us highlight some aspects.

We see a wound, a 1400 miles border dividing Pashtuns, today 50 millions, carved in 1893 by Durand–an English foreign secretary of “British India”–between the Empire, today Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Thus, Pashtuns crossing the line are not entering a “safe haven”, but are at home.  The “treaty” was in English, which Afghanistan’s emir did not understand.  Another signatory was sovereign Baluchistan, later invaded by and incorporated in Pakistan.  The Pashtuns were not included.

We sense the US reification of conventional world maps of states, like the two mentioned.  Yes, they have governments, more or less of, by and for the people, not only for 1 %, and they have more, or less or not at all failed states, presidents or prime ministers.  But they throw a veil over more important maps of nations, more informative today given the decline of the states.  And maps of civilizations, like Arabs, Muslim, Christians, Jews.  Not only Muslims have the dilemma of who am I, a citizen of a secular state member of the state system, or a believer in a faith, the ummah for the Muslims.

We sense Pakistan’s concerns: internal divisions among nations,  and the conflict with India, above all, but not only, over Kashmir.

We sense Afghanistan’s concerns: others invading, occupying, conquering, from Alexander the Great via the Mongols and three English invasions, one Soviet, and now USA-NATO in a US-lead coalition; with varying pretexts.  Like hiding the search for a base close to China (Bagram), and for oil from the Caspian to the Indian Ocean, under a pretext of 9/l1 coming from Afghanistan in general, and bin Laden in particular; without delivering any public proof of that assertion.

We sense the USA committing the same elementary mistake again and again: the enemy of my enemy is my friend; working well for some issues, but that friend may also have some other points on the agenda.  Use bin Laden to beat the Soviets, but maybe he is against secularism in general, not only the Soviet variety?  Use Pakistan to beat Islamists on their own ground, but maybe on top of their agenda is to beat India in having influence in Afghanistan, and hence protecting Pashtuns, Taliban, and housing the key enemy bin Laden?  Leading to a de facto war, the Pakistani secret service, ISI, taken by surprise(?) by Obama ordering a US SEAL extra-judicial execution on their lands.

And in the background Ali Bhutto’s Islamic bomb, adding to the evangelical, anglican, catholic-secular, orthodox, confucian, judaic and hindu bombs, competing for god-like omnipotence.  Israel’s goals, to eliminate that bomb, and stop one in Iran, become US goals.  The tail wagging the dog?  Partly, but even more important is how the two countries came into being, taking over somebody else’s land in the name of their faith, killing, pushing inhabitants into exile, or into reservations.  The much longer history of India can also be read in such terms.  Maybe a basis for the USA-Israel-India alliance in the area: if one of us falls so does the other, from illegitimacy?  Well, they are not the only ones, look at much of Latin America.

How about US-Pak relations?  Agendas that coincide only on some points and diverge wildly on others will drive them from one conflict to the next as they have for a decade or two.  But Afghanistan, and Pakistan in general and ISI and the Army in particular, also use the USA as a milking cow–Pakistan to the tune of $3 billion a year or so.

 


We don’t need another smart phone. We need a smarter conversation.  Mobilized is building an empowering constructive solutions-based journalism network from the ground up. While most news is the story of disease and dysfunction, we believe that media can empower, inspire, inform, educate and enable healthier outcomes for us all.

We  are collaborators in creation of better together. 

Stay inspired and Discover how you can get involved with your vision and mission with the Mobilized Network!


 

Some cow.  These are the meager, not the fat, cow years.  Milk is printed, comes as vouchers, old arms.  Not a lasting relation anyhow, and even less so in an Afghanistan where they have to create army and police for the milk transfer.  Not strange that the more or less willing partners and US civilians cooperate to have dialogues with the Taliban to get off the hook, the US military saying “give us only X years more and we’ll beat them”.  With drones and SEALs.

USA and NATO will withdraw and bones of the US empire will be buried on Afghan soil. Maybe NATO too.  That game offers no solution.

We are back to the grand trends of the opening: power moving to the south and the east, states yielding to federations and regions.  Pakistan can probably only survive as a federation with very much autonomy for the parts, and as part of a Central Asian community with eight Muslim neighbors including Afghanistan.  The more open the border the more will the Durand wound heal, not by Pakistan or Afghanistan yielding territory to the other, or as a new Pashtunistan. And that region will be more interested in good relations with China–already owner of enormous resources in Afghanistan–than with the USA.

And the USA?  Hopefully withdrawing before the war with Pakistan becomes hotter.  Into the same, the fate of the times: maybe into a North America region.  Or a USA-Israel Judeo-Christian civilization, with all the problems that will imply?  A true federation for WASPs and for dominated nations in the USA?  A conference with Pakistan to exchange experiences, compare notes from the period 2001-2012?

Where love is missing, separation may be better.  Even divorce.

*                           *                           *

In conclusion some words maybe guesses, about 9/11 2001.

The Arab/Wahhabite goal was probably justice, by executing two buildings in public space for alleged sins against Alla’h and lack of respect for Islam. The US goal was and is status quo, with free trade.  Even to talk about bridging the gap is today taboo.

And yet the key parties, let us call them Washington and Al Qaeda, not 1.4 billion Christians and 1.3 billion Muslims, will have to start doing exactly that, through dialogues, secret and public.  They cannot go on eliminating each other in the search for the elusive “roots” of the Evil on the other side that would make them victorious.  Wiser people on either side–probably some steps removed from the two over-focused, and very similar, top figures–Obama and Osama–may already have started feeling their way into dialogue processes.

“No attack on the USA in exchange for US military withdrawal from Muslim countries that so want” could serve as an example of a possible deal.  Another would be to explore the concept of “globalization-free zones”; like no US economic penetration in the Muslim ummah.

But the basic approach would be mutual exploration to identify the legitimate elements in such goals as “free trade” and “respect”.

Cultural violence stands massively in the way of positive structural peace and in the case of 9/11 2001 even in the way of negative direct peace, simple absence of violence.  In the case of 9/11 2001 the culture of violence goes beyond racial prejudice, bringing in such pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment Puritan and Wahhabite figures of thought as Chosenness, by God for Self and by Satan for Other, with visions of glory as God’s reward and trauma as punishment, and of the final battle, Armageddon, where whoever is not with us is against us.  Maybe one day Enlightenment will strike in both cultures.

And one day even reconciliation.

In the meantime let us drop the terms “terrorist” and “state terrorist”; as a beginning put them in [” “], quote unquote. Of course they stand for something: very often hitting defenseless people not in uniform, from the ground or the air.  People in uniform hitting each other, also known as inter-state wars, are dwindling with the state system, and also because the wars are too risky for the combatants, they prefer defenseless victims.  Up came the “terrorisms”.

However, more basic than their violent strategies of various kinds is something deeper: conflicts, contradictions between parties, incompatibilities.  Name the parties, identify their goals, explore incompatibilities and compatibilities for conflict and cooperation, and turn the former into the latter: through dialogues for solution.

Source: Transcend

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Editorials

As the Golden Globes lose their luster, can we create a better version of Hollywood?

Published

on

 

Something interesting is happening in Hollywood. People are walking away from the Golden Globe Awards.

And for good reason.

Anyone who has ever worked in the filthy abyss of Hollywood, New York, or any major entertainment city will know first hand how these systems work. Sycophants, parasites and moguls and talent agents willing to step all over each other just for the sake of another prize. Some will even kill for a shot at the brass ring.  And industry divided cannot succeed.

The only good thing I found in the Golden Globes was watching Ricky Gervais lampoon the stars and their handlers from the stage. Bravo to Gervais, it doesn’t make a difference what you think of him, afterall, he had something that most of Hollywood doesn’t have. Balls. Guts. And a way of delivering amusing reality dosed insults to their face only to find he’s been re-instated as the show host for the next years showing.

 

The annual Golden Globes ceremony has been unable to find a broadcasting partner or any celebrities willing to present or collect its awards after a Hollywood boycott over its diversity and ethics scandal, resulting in a pared-down event with the emphasis on philanthropy.

According to Variety, the Globes’ talent bookers have failed to persuade any big Hollywood figures to attend the 2022 edition of the awards ceremony, a hitherto glittering annual event that traditionally kicked off the lucrative awards season. In March 2021 more than 100 public relations firms announced they would withdraw cooperation with the Globes, a series of high-profile Hollywood figures, including Tom Cruise and Scarlett Johansson, made stinging public criticisms, and TV network NBC cancelled its broadcast of the 2022 edition. (-The Guardian)

 
eguardian.com/film/2022/jan/09/golden-globes-lose-their-shine-as-a-listers-shun-unethical-ceremony

But this years showing not only lacked the luster of Hollywood today, but doesn’t even have a Network or Livestream to cover it.  I guess we’ll have to rely on celeb Twitter Feeds.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Arts

How The Pentagon and CIA Have Shaped Thousands of Hollywood Movies into Super Effective Propaganda

Published

on

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, January 5, 2022

Propaganda is most impactful when people don’t think it’s propaganda, and most decisive when it’s censorship you never knew happened.

 

When we imagine that the U.S. military only occasionally and slightly influences U.S. movies, we are extremely badly deceived. The actual impact is on thousands of movies made, and thousands of others never made. And television shows of every variety.

The military guests and celebrations of the U.S. military on game shows and cooking shows are no more spontaneous or civilian in origin than the ceremonies glorifying members of the U.S. military at professional sports games — ceremonies that have been paid for and choreographed by U.S. tax dollars and the U.S. military. The “entertainment” content carefully shaped by the “entertainment” offices of the Pentagon and the CIA doesn’t just insidiously prepare people to react differently to news about war and peace in the world. To a huge extent it substitutes a different reality for people who learn very little actual news about the world at all.

The U.S. military knows that few people watch boring and non-credible news programs, much less read boring and non-credible newspapers, but that great masses will eagerly watch long movies and TV shows without too much worrying about whether anything makes sense. We know that the Pentagon knows this, and what military officials scheme and plot as a result of knowing this, because of the work of relentless researchers making use of the Freedom of Information Act. These researchers have obtained many thousands of pages of memos, notes, and script re-writes. I don’t know whether they’ve put all of these documents online — I certainly hope they do and that they make the link widely available. I wish such a link were in giant font at the end of a fantastic new film. The film is called Theaters of War: How the Pentagon and CIA Took Hollywood. The Director, Editor, and Narrator is Roger Stahl. The Co-Producers are Matthew Alford, Tom Secker, Sebastian Kaempf. They’ve provided an important public service.

In the film we see copies of and hear quotations from and analysis of much of what has been uncovered, and learn that thousands of pages exist that nobody has yet seen because the military has refused to produce them. Film producers sign contracts with the U.S. military or CIA. They agree to “weave in key talking points.” While unknown quantities of this sort of thing remain unknown, we do know that nearly 3,000 films and many thousands of TV episodes have been given the Pentagon treatment, and many others have been handled by the CIA. In many film productions, the military effectively becomes a co-producer with veto power, in exchange for allowing the use of military bases, weapons, experts, and troops. The alternative is the denial of those things.

But the military is not as passive as this might suggest. It actively pitches new story ideas to movie and TV producers. It seeks out new ideas and new collaborators who might bring them to a theater or laptop near you. Act of Valor actually began life as a recruitment advertisement.

Of course, many movies are made without military assistance. Many of the best never wanted it. Many that wanted it and were denied, managed to get made anyway, sometimes at much greater expense without the U.S. tax dollars paying for the props. But a huge number of movies are made with the military. Sometimes the initial movie in a series is made with the military, and the remaining episodes voluntarily follow the military’s line. Practices are normalized. The military sees huge value in this work, including for recruitment purposes.

The alliance between the military and Hollywood is the main reason that we have lots of big blockbuster movies on certain topics and few if any on others. Studios have written scripts and hired top actors for movies on things like Iran-Contra that have never seen the light of day because of a Pentagon rejection. So, nobody watches Iran-Contra movies for fun the way they might watch a Watergate movie for fun. So, very few people have any notions about Iran-Contra.

But with the reality of what the U.S. military does being so awful, what, you might wonder, are the good topics that do get lots of movies made about them? A lot are fantasy or distortion. Black Hawk Down turned reality (and a book it was “based on”) on its head, as did Clear and Present Danger. Some, like Argo, hunt for small stories within large ones. Scripts explicitly tell audiences that it doesn’t matter who started a war for what, that the only thing that matters is the heroism of troops trying to survive or to rescue a soldier.

Yet, actual U.S. military veterans are often shut out and not consulted They often find movies rejected by the Pentagon as “unrealistic” to be very realistic, and those created with Pentagon collaboration to be highly unrealistic. Of course, a huge number of military-influenced films are made about the U.S. military fighting space aliens and magical creatures — not, clearly, because it’s believable but because it avoids reality. On the other hand, other military-influenced films shape people’s views of targeted nations and dehumanize the humans living in certain places.

Don’t Look Up is not mentioned in Theaters of War, and presumably had no military involvement (who knows?, certainly not the movie-watching public), yet it uses a standard military-culture idea (the need to blow up something coming from outerspace, which in reality the U.S. government would simply love to do and you could hardly stop them) as an analogy for the need to stop destroying the planet’s climate (which you cannot easily get the U.S. government to remotely consider) and not one reviewer notices that the film is an equally good or bad analogy for the need to stop building nuclear weapons — because U.S. culture has had that need effectively excised.

The military has written policies on what it approves and disapproves. It disapproves depictions of failures and crimes, which eliminates much of reality. It rejects films about veteran suicide, racism in the military, sexual harassment and assault in the military. But it pretends to refuse to collaborate on films because they’re not “realistic.”

Yet, if you watch enough of what is produced with military involvement you’ll imagine that using and surviving nuclear war is perfectly plausible. This goes back to the original Pentagon-Hollywood invention of myths about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and runs right up through military influence on The Day After, not to mention the transformation — paid for by people who throw a fit if their tax dollars help prevent someone freezing on the street — of Godzilla from a nuclear warning to the reverse. In the original script for the first Iron Man movie, the hero went up against the evil weapons dealers. The U.S. military rewrote it so that he was a heroic weapons dealer who explicitly argued for more military funding. Sequels stuck with that theme. The U.S. military advertised its weapons of choice in Hulk, Superman, Fast and Furious, and Transformers, the U.S. public effectively paying to push itself to support paying thousands of times more — for weapons it would otherwise have no interest in.

“Documentaries” on the Discovery, History, and National Geographic channels are military-made commercials for weapons. “Inside Combat Rescue” on National Geographic is recruitment propaganda. Captain Marvel exists to sell the Air Force to women. Actress Jennifer Garner has made recruitment ads to accompany movies she’s made that are themselves more effective recruitment ads. A movie called The Recruit was largely written by the head of the CIA’s entertainment office. Shows like NCIS push out the military’s line. But so do shows you wouldn’t expect: “reality” TV shows, game shows, talk shows (with endless reunifications of family members), cooking shows, competition shows, etc.

I’ve written before about how Eye in the Sky was openly and proudly both completely unrealistic nonsense and influenced by the U.S. military to shape people’s ideas about drone murders. A lot of people have some small idea of what goes on. But Theaters of War: How the Pentagon and CIA Took Hollywood helps us to grasp the scale of it. And once we’ve done that, we may gain some possible insights into why polling finds much of the world fearing the U.S. military as a threat to peace, but much of the U.S. public believing that U.S. wars benefit people who are grateful for them. We may begin to form some guesses as to how it is that people in the United States tolerate and even glorify endless mass-killing and destruction, support threatening to use or even using nuclear weapons, and suppose the U.S. to have major enemies out there threatening its “freedoms.” Viewers of Theaters of War may not all immediately react with “Holy shit! The world must think we’re lunatics!” But a few may ask themselves whether it’s possible that wars don’t look like they do in movies — and that would be a great start.

Theaters of War ends with a recommendation, that movies be required to disclose at the start any military or CIA collaboration. The film also notes that the United States has laws against propagandizing the U.S. public, which might make such a disclosure a confession of a crime. I would add that since 1976, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has required that “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.”

To learn more about this film, view it, or host a screening of it, go here.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading

Editorials

The Grinch That Stole Christmas

Published

on

Back in the mid 70’s as my wife and I were starting our photography business Wally Miller, a successful local businessman, invited us to his office to offer help in the form of business advice. He asked only that we bring a financial statement and of course we complied.  The business startup process was new to us and after two years we were still losing money, and there it was in plain sight on the financial statement.  Wally welcomed us warmly and after a few minutes of careful study of our financials offered this observation, “You have no bad debts.”

Naturally I took this as a compliment.  I was proud that we had no bad debts, but that is not what Wally meant.  He elaborated, “If you have no bad debts that means that your credit is too tight and that translates into lost business.” His meaning was clear.  To be successful, really successful, you have to accept reasonable losses.  It’s the very nature of business.  If you want 100% certainty there can be no risk and without risk there can be no profits.

There’s a lesson in this thinking for Joe “McFuqwad” Manchin, the tight-ass, penny-pinching Grinch ruining Christmas for every American under the cover of “fiscal responsibility.”  His staffers gave us a look into his rationale, revealing two of the real reasons behind Joe’s decision to be the big NO.

Apparently Manchin believes that giving money to the poor in the form of a child tax credit is unwise because in his view, many will spend the extra dollars on drugs.  Likewise he is opposed to paid leave, stating that people will just call in sick and then go off deer hunting.

Now let’s all agree that in a free society, there are good and bad actors.  No law can legislate what is in the hearts of men.  No law can dictate integrity or honor.  If that were the case, there would be no GOP, no Jim Jordan, no Ted Cruz, no Matt Gaetz, No Marjorie Taylor Green, no Lauren Boebert. You get my drift, but I digress.

Once you agree to recognize that the actions of individuals are beyond your control, you must the adjust your decisions and subsequent actions to affect the greatest good for the majority.  Charity benefits the worthy and unworthy alike, without discrimination.  To withhold benefits from the worthy because there will always be unworthy recipients is to succumb to the devil’s play, a game of reduction that punishes all for the few.

Get Mobilized and Make Love Go Viral!
Continue Reading
INTERVIEWS9 hours ago

The Undertow with Mark Metz : How Corruption in the Energy Sector Sabotages Sustainability

INTERVIEWS9 hours ago

GAIA TALKS: The Earth Speaks: Mohamed Ismail from Egyptians Abroad For Democracy Worldwide

Paradigm Change1 day ago

People Power Now

Paradigm Change2 days ago

An Empowered World: People, we are Ready!

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Conscious capitalism and Raising the Bar of Human Possibility

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Open Collaboration on an Epic Scale: The Future is Cooperatively Decentralized

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Transforming Energy and Transportation

Paradigm Change3 days ago

An information upgrade whose time is now

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Transforming agriculture and food systems for optimal planetary and personal health

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Transforming Planetary Public health

INTERVIEWS6 days ago

Wa’echun Hour: Personal Power and Decolonization

Featured1 week ago

Truths or Consequences: Failing State or Shining Light?: The USA Role in the Twenty-first Century

Featured1 week ago

The Undertow: The Corrosion of Corruption: Cleaning up the Chaos with Heidi Cuda

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

The time is NOW to Rethink: James Arbib of Re-Think X

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Savor This: Allan Savory on Real World Solutions Now

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Ecologic Economics and Steady State Economies with Brian Czech

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

The unlimited potential of space solar Power with John Mankins

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Understanding the real transition to clean and renewable energy with Professor Chris Rhodes

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

The Father of the Environmental Justice Movement

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Sustainable Growth on a Finite Planet is Not Possible

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Help!!! We’re drowning in a sea of Plastic: A conversation with Dr. Julie Peller

The Web of Life2 weeks ago

It is time for a better relationship with our beautiful, blue planet.

Editorials2 weeks ago

As the Golden Globes lose their luster, can we create a better version of Hollywood?

Featured3 weeks ago

How Our Grassroots Energy Projects Are Taking Back Power From Utility Companies

Arts3 weeks ago

How The Pentagon and CIA Have Shaped Thousands of Hollywood Movies into Super Effective Propaganda

Arts3 weeks ago

How The Pentagon and CIA Have Shaped Thousands of Hollywood Movies into Super Effective Propaganda

The Web of Life2 weeks ago

It is time for a better relationship with our beautiful, blue planet.

Featured3 weeks ago

How Our Grassroots Energy Projects Are Taking Back Power From Utility Companies

Featured1 week ago

The Undertow: The Corrosion of Corruption: Cleaning up the Chaos with Heidi Cuda

Editorials2 weeks ago

As the Golden Globes lose their luster, can we create a better version of Hollywood?

Featured1 week ago

Truths or Consequences: Failing State or Shining Light?: The USA Role in the Twenty-first Century

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Ecologic Economics and Steady State Economies with Brian Czech

INTERVIEWS6 days ago

Wa’echun Hour: Personal Power and Decolonization

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Savor This: Allan Savory on Real World Solutions Now

Food4 weeks ago

How Climate Change Narratives are Used Against Us

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

The time is NOW to Rethink: James Arbib of Re-Think X

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Sustainable Growth on a Finite Planet is Not Possible

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Transforming Energy and Transportation

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Conscious capitalism and Raising the Bar of Human Possibility

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Open Collaboration on an Epic Scale: The Future is Cooperatively Decentralized

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Help!!! We’re drowning in a sea of Plastic: A conversation with Dr. Julie Peller

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

Understanding the real transition to clean and renewable energy with Professor Chris Rhodes

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

The unlimited potential of space solar Power with John Mankins

Paradigm Change2 days ago

An Empowered World: People, we are Ready!

Paradigm Change1 day ago

People Power Now

Paradigm Change3 days ago

An information upgrade whose time is now

INTERVIEWS2 weeks ago

The Father of the Environmental Justice Movement

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Transforming Planetary Public health

Paradigm Change3 days ago

Transforming agriculture and food systems for optimal planetary and personal health

INTERVIEWS9 hours ago

GAIA TALKS: The Earth Speaks: Mohamed Ismail from Egyptians Abroad For Democracy Worldwide

Trending

Translate »