Maybe if we declared “war” on poison water, we’d find a way to invest money in its “defeat.”
An eloquent case, Mr. Koehler.
We lose every war we fight. War always creates unintended consequences of monstrous proportions, which dwarf its strategic aims.
Simple truth. So tragic, so indefensible to squander our resources this way.
What if we decided to rescue the children of Flint — indeed, rescue every child in this country — from the dangers of lead poison and industrial pollution and poverty? What if we stared directly at the ticking time bomb of climate change and environmental collapse and regrouped as a nation around a determination not to let this happen?
I'm with you, sir. I believe that electing Bernie Sanders is the best first step to doing this.
And how about this? Since Elizabeth Warren wants to remain in the Senate for now, how about Kathy Kelly for Secretary of State?
Back in the 60s, I spoke with a Navaho man who had been kidnapped as a child and sent to a school where they were punished for speaking Navaho (apparently he had been handcuffed as well as beaten). We talked for hours, I a young well educated hippie camper and he a man who did not speak english well and had only a few years of elementary school education (if you could call it that). He was a traditional Navaho - he was walking a small flock of sheep seven miles to water them (and seven miles back again (every day).
He asked me about something that he couldn't understand. The Bureau of Indian Affairs were telling his grandmother that she needed to leave her home - a traditional Hogan - because the adobe bricks that it had been constructed of were poisonous and he couldn't understand how something that you couldn't see or touch could harm you? It seemed that the bastards had encouraged the traditional Navahos to use the abandoned piles of uranium tailings to make their adobe from.
I never forgot the shock I felt when I realized the racist cruelty experienced by people who didn't speak english and who were cut off from modern life - in those days no electricity - no TV nor even radio and little or no modern education. Years later the miners would begin to succumb to radiation poisoning.
The truth is that the people at the top are pathological to some degree and lack empathy towards people on the bottom.
Ordinary people often exclaim that were they to have tens of billions of dollars like do some billionaires, that they'd feed people and do wonderful things for the world. Why is it that billionaires don't do such things? Why do hundreds of millions of people starve everyday?
Why do the super rich - the 1% - act the way they do towards the poor?
They are pathologically unconcerned about the poor - I guess that is the way it has to be to get that rich?
Consider that pathological unconcern of those at the top towards those at the bottom and then think in terms of TOXIC LEGACY.
If you are reading this... you are not among the 1%... so remember Flint as you go through your >>> not the 1% day and remember that very often ...
you have not been warned. Innocent people often aren't.
While the rundown of toxic time bombs is apt, this insistence on using the collective WE frame to define what's done foremost by militarists and corporatists is a big part of the problem.
It insists that the collective WE created this when in reality, much in the way of Evil's designs comes from very real parties. The Koch Brothers are probably the #1 source for setting a pro-pollution agenda into motion and Exxon's climate change denial propaganda is 2nd.
As for the Make War machine, the claim that this was created by "We, the people," rather than a felonious pro-war Deep State apparatus is part of the problem.
As the poster Alan MacDonald often notes--without an accurate diagnosis, a problem cannot be solved.
All this flagellating of the great collective WE is like a crowd arguing while the perpetrators of real crimes slip-slide away.
The False Flag of 911 unleashed the pro-war apparatus and through it, the cannibalizing of half of the nation's collected funds... year after year amounting to what, 5 trillion?
THAT is not a choice done by, for, or of the people.
And those who say "you voted these people into office," the truth is that the Supreme Court put Bush in, and the fake Ohio vote count managed to maintain Bush into 2004.
No one thought Obama would continue the Bush policies. What he was elected to do turned out to be a total fraud.
And now, with Sanders so evidently in the lead, the DLC will use its fallback "super delegate" deceit to once again CRIPPLE the public's will.
Most people ARE against war and more certainly would be if they didn't have it constantly drummed into their minds that enemies in the Arab world are out to get them (a total projection), or that 911 was the fruit of 19 Arab hijackers.
I am responding to this: The first paragraph almost gets it right, but then the knee JERK need to revert to the collective WE betrays the truth:
"This is “the way things are” but I don’t think it’s the way most people want them to be. How on earth do we find the “political will” to change — indeed, reverse — this situation?
"The PR ploy of militarism is that it’s how we as a nation think and act in a big way. We uproot terrorists. We topple dictators. We bring democracy to Iraq. As a metaphor, “war” is our way of coping with drugs and cancer and crime. We confront evil and, in the process, become the good guys. We budget more than half a trillion dollars a year to maintain this illusion of ourselves."
How come Mr. Koehler can't take what the Page and Gilens Study PROVED-about the public's will NOT being part of Big Government's Policy Determinations? How come truth doesn't matter to this writer?
USA has government of by and for too big to fail corporations. I wish USA national government would tax: first year--greenhouse gas emissions as carbon dioxide equivalent at $5/metric ton; second year, energy at $5/MWh for electricity and equivalent for other forms of energy; third year, toxins released into environment at $5/LD50 (amount of poison it takes to have a 50/50 chance of killing a person); fourth year, raise tax on energy another $5/unit; then keep rotating through four-year cycle until taxes on emissions both greenhouse and toxic have consumed their tax bases down to 1% of what they were at start with prohibitive tariff effect, AND tax on energy is 70% of its tax base. Then keep adjusting tax rates slightly to keep it like that. Meanwhile, all revenue from emissions taxes and 50% and 90% of energy tax (depending on how much of energy comes from any sort of extracted fuel (carbon or nuclear) and how much from renewable energy) is to buy either fossil fuel or uranium ore as mineral rights to keep it in the ground and rest of revenue is for water projects including flood control and desalination of salt water (either brackish near mouths of rivers or seawater). Somewhere between 50% and 90% of revenue is to buy peace with energy industry and rest is for water for thirsty critters including humans and thirsty crops.
Excellent post, the only thing I'd point out is that there were people pointing out PBO was not the man the MSM was framing him to be. Those people, of course, weren't given any MSM coverage. So while you may not have heard it this PBO presidency was predicted by a handful.