Meri

Yli 70% maapallosta on meren peitossa. Asumme sinisella planeetalla. Meresta kumpuaa myrskyt ja sateet, ja tyyneys. Meri antaa maapallolle elaman.

Over 70% of the world is covered with oceans. We live on a blue planet. Out of the oceans spring forth storms and rains, and peace. The oceans give us life.

Iltarukous

Oi Herra, luoksein jaa! Jo ilta on, Ja kadonnut on valo auringon. Ken muu mua murheissani lohduttais, Kelt' turvan hadassansa sielu sais.

Paivani rientaa kohti loppuaan, On ilo maallinen kuin varjo vaan. Ei ole taalla mitaan pysyvaa, Vain sina, Herra, - sina luoksein jaa.

Sa pahan vaijytykset turhiks teet, Sa tuskat liennat, kuivaat kyyneleet. Miss' on nyt kuolema, sun voittosi, Kun Herra Jeesus olet kilpeni.

Sun, Herra, ristisi mua valaiskoon, kun tieni painuu kuolon laaksohon. Sen valon tielta varjot haviaa. Elaissa kuollessa sa luoksein jaa.

Laittomat maahanmuuttajat

Nyt puhutaan siita, kuka saa asua Amerikassa - laittomien maahanmuuttajien luvatussa maassa.

First Day of Second Grade

Kyoto and Climate Change

Yhdysvallat ei ole allekirjoittanut Kioton ilmastosopimusta (oli kylla mukana neuvotteluissa, mutta Bushin tultua valtaan irtisanoutui pikimmiten). Samana paivana viime vuonna kun Kioton sopimus tuli voimaan, Seattlen pormestari Greg Nickels teki aloitteen, jossa amerikkalaiset kaupungit ryhtyvat itse alentamaan paastoja, odottelematta liitovaltion mukaantuloa. Nyt on mukana jo 219 kaupunkia. Tarkoitus on alentaa kasvihuone-kaasuja 7% alle 1990 tason. Se ei tietysti yksin riita, mutta on ainakin suuntaa-antava ja ehka saa huomion kohdistumaan tahan polttavaan ja ajankohtaiseen ongelmaan.

Kun katselee minkalaisilla autoilla suurin osa amerikkalaisista ajaa, huolestuu entisestaan. Vaikka bensan hinta on noussut jo kaksinkertaiseksi Bushin kaudella (varsinainen oljy-mies!), ihmiset eivat edelleenkaan vaikuta kovin huolestuneilta. He ajavat suuren suurilla maastoautoilla ja pick-upeilla ja bensaa palaa hulvattomasti. Ja oljy-yhtiot tekevat aivan mielettomia voittoja! Pikkuhiljaa alkaa kuitenkin nakya merkkeja siita, etta ihmiset ajattelevat kahdesti, ennen kuin ostavat suuren auton. Fordin valtavat tila-autot eivat enaa mene kaupaksi niin kuin viela vuosi, pari sitten. Nyt puhutaan jo vaihtoehdoista, kuten sahko/bensa-autoista.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002888182_kyoto25m.html

Climate Change

Climate change is perhaps the biggest challenge of the 21^st century for politicians, scientists and all life on Earth, because of the potential impact on the planet of accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases occur naturally and have been a part of the “cycle of life” on the planet from the beginning, but since the Industrial Revolution (early 1800’s) man-made (anthropogenic) gases have increased to a point that the Earth’s natural systems cannot absorb and recycle them any longer. The resulting climate change and global warming will impact all ecosystems from the oceans to the forests, agriculture, human health, water resources, biodiversity, and the weather. The main cause of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is the use of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal.

The challenge to scientists is that by nature science is based on observation of natural phenomena, and there is always some uncertainty to science. It is hard to prove that climate change is caused by human activities, because it takes years to observe the changes, and there are so many variables that could impact the results. But the evidence is mounting and now most scientists do agree on the basics of climate change.

The challenge to politicians is that they are under pressure to make decisions based on short-term goals and national priorities, not on global, long-term problems. But as the science gets more specific with data proving that climate change is happening and its impacts are affecting all of us, it will become easier (or at least more urgent) to make tough decisions to alter the course of global warming.

According to two University of Helsinki professors, Atte Korhola and Pekka Kauppi, (Pekka Kauppi: University of Helsinki; Professor of environmental science & policy; Atte Korhola, University of Helsinki; Professor in Arctic Global Change) the impacts of climate change are already so far advanced, that the Kyoto Protocol in its current state is not sufficient to curb global warming. As an example they mention the melting of permafrost in the Arctic, which is already occurring very rapidly, and which can release huge amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere, thus exacerbating the greenhouse effect. They suggest that by the time Kyoto agreement is finished (2012), a new, much stronger international agreement must be in place. According to Korhola decreasing gas emissions is not enough at this point: States must invest heavily in developing new energy sources, such as fusion and hydrogen, and move away from fossil fuels. We must also put more emphasis on planting new trees/forests, which work very efficiently as carbon sinks and reservoirs (ecosystem services), such as Kenya’s Green Belt movement directed by Wangari Maathai (Suomen Kuvalehti, #17, 2005).

The international community must respond to climate change in unison, because climate change has global impact. The Kyoto Protocol was the first such attempt, but it failed to get USA (biggest greenhouse gases emitter) to go along. The US economy is very much based on fossil fuel consumption and there wasn’t enough political will for Americans to join Kyoto. Because of the nature of international environmental law – mostly soft law – it is extremely difficult to come up with binding laws to curb climate change. There are too many conflicting issues at hand: North vs. South, consumerism vs. Common concern, costs vs. benefits of change. All approaches need to be interdisciplinary in scope: economic, political, scientific, educational, ecological, cultural etc.

Tuttu paikka II

Valtakunnanoikeus

Ruohonjuuritasolla on jo pitkaan puhuttu Bushin asettamisesta syytteeseen valtakunnaoikeudessa, mutta nyt asia on otettu myos puheeksi kongressissa. John Conyers, kansanedustaja Michiganista, on esittanyt jo joulukuussa 05, etta olisi asetettava komitea tutkimaan, josko presidentti pitaisi asettaa syytteeseen. Syiksi han mainitsee Irakin sodan aloittamiseen johtavien tiedustelujen manipuloinnin, kidutuksen, kostot Bushia kritisoineita henkiloita kohtaan, jne.

Lewis H. Lapham kirjoittaa pitkan artikkelin Harper's Magazine -lehdessa, jossa han kehottaa syytteen nostamista. Hanen mielestaan Bush on aloittanut 'pysyvan sodan', voidakseen sen verukkeella pienentaa kansalaisten perusoikeuksia, kuten yksityisyytta ja sananvapautta. 'Kansallisen turvallisuuden' nimissa luodaan tyranniaa.

"It is the business of the Congress to prevent the President from doing more damage than he's already done to the people, interests, health, well-being, safety, good name, and reputation of the United States - to cauterize the wound and stem the flows of money, stupidity, and blood."
[Lapham, Harper's Magazine, March 06]

Itikka

Lautta upposi merella

Kanadalainen lautta upposi myrskyavalla merella Brittilaisen Kolumbian rannikolla eilen. Matkustajia oli noin sata henkea ja miehisto sen paalle. Ihme ja kumma kaikki saatiin pelastettua (tanaan olen kuullut, etta ehka kaksi matkustajaa hukkui), vaikka laiva upposi hyvin nopeasti - noin tunnin sisalla siita, kun se oli ajanut karille. Keskella yota matkustajat ohjattiin hyteistaan kannelle ja pelastusveneisiin, vain yopuvut ja takit paalla. Merivesi on hyytavan kylmaa, joten jos matkustajat olisivat joutuneet veden varaan pelastusliiveineenkin, olisi kolea kuolema tullut hyvin nopeasti.

Laheisella rannalla oleva pikkukyla - intiaanireservaatti - herasi kesken unien, ja ryhtyi pikaisesti pelastustoimintaan. Noin 80 paikallista lahti veneineen hyytavaan ja myrskyavaan yohon noutamaan matkustajia pelastusveneista. Loput kylalaiset jarjestivat peittoja, kuumaa kahvia ja ruokaa kylan monitoimitalolle, ja auttoivat loukkaantuneita ja palelevia matkustajia.

Mahtava tarina! Urheus ja lahimmaisenrakkaus ovat viela voimissaan.

STEVE SIMMONS / SPECIAL TO THE SEATTLE TIMES

The Queen of the North heads northbound last year in Grenville Channel, about 10 miles north of where it sank last night.

Editorial
It took a village

Forty minutes after midnight, winds howling 45 miles per hour, seas choppy, the tiny community of Hartley Bay joined the Canadian Coast Guard and rescued 101 passengers and crew from a sinking British Columbia ferry. Their actions were nothing short of remarkable.

The Queen of the North, a large B.C. ferry, was traveling from Prince Rupert to Port Hardy in British Columbia's Inside Passage when it hit a rock and began taking on water. Within a half hour of hitting the rock, passengers and crew boarded life rafts in an orderly fashion. Good thing, because the boat sank in about an hour. Many passengers were taken aboard the Canadian icebreaker Sir Wilfred Laurier, which was in the area. Its crew did a spectacular job.

The Canadian Coast Guard vessel was greatly helped by the Lone Star, a fishing boat from Hartley Bay. Fishermen pulled passengers from life rafts and took them to the community center in town, where townspeople came rushing with extra blankets, food and hot coffee.

After someone in Hartley Bay picked up the ship's emergency distress call, the entire village of Hartley Bay, an Indian reservation of several hundred people accessible only by air and water, kicked into action. Some 80 residents took speedboats out into the darkness to rescue passengers from rafts — a breathtaking display of compassion and bravery.

Early reports said there were no major injuries and no loss of life. Some passengers treated at the community center were in shock; a few needed help for minor injuries.

Swift and selfless action prevented a tragedy. This is a true story of pluck and valor.

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

Abusive Boyfriend

Pahoinpiteleva poikaystava

Rachel Neumann vertaa Bushin & kumpp. suhdetta Irakiin kuin vakivaltaisen miehen suhdetta avovaimoonsa.
Bush vakuuttaa, etta han ei "jata" tai "hylkaa" Irakia. Aivan samoin sanoo mies kumppanilleen; senkin jalkeen kun nainen on heittanyt hanet pellolle kerta toisensa jalkeen, ja hakenut lahestymiskiellon. Mies ei yksinkertaisesti voi ymmartaa, etta nainen ei hanta halua eika tarvitse.

Neumannin mukaan klassisen pahoinpitelijan profiili on seuraava:
1) usko siihen, etta toinen osapuoli tekee jotain vilpillista hanta vastaan (ilman nayttoa), ja etta hanella on oikeus toimia sen mukaisesti;
2) ylivoimaisen suuri pelko siita, etta toiset pitavat hanta heikkona;
3) Strategia, jonka tarkoitus on pitaa toinen osapuoli niin heikoilla ja ilman tukea, etta toinen alkaa uskoa tarvitsevansa pahoinpitelijaa selviytyakseen.


Iraq is not your girlfriend
(Rachel Neumann)
There was always something disturbingly familiar about the language Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld used to describe our relations to Iraq. But I could never quite figure out what it was until yesterday, when Bush reiterated that we would not "abandon" Iraq. He went on to say, "We will leave Iraq, but when we do, it will be from a position of strength, not weakness."

I worked at a number of battered women's shelters in the 1990s, and at one of them a woman told me the story of how her boyfriend kept saying he wouldn't "abandon" her, despite the fact that she'd told him she didn't want to be with him anymore, moved out, and had two restraining orders against him. He couldn't seem to understand that if she needed help, she'd get it from some qualified neutral party, not a guy who beat her up and constantly accused her of doing things she didn't do. Just as Bush doesn't seem to understand that some kind of help is the kind of help we all can do without. (I have a hunch he wasn't given Free to Be You and Me as a child.)

Bush and the war crew have three key features of the classic batterer profile:
1) A belief, without any evidence, that the other party is doing something "wrong" and "against them" and a sense that it's right to act on that belief.
2) An overwhelming fear of being perceived as weak.
3) A strategy of keeping the other party so battered and without resources that the other party begins to believe that it needs the batterer to survive.

A more comprehensive list of "typical abusive behaviors" from The Yellow Brick Road Project, one of many groups that help women get out of abusive relationships, reads like a summary of our behavior in Iraq, especially if you take into account the ongoing revelations of abuse at Abu Ghraib.
Destructive Criticism/Verbal Abuse
Pressure Tactics
Abusing Authority: Always claiming to be right (insisting statements are "the truth"); telling you what to do
Disrespect
Abusing Trust: Lying: withholding information; cheating on you; being overly jealous
Breaking Promises
Emotional Withholding
Minimizing, Denying & Blaming
Economic Control
Self Destructive Behavior
Isolation
Harassment
Acts of Violence and Intimidation
Destruction
Threats
Sexual Violence
Physical Violence
Weapons

What does the Yellow Brick Road project recommend you do with batterers? Counseling, to be sure. And keeping them out of any positions where they might possibly harm the person, or country, they've abused.

Rachel Neumann is Rights & Liberties Editor at AlterNet.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/rachel/33851/

Tax Returns for Sale

According to today’s Seattle Times the IRS is trying to loosen the rules that protect our tax privacy from marketers. If this rule passes, tax preparers could then SELL our tax information to the highest bidder! For God’s sakes, give me a break!

What more can the brightest minds of America come up with to access our pocketbooks? [If you didn't know, the brightest minds work in marketing.] They are going after our income tax returns - those of us who actually get some money back from Uncle Sam, because we have a mortgage payment or a small child or some other middle-class expense [middle-class in the sense that we make enough money to actually have a deduction]. They already know how we spend our money: what food we buy, what we read and watch, and the clothes we buy. But they also want to know if we have anything left after the year is done, so they can send us ads about car sales or vacations or cosmetic surgery.

I am outraged by the tactics of marketers, who are like a swarm of locusts who eat everything in their path and leave nothing. They exploit our desires, our fears and our vanities.
But I am also outraged by the government's lack of interest in protecting our interests as taxpayers.


See full article:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002878871_irs21.html


Veronpalautus myyntiin:

Viimeisin vitsaus tassa maassa: myydaan veronpalautustiedot markkinointi-firmoille ym. tietopankeille! 'Loistava' idea tienata lisaa rahaa. Ja kukapa ei haluaisi tietoja sellaisista veronpalautuksista, jotka saavat ihmiset ostoksille?
Tallaista ollaan mielta ainakin valtion verovirastossa [IRS]. Jos tama muutos menee lapi, saavat veroilmoituksen tayttajat [ammatti-ihmiset, jotka tayttavat ihmisten ilmoitukset – taalla aika tavallista] myyda yksityisihmisten tiedot. Heidan taytyy saada siita tietenkin kansalaisten suostumus, mutta kuinka moni todella ymmartaa, etta allekirjoittaessaan veroilmoituksen he suostuvat tietojen myymiseen? he ovat vain helpottuneita, etta 'paska' homma tuli tehtya.

Tuttu paikka I

National debt and Neoliberalism

Velkataakka

Amerikkalainen neoliberalismi koettelee maailman markkinoita. Maailmanpankki, kansainvalinen valuuttarahasto ja WTO ovat kaikki yhteen aaneen kuuluttaneet amerikkalaista neoliberalismin evankeliumia, joka pelastaa maailman koyhat. Kotimaan markkinat on avattava globalismille (lue: amerikkalaisille yrityksille), verot on pidettava alhaisina, valtion rahankayttoa hillittava pitamalla sosiaalimenot kurissa. Monet koyhat, kehittyvat valtiot ovat joutuneet ojasta allikkoon, yrittaessaan toteuttaa neoliberalismin hyvaa sanomaa. Amerikan ja Euroopan markkinat eivat ole avautuneet lupausten mukaisesti, mutta omassa maassa maanviljely on kaynyt kannattamattomaksi amerikkalaisten dumppauksen jaljilta. Omavaraisuus on kadonnut ja ihmiset jopa nakevat nalkaa. Argentiinan lahihistoria on hyva esimerkki tasta.

Amerikka karsii itsekin omasta neoliberalistisesta politiikastaan. Velkataakka on kasvanut huikeaksi viimeisten viiden vuoden aikana, mutta verohelpotuksia annetaan huippurikkaille, joilla on jo nyt niin alyttomasti rahaa, etta he eivat tieda mita silla tehda. Mutta he eivat ole sijoittaneet sita uusiin tyopaikkoihin, kuten luvattiin (trickle-down economics). Sotaa kaydaan kohta neljatta vuotta, ja jotkut rikastuvat sotateollisuuden siivella, mutta me muut velkaannumme yha lisaa. Kuka lopulta maksaa amerikkalaisten velan kun sen aika tulee? Kun kiinalaiset lopulta paattavat, etta dollariin ei voi enaa luottaa (ja velkojen korko nousee akisti), vajoamme koko maailmanlaajuiseen depressioon, joka kestaa pitkaan.

Jan Nederveen Pietersen mukaan Bushin taustajoukot ovat valmiit ottamaan huikeita riskeja taloudellisesti, silla heidan tavoitteenaan ei olekaan neoliberalistinen maailma, vaan globaali imperiumi, jota Amerikka johtaa ja hallitsee. Siksi sota ja taloudelliset riskit eivat pelota, eika tavoitteesta poiketa muutamien "pikku" takaiskujen vuoksi.

National Debt

“When a country lives on borrowed time, borrowed money and borrowed energy, it is just begging the markets to discipline it in their own way at their own time. As I said, usually the markets do it in an orderly way - except when they don't.” (Friedman, 2005)

The United States has been the leader in the neoliberal onslaught on domestic and global markets for the last quarter century. It was on the agenda of Southern conservatives to dismantle New Deal capitalism in the name of competitiveness and flexibility, and bring in “lean government”. Gradually the belief in low taxes, fiscal discipline and small government became the mainstream mantra; everyone seemed convinced that making these structural reforms would bring prosperity across the board. But George W. Bush and his “Southern” conservative administration appear to be on a different path: yes, they do want to dismantle the remnants of the New Deal and privatize large parts of public services, but when it comes to fiscal discipline, they are on another planet!

According to Jan Pieterse neoliberalism is the “confluence of the economic ideas of the Chicago school and the policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher” (Pieterse, 2004). The main tenets of neoliberalism are: 1) free markets and trade; 2) low taxes and small government; 3) commodification and privatization (and dismantling) of public services; 4) corporate deregulation; 5) promotion of consumerism; 6) strong military [in the U.S.] (Pieterse, 2004 & Cavanagh, Mander, 2004). Pieterse calls this “Dixie capitalism” denoting its roots in the deep South. “The economic strategy of the American South was ‘based on low-wage, labor-intensive, high-exploitation production, and hostility to unions…’” (Pieterse, 2004). The foundation of Dixie capitalism was on plantation economics with authoritarian leadership and low-cost labor.

The United States has been preaching the gospel of neoliberalism to the world through IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. Its promise was to liberate the world’s poor through free markets, free trade and deregulation. So far it has not delivered. The income gap between the poorest and the wealthiest of the world is widening at a rapid rate (Pieterse, 2004). What is also troubling is the fact that the Bush administration is ignoring its own recipe for prosperity and stability.

…the main reason why the dollar is sinking is that the United States is going deeper into debt as our budget deficit and trade deficit continue to widen. Dollars are just like IOUs, worth less and less as debts mount. In other words, America’s deficits represent a kind of economic unilateralism that worries Europe almost as much as America’s go-it-alone foreign policy. (Reich, 2005)

The U.S. is not practicing fiscal discipline as expected by the tenets of neoliberalism. Americans are spending way over their heads while giving huge tax cuts to the wealthy and to multinational corporations, and fighting an expensive war all at the same time. This has caused the value of the Dollar to plummet with no end in sight. If there is another unforeseen event, such as a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, or a financial crisis with the Chinese, it could create a global recession not seen since the 1930’s. Why is the Bush administration taking such risks with the U.S. economy? According to Pieterse this administration’s seeming inconsistency with neoliberal strategy is due to the fact that the administration is not really after a neoliberal world but a global empire with the U.S. at the helm.

The rapid succession from a neoliberal to an imperial project yields a combine of American economic and political-military unilateralism and a novel formation of neoliberal empire… The core of empire is the national security state and the military-industrial complex; neoliberalism is about business, financial operations, and marketing… so imperial policies come in addition to and not instead of the framework of neoliberal globalization. Neoliberal empire is a marriage of convenience with neoliberalism, indicated by inconsistent use of neoliberal policies, and an attempt to merge the America whose business is war, at a time when business is not doing so great. (Pieterse, 2004)

The Bush administration’s goal is global hegemony both militarily and economically. Bush and his neo-conservative comrades are willing to pay a high price for achieving this goal: they are willing to risk the collapse of the U.S. economy, the death of thousands of troops and civilians in wars abroad, and global chaos for years to come.

1) Cavanagh, John, Mander, Jerry 2004. Alternatives to Economic Globalization.

2) Friedman, Thomas 2005. Honey, I Shrunk the Dollar.

The New York Times

3) Pieterse, Jan Nederveen 2004. Globalization or Empire?

4) Reich, Robert 2005. That Sinking Dollar.

Lapin Kesa

Lapissa kaikki kukkii nopeasti,
maa, ruoho, ohra, vaivaiskoivutkin.
Tuot' olen aatellut ma useasti,
kun katson kansan taman vaiheisiin.

Miks meilla kaikki kaunis tahtoo kuolta
ja suuri surkastua alhaiseen?
Miks meilla on niin monta mielipuolta?
Miks vahan kayttajia kanteleen?

Miks miesta taalla kaikkialla kaatuu
kuin heinaa, - miesta toiveen tosiaan,
miest' aatteen, tunteen miesta, kaikki maatuu
tai kesken toimiaan katkeaa?

Muualla tulta saihkyy harmaahapset,
vanhoissa hehkuu hengen aurinko.
Meill' ukkoina jo syntyy sylipapset
ja nuori mies on hautaan valmis jo.

Ja mina itse? Miksi naita mietin?
Se merkki varhaisen on vanhuuden.
Miks seuraa kaskya en veren vietin,
vaan kansain kohtaloita huokailen?

On vastaus vain yksi: Lapin suvi.
Sit' aatellessa mieli apeutuu.
On lyhyt Lapin linnulaulu, huvi
ja kukkain kukoistus ja riemu muu.

Mut pitka vain on talven valta. Hetken
taall' aatteet levahtaa kuin lennostaan,
kun taas ne alkaa aurinkoisen retken
ja jattavat jo jaisen Lapinmaan.

Oi, te valkolinnut, vieraat Lapin kesan,
te suuret aatteet, teita tervehdan!
Oi, tanne jaakaa, tehkaa taalla pesa,
jos muutattekin maihin etelan.

Oi, oppi ottakaa te joutsenista!
Ne lahtee syksyin, palaa kevaisin.
On meidan rannoillamme rauhallista
ja turvaisa on rinne tunturin.

Havisten halki ilman lentakaatte!
Tekoja luokaa, maita valaiskaa!
Mut talven poistuneen kun taalta naatte,
ma rukoilen, ma pyydan: palatkaa!

Eino Leino

Security/Turvallisuus

George Bush on uusinut Yhdysvaltain kansallisen turvallisuus-strategian. Se on hyvin samankaltainen kuin edellinen turvallisuus-strategia, joka valmistui vuonna 2002 - pian terroristi-iskujen jalkeen. Yhdysvaltain ulkopolitiikka muuttui pidattyvaisesta aggressiiviseksi, jossa hyokkays ilman provokaatiota on sallittua, ja jossa demokratian levittaminen maailmalla on oikeutettua, vaikka vakivalloin - jos se luo lisaa "turvallisuutta".
Mutta kenen turvallisuudesta onkaan kysymys? Amerikkalaisten tietenkin, mutta enta muiden demokratioiden? Enta Irakin kansalaisten tai Iranin kansalaisten?

Bushin turvallisuus-strategia on pelottava siksi, etta se tulkitsee kaiken amerikkalaisten arvojen mukaisesti. Ja amerikkalaiset arvot ovat niiden amerikkalaisten arvoja, jotka omistavat, hallitsevat ja ovat vallassa. Big business.




The National Security Strategy Gets Updated

I wrote a piece about the National Security Strategy last summer. Now it has just been updated. The Strategy did not change much from the one four years ago, so I think this still applies. The current one emphasizes the spread of democracy around the world and also includes items such as AIDS, the environment and genocide. And pre-emption is still the central focus of policy.

Just three days removed from these events, Americans do not yet have the distance of history. But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. The conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing. (George W. Bush, 2001)

The September 11th 2001 terrorist attack was a watershed event in world history. Not only were the events of that day spectacular in scale and visibility, but they also struck in the heart of a sleepy giant in a way that could not be forgiven. [It was unforgivable a) to be caught sleeping; b) to strike at the golden boy of the world.] By hitting the only global superpower, the terrorists managed to affect the whole world for years to come. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America was written anew after the attacks and it reflects a new attitude in the U.S. foreign policy.

George W. Bush had been President less than a year when terrorists attacked the United States. George W. Bush seemed a little lost with the responsibility of leading the most powerful nation on earth. He had barely won the election, and he didn’t have much of an agenda, especially regarding foreign policy. But he had his Christian faith and silver-spoon upbringing that would guide him through tough times.

The nation's founders, smarting still from the punitive pieties of Europe's state religions, were adamant about erecting a wall between organized religion and political authority. But suddenly, that seems like a long time ago. George W. Bush -- both captive and creator of this moment -- has steadily, inexorably, changed the office itself. He has created the faith-based presidency. (Suskind, 2004)

Since the attacks George W. Bush’s mission has been very clear, and, according to Suskind, he receives his orders directly from God. This definitely makes it easier to make difficult decisions regarding war and peace.

The National Security Strategy speaks of “liberty” and “freedom” as the most important values for all of humankind. “These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society…” These freedoms are not only individual liberties and rights but freedom of the markets. “We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world” (National Security Strategy, 2002). A Neo-Weberian would argue that American style liberal democracy is the only way to keep the world safe and at peace, and that every person desires this type of individual liberty. For George W. Bush this is true. He strongly believes in the rightness of his mission and the evil of the “other” – “… the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization”.

As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish… The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman. (Hofstadter, 1964)

A Materialist sees the claims of freedom and liberty in a more cynical light: what the United States really wants is freedom of the markets in order to gain access to ever-expanding consumer base and to exploit the world’s resources. George W. Bush, who grew up with wealth and privilege, sees no problem with Americans controlling the world’s wealth. American wealth has been based on cheap oil for a century. George W. Bush and his oil-wealthy advisers seized the opportunity given by God (with the help of Osama bin-Laden) to secure Iraqi oil-fields for the unforeseeable future.

We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies." (Bookman, 2002)

In his book “Globalization or Empire” Jan Neverdeen Pieterse speaks of the Bush administration as “an aggressive strain of Southern conservatism backed by oil wealth” (Pieterse, 2004). According to Pieterse, since the Reagan administration, the United States’ economy has been increasingly relying on the military-industrial complex; but when the Cold War ended, it created an “enemy deficit” (Pieterse, 2004). But “the war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration” (National Security Strategy, 2002).

Both Neo-Weberian and Materialist points of view fit well into George W. Bush’s Security Strategy. The men behind his strategy had been planning American global supremacy years before the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. But with the new focus on a global enemy, it was a smooth transition from multilateralism to unilateralism. “A Defense Policy Guidance that was leaked in 1992… revealed a grand strategy of American primacy: ‘our strategy must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any future global competitor’. This principle has since become part of security strategy” (Pieterse, 2004). The President’s Neo-Weberian faith in the goodness of America and the values “we all hold true” are necessary ingredients in a charismatic leader required to lead his people on a path less democratic. But the bottom line is the mighty Dollar We Trust.

1) Bookman, Jay 2002. The President’s Real Goal in Iraq.
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

2) Suskind, Ronald 2004. Without a Doubt

3) Hofstadter, Richard 1964. The Paranoid Style in American Politics
Harper’s Magazine.

4) The National Security Strategy, 2002

5) Pieterse, Jan Nederveen 2004. Globalization or Empire?
Routledge, New York, NY.

Koulutus

Washingtonin osavaltiossa nuoret joutuvat nykyaan suorittamaan YO-kirjoitusten tapaisen kokeen 10-luokalla. Jos siita ei selvia, nuoret eivat saa lukion papereita. Koe on nimeltaan WASL (Washington Assesment of Student Learning) ja se on suoritetaan ensimmaista kertaa pakollisena tana vuonna Washingtonissa. Noin 85 000 oppilasta suorittaa kokeen, joka kestaa yhteensa kahdeksan paivaa maalis-ja huhtikuussa. Ensimmaiset kaksi paivaa ovat lukemista ja kirjoittamista, sitten testataan matikka ja tieteet. Monet oppilaista ovat valmiita jo kahden tunnin paasta, vaikka jotkut puurtavat viela yli kolmen tunnin jalkeen. Aikaa saa niin kauan kuin tarvitsee (luultavasti ei kuitenkaan yli kuusi tuntia).

Paikallisen lehden jutun mukaan tentti ei vaikuta kovin vaikealta, vaikka monet oppilaat ovat jannittaneet jo pitkaan. He eivat ole tottuneet suorittamaan pakollisia tentteja valmistuakseen "ylioppilaaksi". Takalaisesta lukiosta paasee aika helpolla, jos ei halua ottaa vaikeita kursseja - nuoret eivat ole tottuneet opiskelemaan kovin ankarasti. Tasoerot ovat kovat eliitikoulujen ja tavallisten pulliaisten koulujen valilla. Eliittikouluja on seka yksityisia etta julkisia, mutta parhaat koulut ovat tietenkin yksityisia, joissa rahaa ei saastella. Tavalliselle kansalle riitaa keskiverto koulut, joissa tarkeinta on usein urheilujoukkueet ja kaikenlainen "sosiaalinen toiminta".

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002863649_waslday14m.html

Ja sen keskella oli puu...

Soitellen Sotaan

Miksi sotia?

Alussa Yhdysvallat oli erilainen valtio ja kansa kuin muut. Se oli demokraattinen, oikeudenmukainen ja vanhurskas. Amerikkalaiset eivat halunneet olla kuin englantilaiset tai ranskalaiset, jotka sotivat saadakseet kahmittua itselleen siirtokuntia ja luonnonvaroja. He halusivat olla esimerkkina maailmalle "vapauden valtakuntana"; heita ei kiinnostanut sotkeutua epainhimillisiin ja monimutkaisiin kansainvalisiin selkkauksiin.

Kuitenkin, vuosien kuluessa ja kapitalismin otteen kiristyessa teollisen vallankumouksen jaljilta, amerikkalaisetkin huomasivat, etta kolonialismista on hyotya kansainvalisille markkinoille paasemiseksi. kansalliset arvot oli kyseenalaistettava, ja muokattava uusiksi. Amerikkalaiset paattivat olla "inhimillisia" isantia maailman huono-osaisemmille kansoille; olihan heita siunattu hyvalla uskonnolla, korkealla tyo-etiikalla ja hyvanlaatuisella rodulla. Heidat oli itse asiassa valittu levittamaan rauhaa ja hyvinvointia maailman alkuasukkaille. Tama kutsumus oli "Manifest Destiny" - amerikkalaisten kohtalo ja velvollisuus.

Viimeiset sata vuotta Yhdysvallat on kaynyt pienia ja isoja sotia "Manifest Destinyn" antamalla oikeutuksella. Presidentti McKinley aloitti Yhdysvaltain Imperiumin rakentamisen ottamalla Kuuban ja Filippiinit Espanjalta. Lantisen pallonpuoliskon amerikkalainen hegemonia on jatkunut siita asti. Ehka luukuunottamatta maailmansotia, amerikkalaisten sotiminen on ollut taloudellisesti motivoitua, mutta kaarittyna vanhurskauden vaippaan. (Tietty kommunismin pelko toi aivan oman ulottuvuuden maailman selkkauksiin.)

Myos hyokkaysta Irakiin voi pitaa amerikkalaisten "kohtalona ja velvollisuutena". Bush ja hanen katyrinsa lahtivat soitellen sotaan, silla Jumalalta oli kaynyt kasky pelastaa irakilaiset heidan omasta avuttomuudestaan, ja nayttaa heille demokratian parempi tie. Bush kayttaytyi kuin keisari paattaessaan omavaltaisesti, etta Irakiin on hyokattava. Hanen laheisimmat (neo-konservatiivit) apurinsa ja neuvonantajansa ovat Neuvostoliiton hajoamisesta lahtien suunnitellet Amerikan Imperiumin voittokulkua (Pax Americana). Amerikkalaisen hegemonian saavuttaminen olisi aloitettava Lahi-idasta, silla se on jo pitkaan ollut ruutitynnyri ja murheenkryyni.

Nyt on sodittu kolme vuotta, ja jopa neo-konservatiivien riveissa on alkanut nakya uskon puutetta ja eparointia sodan oikeutuksesta tai viisaudesta. Onko kenties niin, etta demokratiaa ei leviteta pyssynpiipuin ja vakivalloin, vaan sen on tultava kansan sisalta, omasta tahdosta ja oman kulttuurin ehdoin?

Why War?

In the beginning the United States was going to be different from any other nation on earth. It was going to be just, democratic and pious. Americans did not want to become like the British or the French, who fought wars over colonies and resources; they wanted to set an example to the rest of the world with their “empire of liberty”, and not become entangled with messy wars and conflicts as the other nations had done. However, as years passed Americans came to realize that in order to grow economically (=grip of capitalism), they had to adjust their values, build up their military strength and even acquire colonies in order to secure access to the world markets. But America would approach colonies differently: Americans were blessed by the Almighty with good religion, superior race, and a finer work ethic than all others; they were chosen to spread peace and prosperity to the world and save the savages from themselves. This calling was “Manifest Destiny”3; it was seared on the American psyche, making itself known at various intervals in U.S. history.

George W. Bush and his close advisers were bestowed a golden opportunity when al Qaeda terrorists hit the World Trade Centers in the heart of New York City and killed almost three thousand people. According to Jay Bookman, President Bush and his neoconservative friends from the Project for the New American Century had been plotting a reorganization of the Middle East map since the first Gulf War in 1991 1. Their goal was (and continues to be) a new world order with the United States at the helm (Pax Americana). After the Soviet Union’s collapse fifteen years ago, there was only one global force left on the planet: the United States of America. Thus it was natural that America would seize the opportunity for total world dominion. Not only did they have the military muscle and technology to subdue any resistance and maintain peace, but Americans also had the heart (compassion for world’s lost souls), faith (Jesus on their side) and the vision (God’s chosen people) to accomplish it. With the events of September 11^th, 2001 George W. Bush discovered his mission to proselytize the world according to his own image, and the neocons found their justification to execute their master plan.

In their immense wisdom the founding fathers divided American power between the President, the Congress and the Judiciary. All of this great power was based on the consent of the governed. The citizens delegated their power to the elected officials to represent their wishes and have their best interest in mind. This relationship, called democracy, was built on trust and openness. George W. Bush was elected (with the help of the Supreme Court) to the highest office in the country to represent the nation’s electorate. If he were to go to war he would have to consider the will of the people and Congress.

As the United States attacked al Qaeda in Afghanistan after the September 11^th tragedy, the majority of Americans were supporting the decision; in fact, most of the world seemed to support it. But when the Bush administration began to focus on Iraq, Americans began to feel ambivalence and confusion: was Iraq really the enemy? It took a lot of convincing (with deception) and manipulation of people’s fears by Bush and his cohorts to get Americans to go along, and to get the Congress to vote for the use of military force against Iraq. According to Juan Cole “Bush, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeatedly made unfounded allegations that led to continuing disaster in Iraq”2. President Bush did not act in accordance with the demands of a democracy and consult the people or Congress, but made a decision to go to war like a king or an emperor. Yes, he did pretend to consult the people and even the United Nations (as required by international law), but he made a mockery of democracy by intentionally deceiving us all. According to Joshua Micah Marshall “there is a startling amount of deception in all this--of hawks deceiving the American people, and perhaps in some cases even themselves” 4. The end justified the means – God had spoken, and we all trembled.

Just today Rupert Cornwell of The Independent writes about what the neocons "failed to foresee about Iraq":

But not only were the neocons too impatient. A second error was to believe that an all-powerful America would be trusted to exercise a "benevolent hegemony." A third was the gross overstatement of the post-9/11 threat posed by radical Islam, in order to justify the dubious doctrine of preventive war.

Finally, there was the blatant contradiction between the neocons' aversion to government meddling at home and their childlike faith in their ability to impose massive social engineering in foreign and utterly unfamiliar countries like Iraq. Thence sprang the mistakes of the occupation period.

But even the extravagant oratory of that icy January day cannot obscure the irony of America's Iraq adventure. The application of a doctrine built upon the supposed boundlessness of U.S. power has succeeded only in exposing the limits of that power.

See full text @:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/262583_neoconswrong12.html

1) Bookman, Jay 2002. The President’s Real Goal in Iraq.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

Cole, Juan 2005. The Lies That Led to War.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/19/lies/print.html

3) Judis, John B. 2004. The Folly of Empire.

A Lisa Drew Book/ Scribner, New York, NY

Marshall, Joshua, Micah, 2003. Practice to Deceive.

The Washington Monthly, Washington D.C.

A Revolution

Vallankumouksellisia mietteita...

Presidentinvaalit Yhdysvalloissa ovat mieletonta manipulaatiota, imagon rakentamista ja valehtelua. On kyse niin suuresta vallasta ja vallankaytosta, etta siita ei hevin luovuta, eika sita jaeta aivan 'demokraattisesti', niin kuin ehka olettaisimme talta demokratian kehdolta. Seurasin viime vaaleja sydan syrjalla, silla Bushin kaudella raaka valta ja vallanhimo olivat kuohuneet yli ja rajoja ei ollut nakyvissa. Saataisiinko demokratia pelastettua, ennen kuin Orwellin 1984 kauhukuvat tulisivat ajankohtaisiksi?

Howard Deanin vaalikampanja yllatti ja saikahdytti seka vallanpitajat, etta median. Mutta Deanin voitto oli ajatuksena aivan mahdoton: ulkopuolinen, suorapuheinen, 'populisti' poliitikko, joka vastusti Irakin sotaa rohkeasti ja vaati terveydenhoitoa koko kansan ulottuville. Dean oli ammatiltaan laakari ja pragmaattinen Vermontin kuvernoori, joka ei kumarrellut oikealle eika vasemmalle.

Tiedamme kaikki, miten 2004 vaaleissa kavi. Olin syvasti pettynyt demokraatteihin, mutta ymmarsin myos, etta kansa oli peloteltu aivan hermoheikoksi viimeisen muutaman vuoden aikana. Bushin hallitus oli manipuloinut kansan terrorismin pelkoa niin taitavasti, etta lopulta turvallisuuden tarve voitti. On myos muistettava, etta vain vahan yli 50 prosenttia kansasta aanesti. Se on alhainen luku demokratiassa. Suomessa ollaan kai 80 prosentin tuntumassa...



The Dean Revolution

You see, the revolutionary idea behind Howard Dean’s campaign was not the use of the Internet. It was not his lonely opposition to the war in Iraq. The revolutionary idea of this campaign was that 600,000 people could rise up in the blink of an eye, and in a matter of months they could change the political landscape. In a matter of months they could do more than power a long-shot presidential campaign. They could begin the difficult task of restoring fairness to our political system. They could matter again. 1

During the 2000 presidential election I was watching it all on a couch in Massachusetts. I stayed awake most of the election night because the results were not clear: was it going to be Al Gore or George W. Bush? As the vote-count went on I began to have a sinking feeling that the Democrats had lost. I had thought that – for the most part - the Clinton-era had been hopeful, upbeat and good for the country. People had good jobs and their wages were on the rise; the environment, education and health care were national priorities. Sure, there were problems; America is a large nation with big challenges, but we were working on those issues. Although Bill Clinton had made us weary of scandals with his personal problems, he had been successful as President on many fronts. Surely people would see that it was a good idea to keep a Democrat in the White House.

As it turned out, Al Gore lost the election (with some help from the Supreme Court, no less), so it was time to begin to adjust to a new way of thinking. Being a pragmatist and an optimist by nature, I thought that maybe it wouldn’t be so bad for a Republican to run things for a change. Change is good, right? Let’s give George W. Bush a chance. He is a “compassionate conservative” after all.

But George W. Bush was no ordinary Republican. He was different from his father, George H.W. Bush; he was different from Ronald Reagan, whom I blame for many of the problems now plaguing the nation, but who at least knew his limits. George W. Bush seemed to run the country in complete disregard of the working man, the middle class, or the poor. He was way too comfortable with the lobbyists, the super-rich and the ultra-religious. He seemed to despise the rest of the world and consider other nations evil or just not worth his time and effort. One of the first things he did as President was to pull the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol in the spring of 2001. Then he cut taxes for the wealthy and wasted the government surplus. (He began to spend money and hasn’t stopped yet.) There were so many incidents that showed the President’s lack of commitment to ordinary Americans, or to the world, that I lost count. I was breathless by 2002, and ready for a change. But Mr. Bush was not finished…

As the Bush administration began to make its case for war to depose Saddam Hussein I knew deep down in my guts, that the decision had already been made: the United States would wage war on Iraq. This was the last straw on my camel. No Western, democratic nation, who respected the rule of law, had ever attacked another sovereign nation without provocation. It was an outrage! I went out with thousands of others in Seattle – and millions around the world – to protest in the streets: no war in our name! Surely the administration could not ignore all of these people across the world. Surely George W. Bush must give pause and consider these powerful expressions of opinion! But my gut feeling came true. The United States and the “Coalition of the Willing” attacked Iraq in March 2003 with bombs and air raids and tanks. I watched in horror as the cradle of civilization was getting pummeled to the ground and priceless artifacts were looted from museums and archeological sites, or just destroyed by bombs. Thousands of civilians died and we didn’t even count them; they were simply “collateral damage”.

In 2003 nobody in America seemed to speak out against the war. (There were a few notable exceptions, such as Senator Robert Byrd.) Everyone was still shell-shocked by the September 11th tragedies and did not want to appear un-patriotic by opposing the war. A large majority in Congress had supported the war resolution in the fall of 2002; the emerging presidential candidates for 2004 appeared weak with regard to the Iraq war, and George W. Bush seemed invincible. There was one exception: Howard Dean. He articulated clearly his opposition to the war and to President Bush’s tax cuts and his other policies that were, in my mind, unjust and unfair to the majority of Americans. Howard Dean spoke boldly and plainly.

I went to see him speak when he came to Seattle in August 2003. I was convinced by then, that Howard Dean would make a good President, and I was willing to go the extra mile to support his candidacy. I had never given money to a political candidate before (having grown up in Europe it was distasteful for me to give money to politics – the government ought to support such an important election.) I donated money and started to go to Howard Dean meet-ups. That fall was an exciting time. Dean began to surge in the polls and people seemed excited and concerned about the need for change in the nation’s politics.

Joe Trippi’s book This Revolution Will Not Be Televised is an interesting look into the Howard Dean presidential campaign. It brings me back to my own experience in the autumn of 2003. Trippi talks about the hopelessness that decades of TV-driven politics had instilled in people; but he also talks about the energy and the power of the grass-roots movement that the Dean-campaign generated. I experienced both.

Joe Trippi is a passionate political junkie, who can’t get enough of political campaigns and working for the underdog. He writes the book in a gritty, and sometimes cocky fashion, but his sincerity is evident. He grew up poor and learned that social justice and democracy were values worthy of pursuing. Progressive politics is his bread and butter, and his first love.

Mr. Trippi blames television for the demise of American culture, politics and public life. TV has created apathy, cynicism and powerlessness among its audience – which is just about everyone in America. It has created a consumer-oriented society with little interest in democracy or civic engagement.

In the last half of the twentieth century, television staged a hostile takeover of American culture, in just twenty years going from reflecting American life, to altering American life to dictating nearly every aspect of American life: the products we buy, the clothes we wear, the things we fear.
Politics didn’t escape the onslaught of TV. In some ways, it was one of TV’s first conquests. 1

In Breaking Up America Joseph Turow calls the negative effects of commercial television the breaking up and segmenting of America. “Their [advertisers] vision is of a fractured population of self-indulgent, frenetic, and suspicious individuals who increasingly reach out only to people like themselves." 2 Politics has become just another commodity to be advertised, bought and sold.

TV has been very effective in characterizing a candidate’s political opponent in a negative light. According to Joe Trippi, because of negative ads attacking each political candidate in a presidential election (or any other high profile, big money spending race), Americans end up hating both candidates so much they wish they had a third person to vote for. Television viewing makes people passive, but they do remember who the ‘bad guys’ are, after being told a hundred times by simplistic and narrow (often out of context) television ads. Mr. Trippi is guilty of doing the same thing to his opponents: painting them with negative propaganda. But he realizes that modern broadcast politics is the death of democracy. Television’s iron grip on American culture began the “downward cycle” of U.S. politics “because the most effective ads are the ones that make the community a worse place to live… The best ads – deceitful, negative, and manipulative – are the ones that fail the country most”. 1

Another negative aspect of modern presidential politics is money. Joe Trippi estimates that 1.6 billion dollars would be spent on TV ads during the elections of 2004. That is an incredible amount of money! Even though I don’t believe in sending money to political candidates, I felt that I had no choice, knowing that George W. Bush would have two hundred million dollars to spend on his campaign. Who could even begin to challenge that kind of money? Trippi describes in his book how the Howard Dean campaign raised money through the Internet. The average donation was about a hundred dollars (compare that to the thousands Bush loyalists raised from the wealthy elites and the corporations). It was people like me who sent money to the Dean campaign. People who didn’t have a lot of extra cash to spare, but they cared about what was happening to the country.

I cannot begin to explain how disgusted I am by the legal corruption going on in the United States government. I didn’t believe it at first when I began to follow U.S. politics. Corruption only happens in the poor developing countries, right? But the last five years have been such blatant money-grabbing, greed-rewarding, in-your-face politics, that I’ve had to re-align my beliefs. Again, it all starts with the TV ads. Politicians need lots of money to run ads to get elected. Large corporations and wealthy individuals have money to spare. Add these two together and you get a very cozy relationship between power and money. According to Trippi both political parties and most candidates are for sale due to the system’s inherent demand for money.

Howard Dean was an outsider. He refused to be boxed in and defined by the Democratic Party or by the Republican Party. He also defied the media establishment by succeeding without playing the media game: he didn’t spend gobs of money for television, he wasn’t flashy and he didn’t say all the ‘right things’ to fit a Democrat mould for the media to categorize him with. He came from an “insignificant” state, Vermont, where nothing significant happens and where nobody is from. Howard Dean seemed very real (which meant unpredictable to the mainstream media) which appealed to me, as I’d seen so many fakes come and go. He spoke like a European with his pragmatism and honesty. He talked about the need for health care for everyone, and he talked about the Iraq war as a mistake and a diversion from doing the hard work of diplomacy and leadership. And he trusted the people. He was running an insurgency campaign letting his supporters make the important decisions in the campaign.

The ‘revolution’ of the Dean campaign was in the fact that it was the people, who had made Dean surge. Not money or the political establishment. And, according to Trippi, it was the Internet that made it all possible. Internet brings democracy back to the people, it makes people active again and empowers them. Unlike television viewing, the Internet enables people to give feedback to their leaders and to each other, to connect and to debate the issues. Joe Trippi was not managing the campaign, [people] “…were managing the campaign. It wasn’t headquartered in Burlington; it was out there. Anything we could do, they could do better". 1

The Dean campaign began to use the Meetup.com website to allow people to get together in small (and large) groups all over the country. “… it was exactly the democratic vision of the Internet that I had always believed in, using this technology as a way for people of similar interests, passions, and causes to find each other and instantly form into communities…”. 1
Joe Trippi’s long-standing enthusiasm of technology and all things geeky, emboldened him to take the first serious step into Internet-campaigning. He had a long-held belief that an issue or a cause could spread like a virus, by having a key group of people run with it. But before the ubiquitous nature of personal computers and access to the Internet, it could not be done efficiently on a national level. In 2004 it created a movement. The key people, by Trippi’s account, were those who weren’t afraid of change, who tended to distrust the mass media, and who were younger (perhaps more comfortable with computers). They also had a whiff of rebellion in them – they weren’t afraid to question the status quo.

The movement wasn’t quite strong enough in 2004 to create lasting change, but it was close. It scared the establishment. Howard Dean was slaughtered by the mainstream media. His "scream" was heard hundreds of times over and over. I felt demoralized and empty. That was it? Is that all we can muster? We were so easily defeated, it seemed. How foolish of us to believe that things could change, that we could actually have a say in a 'democracy'. But a seed was planted, and it will grow...

The established elites were not ready to give up their privilege and power to the people – and they will never be ready – but they had to fight harder to maintain their rule. Will the next election cycle be determined by an active populace who will demand their democracy back? Will there be enough informed citizens, who will not allow the elites to frame the issues, but will find out for themselves? Are we going to be intimidated by more negative or frightening TV advertising, or are we going to be able to see through the ads? Joe Trippi believes that we are ready for real change: “Together, I believe we can accomplish anything, if we just keep one idea in mind. One principle. Four simple words that still echo across America: You Have the Power”. 1

1. Trippi, Joe, 2004. This Revolution Will Not Be Televised. Harper-Collins Publishers, Inc. New York, NY.

2. Turow, Joseph, 1997. Breaking Up America. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ltd., London

Koripalloa

Seattlessa kaydaan kuumaa keskustelua siita, pitaisiko veronmaksajien maksaa ammattikoripalloilijoille remontoitava urheiluareena. Areena remontoitiin veronmaksajien piikkiin kymmenen vuotta sitten. Nyt pitaisi saada entista hienompi ja parempi halli, mutta kaikki voitot menevat omistajien taskuun. Mitas jos pelaajien palkkaa pienennettaisiin? Ehka pari miljoonaa vuodessa olisi ihan tarpeeksi rahaa koripallon pelaamisesta? Muutama vuosi sitten rakensimme ihka uuden areenan pesapallon ammattilaisille. Noin viisisataa miljoonaa dollaria yhteisesta pussista. Pian sen jalkeen rakennettiin uusi jalkapalloareena [amerikkalainen jalkapallo], sekin melkein kokonaan meidan rahoilla. Liput ovat niin kalliita, etta tavalliset pulliaset saavat olla viikon ilman ruokaa, jos haluavat menna perheen kanssa katsomaan matsia paikan paalle.
Eipa silti, mina itsekin nautin hyvasta pesapallomatsista tai jalkapallo-ottelusta. Yleensa katson vain telkkarista, silla en halua ostaa kalliita lippuja ja samalla yllapitaa vaaristynytta systeemia.

Missa kulkee jarjen raja? Muutama vuosi sitten maksettiin eraalle pesapallon pelaajalle [Alex Rodriguez] 250 miljoonan dollarin 10 vuoden sopimus! Silloin minulla meni luu kurkkuun. Voiko kukaan yksittainen henkilo tienata neljannes miljardin verran urheilusta? Tai yleensa mistaan? Mita voisimmekaan tehda tuolla rahalla... Taalla kouluissa pidetaan myyjaisia, jotta lapsilla olisi riittavasti kirjoja kirjastossa, tai muita tarvikkeita (vanhemmat joutuvat joka vuosi itse ostamaan kynat, kumit, tussit, kansiot jne.)

Meidan prioriteetit ovat aivan vinksallaan. Mutta se ei kai ole ihan yllatys, silla meidan puolustusmaararahat ovat enemman kuin koko muun maailman yhteesa. Niin, koko muun mailman yhteesa!

Basketball

The Seattle Supersonics are whining about needing to renovate the Key Arena. didn't we just do it ten years ago? Hello! I say let them go, find another sucker of a city to pay for their expensive special VIP box seats, high salaries and lousy pizza. Or lower the players' salaries so that a family of four could actually afford to go to a game and still by groceries for the week. We have paid for a new baseball stadium and football stadium (almost all taxpayer money) and we have seen Alex Rodriguez get a 250 million dollar contract and leave Seattle for Texas and NY. Where is the common sense in all of this?

Of course, there is no common sense. But then you are talking to a nation whose defense budget is larger that the rest of the world's combined!
Ouch. Priorities, baby.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20060305/cartoon20060305.gif

Sananvapaus

Sananvapaus

Taalla sananvapauden synnyinmaassa saattaa joutua hankaluuksiin nykyaan, jos puhuu liikaa, tai jos puhuu liikaa sellaisista asioista, joista ei pida puhua. Kuten kritisoida hallituksen toimia.
Eras sairaanhoitaja nimeltaan Laura Berg, joka tyoskentelee veteraanien sairaalassa Uudessa Meksikossa, kritisoi Bushin hallitusta Katrinan jalkimainigeissa. Han kirjoitti paikalliseen sanomalehteen mielipiteen hirmumyrsky Katrinan ja Irakin sodan huonosta hoidosta. Han kehoitti lukijoita "toimimaan voimallisesti", jotta hallitus, joka pelaa "pahansuopaa ja petollista" pelia saataisiin poistettua.
Bergin tietokone takavarikoitiin, ja viranomaiset tutkivat paraikaa, josko hanet pitaisi haastaa oikeuteen "kansankiihotuksesta" [sedition]!

Nyt kinastellaan, saako demokratiassa ilmaista hallituksen vastaista mielipidetta joutumatta oikeuteen. Onko se sananvapautta?

Freedom of Speech

A VA nurse in Albuquerque is in trouble for speaking out against the government's (lack) of handling the aftermath of Katrina and the war in Iraq. She is investigated for sedition! What is freedom of speech in a democracy? Does it mean that we can disagree with the government without fear? Or should we trust that everything is taken care of and we have nothing to worry about?

http://www.alternet.org/rights/33027/

Kevat on toivoa taynna

3. Maaliskuuta 2006

Paiva Seattlessa alkoi aurinkoisena. Kevat on kulman takana. Auton ikkunat oliva huurun peitossa aamulla, mutta paiva lampenee jo yli kymmen asteen paremmalle puolelle.

George W. Bush on tyomatkalla Intiassa ja Pakistanissa levittamassa demokratiaa. Taalla kotona kuohuu: vain 34 prosenttia kansakunnasta pitaa hanen toimiaan positiivisina. Parempi on matkustaa Intiaan, jossa ainakin 40 prosenttia kansasta kannatta Bushia. Pakistan voi olla vahan hankalampi asiakas.

March 3. 2006

Spring is coming to Seattle. As I was going to work this morning I could see some birding activity. I am looking forward to waking up to the robin's song at dawn.

George W. Bush is visiting India and Pakistan. Good riddance! His ratings are plummeting (any surprise there?). India and Pakistan are sounding better every day. So many issues are brewing on the domestic front - who can blame him for wanting to do some travel?