Tag Archives: policy

Last Night at the Frederick Peace Meeting

Posted on by
Reply

An impressive group of Frederick citizens exercised their constitutional rights and civic duties last night in thoughtful, impassioned dialogue concerning the planned Fort Detrick multi-agency expansion (which includes the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security.)

 

An articulate lifelong activist expressed her concern that necessary security precautions might screen the illicit activities of a small but powerful paranoid minority. What if a secret few rationalized production of dangerous new viruses? Wouldn’t those new viruses be subject to misuse, terrorism, theft, accidents, and carelessness? Even with past assurances, she thought, bad things can happen. They’ve happened before.

 

A caring, erudite scientist advocated cool heads, citing good intentions, expertise, experience, safety, and the many advantages of the planned diagnostic and protective research for both soldiers and citizenry.

 

A thoughtful businessman offered practical suggestions on how to continue to spread the group's concerns and ideas–where concerned citizens might go and whom they might see–the mayor, Ft. Detrick leaders, members of Congress. He encouraged continued participation in the issue.

 

A young Quaker pacifist asked how everyone felt about working cooperatively with Ft. Detrick to assure transparency and open processes? Did the group still hope to influence Ft. Detrick to reverse itself on the expansion in general?

 

No compromises, urged a war-weary longtime activist, suspicious after many years of uphill battles. What if we collaborate while new strains of deadly viruses are weaponized? What if the Ft. Detrick expansion begins a new arms race in biological weapons as uncontrollable and dangerous in this brave new world as the current arms races in nuclear bombs, missiles, and conventional air, sea, and land weaponry?

 

A retired teacher wondered aloud whether the expansion might attract terrorists to Frederick. What if someone lobbed a bomb over the post perimeter fence from a home in any of the nearby neighborhoods? It’s not only the loss of lives and property, she added wistfully. Wouldn’t there be a national panic over the possible biological contents of floating and falling debris? Would that panic be legitimate?

 

The possibility of a bomb alarmed a tireless peace worker who handles much of the group’s paper and phone work. Nothing in the Ft. Detrick report said anything about a bomb, she worried, passing chocolates down the conference table (the group was temporarily meeting at a nursing home where she was recovering from a stroke.) A bomb. What about all our lifelong Frederick friends, family, our grandchildren?

 

The Peace Resource Center’s founder, a selfless, peaceful activist and community leader for more than twenty years, sought consensus by restating what he had heard from all of us:  Were we still hoping to prevent the Detrick expansion? Or were we willing to continue to strongly share our concerns while working for transparency and openness in all processes?

 

A firm “NO” came from a knowledgeable woman who dons black clothing to conduct public evening vigils in solidarity with women everywhere suffering from violence. What would spending this money tell the world about our national priorities? How could America throw money at potential threats when so many here and abroad are suffering and dying right now from real and present threats, like preventable diseases and malnutrition?

 

A soft-spoken newcomer wondered aloud whether bioterrorism research was at all suited for a military base, especially a base historically synonymous in the minds of the international community with biological warfare. Was it wise to deliberately inflame international perceptions? Why create more fear and anger? Even if U.S. actions are unimpeachable, will anyone trust our intentions, given our bioweapons history, our military presence in hundreds of bases all over the world, the size of our defense budget, our use of atomic weapons, and our current proactive conduct of the war on terror?

 

One powerful citizen offered a European perspective: All this focus on terrorism–wasn't it just serving the interests of those who might wish to divert national attention away from greater threats to our homeland’s  security—our unpopular foreign policies and wars, our national debt and deficit, our lack of living wages, unaffordable health care, housing, and higher education, our troubled education system, our threatened civil and political rights, our beleaguered environment?  And what about our fights against drugs, pornography, alcohol, crime, low moral standards, and imprisonment? Aren’t these threats endangering our beloved country’s security right now, every bit as as much or even more than potential acts of terrorism?

 

A young collegian who had listened in silence spoke out in challenging yet measured terms. If you want young people to support your efforts, he said, don’t water this stuff down. Speak up. Take a stand. Be clear. If you know what you want, go after it. I think we should oppose the expansion.

 

A cacophony of sharing and side-conversations ended the meeting. We can still do some good…. We can support needed work without supporting secrecy and dangerous experimentation…. Let’s talk more at our next meeting about our films-for-peace  project…. You can’t control technology—didn’t you see Jurassic Park?… You just have to be careful…. Are you coming to the peace conference?… Can the rewards match such risks?… Someone should write all this up…. Hugs…warm handshakes…. That new website looks great…. Courage…. How is your family?… Want a ride home?… Here, take this candy…. Good-bye good-bye, until next time.

 

(The people and ideas shared in this article are composites of attendees and opinions exchanged at recent meetings. The Peace Resource Center of Frederick invites constructive participation and objective debate on this and other issues. They meet at 4 East Church St. on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month from 7:30-9:30 pm.)

Alternately Stuffing and Starving Our Kids: A Very American Dilemma

Posted on by
Reply

I often see articles about new ways to stuff our kids with the many required daily servings of nutritionally different foods. Just as often, I read articles about our increasingly obese, bulimic, and anorexic children. We’re raising fat children obsessed with thinness. This is a very American problem.

 

Pressured by the food industry, we promulgate impossible-to-use nutritional guidelines advising ridiculous daily diets, as if we can’t be trusted to eat a little bit of  banana one day and some apple slices the next? A little meat or cheese or soy once or twice a week and a changing daily vegetable? A handful of nuts and grains here and there? Tell us that we need a healthful variety of foods weekly or monthly and we’ll offer our families inexpensive, logistically possible, non-fattening meals.

 

Our poor confused young mothers think if they don’t offer their kids snacks on demand, they’re child abusers. Why do we let opportunistic advertisers badger us into confusing a reasonable demand for a little food-discipline and postponement of gratification, with starvation and cruelty?

 

In my childhood home, we were offered as much as we cared to eat, three times a day, of a healthful, balanced meal, along with as many snacks as we might want in between meals—so long as those snacks were apples or whole-wheat bread (both so available as to be boringly unappealing; we ate them only when we were really hungry. Well. Duh?) Did we get enough to eat? Hmmmm. I do recall a time or two arriving at the next meal absolutely voracious, polishing off whatever was on my plate, and asking for more. This was a problem? My parents raised four slim, healthy, active daughters.

 

My father’s rather original hypothesis was that our long evolution as hunter-gatherers generated babies and children who were hard-wired to distinguish early and instantly which foods were unsafe–by attentively watching others eat. Armed with this theory, my parents made a good show of enthusiastically exclaiming, smiling, and smacking their lips delightedly over healthful food. They also led the family in joyful, admiring cheers whenever one of us bravely ate her required three teensy bites of unfamiliar food.  Nowadays parents only give their children attention for not eating. This makes sense?

 

My parents offered no sweets or desserts except on birthdays and holidays, so their hungry girls learned to enjoy all kinds of veggies, fruits, meats, nuts, and grains, along with a diversity of ethnic foods. Although I  learned (after I left home) to put my foot down over eating obvious body parts like eyeballs and tentacles, I still gobble up with gusto anything disguised and unnamed.

 

Raising my own young family, I breast-fed on demand and offered watered-down juice and ground-up baby food from my plate. I worked hard to keep my daughters cheerfully occupied while gradually stretching out times between meals. I didn’t offer quick carbs or sweets, so sugar crashes weren’t a problem–and even then, there was always that ubiquitous apple….  We limited ourselves to a few hours of public television a day, so food advertising was not a problem. I am proud to have raised two slim daughters.

 

We’re a nation of fat people for good reason: we don’t trust our own common sense, but instead let ourselves be over-influenced by those who stand to gain from our choosing unwise and unhealthful approaches. Our children are doubly victimized: by our bad examples, and by media temptations and modern fears which preclude their free play outdoors. Sensible media regulation, along with a solid public media campaign re-introducing such old-fashioned concepts as gluttony and common sense might make a dent in our national waistline. Until then, we are certainly the laughing stock of the rest of the world, which sees Americans as pigs greedily ruining our own health while ignoring the malnutrition and starvation of others. Or at least, they would be laughing, if the whole thing weren’t just so damned tragic.

Terrorism Shmerrorism: What Are the Real Threats to Our Homeland Security?

Posted on by
Reply

I’m scared of terrorists too. I just wish we’d come up with a foreign policy like Canada’s, that wouldn’t irritate everyone so much. Because as long as we have hordes of angry enemies ready to jump at any chance to die hurting us, then all the king’s horses and all the king’s men won’t be able to put the U.S. safely back together again.

 

Nevertheless, we obliviously continue to spend our children’s heritage to send our forces to every corner of the earth, to shoot and spy our way through problems and opportunities that cannot be resolved by wars or secrecy.

 

It’s the old bait-and-switch game, isn’t it, along with goofy variations on the shell game and the confidence game? Spend gobs of money in futile attempts to prevent potential threats, while we ignore all the other very real and present threats to our homeland?

 

What are the threats that we’d prefer not to notice while we’re dashing around busting into distant homes in search of bad guys?

 

America is threatened down to her very roots by her massive debt and deficit. We’re threatened by our refusal to offer a decent living to those who work hard and play by the rules. We’re threatened by our unwillingness to insist that the world’s richest nation offer all its citizens affordable healthcare. We are threatened by our refusal to offer a quality education to our children. We’re threatened by our refusal to tax our wealthiest citizens, and by our insistence on squandering our resources on foreign wars.

 

Our most fundamental rights and freedoms are threatened by fearmongers demanding increasingly intrusive and oppressive legislation. Our most basic democratic processes are threatened by paranoid demagogues who would trade basic liberties for false assurances of safety.

 

Americans are threatened by the growing suspicions of an increasingly resentful global family which quite reasonably expects the richest country in the world to share their good fortune kindly and equitably. We’re threatened by our reputation as selfish energy-gobblers and polluters and weapons dealers, and by our economic and political double standards. We’re threatened by a world that thinks we’ve never heard of the golden rule–that we don’t care for others as much as ourselves

 

America is threatened by the diseases and conditions with known cures that we aren’t addressing. We’re threatened by a culture of violence that glorifies guns, anger, and vengeance. We’re threatened by our lack of resolve in supporting character education. We’re threatened by weakening bonds of marriage, family, and community. We’re threatened by pornography and drugs and alcohol.

 

We’re threatened by unwise and unhealthful habits and attitudes pressed upon us by an unregulated corporate and media power structure that finds their promotion profitable. We’re threatened by radio and television demagogues who lie with impunity to spread hate, anger, and prejudice, when what we need most is caring, openness, respect, and acceptance–the glue of every culture. We’re threatened by unsafe neighborhoods, and by unaffordable transportation, energy, housing, and higher education.

 

And we're threatened by our indifference to our responsibilities to wisely steward our fragile natural home–our beautiful green-and-blue planet–for the benefit and survival of both present and future generations.

 

So what do we focus on instead? Just like in the old protection racket, first we create a lot of problems and a lot of fear. Then we promise ourselves the illusion of safety, and charge ourselves extortion rates for that illusion. Finally, we fail to deliver the goods—and then charge ourselves even more for another chance to keep hunting those elusive, scary enemies. All this frenzy, while we turn our faces away from all the other real and present problems that daily threaten the security of our beloved homeland.

Why Military Recruitment Is Down. It's Not The War, Stupid

Posted on by
Reply

Used to, you joined up, camped out in the woods some, got to shoot up ammo for a few years with your best buds, and then you went to college free. It's not like it used to be anymore. Pay's pretty good though, I gotta admit that. A lot better than I could get anywhere else around here, what with the economy and all. My wife and kids need it bad. I wonder if I'd be a better dad or worse, if I stayed here, poor.

They sure don't give you much money for dying, though. That sucks. You'd think they'd pay the poor jerks who actually sign up for war, you know, willing to die for their country? You'd think they'd get more for dying than all those office types who just happened to be hanging around the wrong place at the wrong time on 9/11. Or the fat-cat contractors in Iraq. All that's so typical. Never trust the government.

My recruiter keeps on pushing me though, keeps reminding me that America needs brave, patriotic men like me to protect and serve all our ideals and values and stuff. I like all that shit. That is me, for sure. I could use the workouts too, all this work is making me soft. I don't know about the adventure and traveling to foreign lands shit. But he keeps asking me if I want to protect my family, my way of life. You bet I do. There's some scary shit going on out there. My recruiter and I talk about all that stuff a lot.

But none of my friends think I should sign up. My wife? She's not sure. We could sure use the money. But everyone's scared shitless if I join up. Used to, moms and dads pushed their sons into war, but with the TV news and all, it's not like it used to be. Sure, they support the war and all, but…well, nowadays it's pretty confusing.

Everybody tells me I'll probably die, be cannon-fodder is what they call it. They say it's just a bunch of old farts in Washington who never went to war themselves throwing American kids at all their problems. Like they care, it's not their kids dying. My mom says if I don't die on this tour, I will on the next one, 'cause they're never gonna let me out, I'll have to stay in the army forever. Because even the president says the war on terror never ends.

So what if I do join up? How am I supposed to know what to do? What if they tell me to torture prisoners? Shoot someone? How am I supposed to know which Iraqi I hate so much I shoot him in the face, and which one I'm supposed to die for, you know, to give him freedom and everything? If I could make sense out of any of this constitutional law shit, I'd be a bigbucks lawyer for chrissake, not standing here with my thumb up my ass. How am I supposed to know from Geneva Conventions? I'm a black-and-white kinda guy. All this in-between shit? I can't even decide if we're really the guys in the white hats or not. I mean, after you get all rigged up in those soldier outfits like the movies? You sure look like you could stir up some terror.

And who's gonna look out for me when I screw up? Which I've been known to do. They sure saved the big brasses' asses in that Abu Graib thing, socked it right to the grunts. Hell, they should just say screw this citizen-soldier-all-volunteer army shit and hire mercenaries and soldiers-of-fortune. Those guys know what they're doing, and they don't care who they shoot.

And anyway, that's what all those hotshot Brits in tophats did on the history channel. With all that empire money flowing in from everywhere? I guess the Brits were all just too damned busy taking care of their mansions and screwing their servants and stuff to actually go out and fight. So they just started a foreign legion. That's what we should do if we wanna send our soldiers out to every goddam nowhere place on the planet and save them from democracy, or whatever the shit is we're doing.

And screw the damn politcos too. One day they say shoot the sonofabitch and the next day he's sleeping in the bunk next to you, 'cause some fast talkers in Washington negotiated some secret deal. Now won't that just make it easy to sleep at night when I'm…old, god forbid. Not knowing whether I killed the good guys or the bad guys? Not knowing, maybe, even…which one was I?

And what about my friend Jesus? I was taught to do the Ten Commandments, but thou shalt not kill is all fucked up these days, not to mention love thy neighbor. And what about my mom? How can I honor my mom when I go off gallivanting and get my ass shot off? It's just not worth going to hell, if I, like, kill the wrong one, you know, like by accident? Shit. Watching all the war movies made it look easier.

I'd sure volunteer to defend my homeland, but the army isn't allowed to do that job anymore. I don't get it, how that's someone else's department now. Jesus. What does the Department of Defense do with all that money if it can't defend the homeland? Maybe it's that freedom-and-democracy-for-everyone-else crap. I like all that shit, I'll admit it, but I don't wanna get my ass shot off for it. But it's nice, you know, for the A-rabs or whatever they are? At least, anyway, for the ones we don't blow away while we're tearing up the place looking for bad guys. Sure was glad to get that bastard Saddam, though. And I'll admit, I'd like to help out all those big-eyed gals in veils, you know, save them from the creeps who slap them around and shit? My recruiter talks a lot about that stuff. But I can't quite figure out how blowing away their fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers gets the job done. Maybe I need to think about it some more.

Maybe I need to think about all this stuff some more. Maybe I just don't love my country enough. Probably I'm a coward, not joining up like my dad did. I sure wish I'd had a chance to get to know him before he joined up, though. I heard he was a really good guy.

Well screw it. So I'm a coward. I'll join up when they bring their armies over here and start shooting at us. Or maybe…. Who knows, maybe if American soldiers stopped running around all over the world waving their guns and ordering people around, maybe the terrorists would just go home themselves and enjoy a moment of peace and quiet with their families. Maybe if we just stay home and mind our own business, maybe they will too. Just leave us alone, like, too. Live and let live.

I don't want to die. My old lady and me, she's…well, she's great. We got plans. I'm not the lucky type. Sure as shit I'd join up and they'd stick me someplace really bad and I'd get killed the first week. They do that. Or worse than killed. Tortured or beheaded and shit. Or come home with half my parts blown off. I've see those crippled vets hanging out in the street. They don't get shit. Never trust the govenment.

Maybe I won't die, though. Maybe I'll get lucky enough to spend half my life in some nasty foreign hellhole whose name I never even heard of 'til I got there. They don't even get NASCAR in some of those places I'll bet, and the beer's all foreign crap. What is it about fighting wars that everyone's already said we can't win? What's it all for? I've heard stuff about it's for cheap oil, but I can't believe anyone would start a war over that. Who would be stupid enough to die for oil? Fuck this shit, I'm outta here.

 

Be Free or Be Right In America. Choose One.

Posted on by
Reply

Like his vision-thing, Mr. Bush's freedom-thing is a hard thing to get right. Hardly anyone in America really wants to be free. Instead, we'd rather be right–about our religious and political beliefs, our versions of patriotism, and our lifestyles.

We want our rights-and-wrongs black and white, settled once and for all, and predictable, with no raggedy-edged uncertainties. We absolutely must be right about our versions of elemental things: the Pledge, the Flag, the Ten Commandments, the Constitution. We must know with finality–Are we or are we not the good guys in the white hats? Is our country and way of life the best, as we learned in elementary school? What about our god, our church, our religion, our form of government–they're the right ones, right? We did and do fight on the right side in every war, right? We are the land of the free and the home of the brave?

We'll slash campaign vehicle tires, print misleading election leaflets, make harrassing phone calls to election boards, slow down voting, spread rumors of infidelity, lie, cheat, and steal to elect our right guys. Anything goes, it seems, for the right to be right about America on election day.

Americans love freedom, but we'll trade freedom, to be right. Speak freely, we insist, say what you want, write what you please, research any area–except, of course, controversial ones that question our basic assumptions about ourselves, our leaders, and our foreign policy, about history, values, gender and racial differences, about Jesus and Jews and terrorism, about the war in Iraq, and whether or not we're all turning into fascists.

As long as we can be right, we'll leave our loved ones and travel around the world to shoot complete strangers in the face beside their families and homes in the lands of their ancestors. We'll rain bombs down from miles up, upon exotic civilian populations–as long as we're right. We'll imprison, maim, and torture, if it's necessary, if we're right.

But Americans cannot be right and free at the same time.

Living in a free country means being right is up for grabs. Living in a free country means giving other religious and political and social and economic systems the same respectful attitude and tone we want to hear toward our own. Living in a free country means not insisting, or even wishing, that everyone else think and act like we do. Living in a free country means winning elections with no dirty tricks, because when you win that way, you're no longer free. Living in a free country means listening to all other sides, and supporting their right to be heard. Living free means working to be educated inquirers, and not just to reinforce the stuff we already think we know. Living free means accepting complex humanity in all its messy and glorious diversity, not hating other Americans, or Jews, or Arabs, or liberals, or conservatives, or Christians, or atheists. Living free means holding to and speaking out about our beliefs, values, and allegiances, without insisting on being right about them.

The road to this American freedom-thing may be a long and hard one for everyone.

 

Social Security Cheats Black People? I Don't Think So

Posted on by
Reply

President Bush claims that Social Security cheats black people because black people die younger than whites. Now whose fault is this? Whose programs make it harder for black people to live long, stay well, and prosper? Mr. Bush chooses to deliberately overlook the fact that the black population has historically benefited more than whites from Social Security. If Bush insists on playing the race card, he should at least get it right.

 

Gambling is already a big enough problem for black Americans. Now Mr. Bush wants us to bet our futures on beating an unreliable stock market. Under Mr. Bush's proposed new Social Security reforms, a majority of retirees will either go broke or become even poorer than they already end up now.

 

A small minority of investment-savvy winners, those lucky enough to die young and flush, stand to gain from President Bush's proposed “personal savings accounts.” Which leaves the rest of the black population twisting in the wind. Under Bush's plan, citizens who invest shrewdly and live long, would receive about the same old-age benefits as they do now, minus of course, all the previously guaranteed lifetime payments, cost-of-living raises, disability benefits, and survivor programs which stand to be cut under Bush's plan. This is reform?

 

How soon we forget how good FDR's great Social Security system has been for American blacks. Grandparents today enjoy a real chance for a dignified retirement, even when they've suffered financial setbacks and have been unable to save. President Bush's proposed changes to Social Security would leave the elderly even more vulnerable.

 

If Bush really wants to help black people, he can offer quality education, a living wage, universal health care, and lower living costs. Instead, he hands out “personal savings accounts” in a disgusting attempt to appeal to a few reckless souls who would abandon their race and put their own futures at risk in exchange for a kind of gambler's death insurance.

  

Because they are often poor, blacks as a group get back a proportionately greater return from their Social Security taxes than do generally wealthier whites. Blacks also benefit disproportionately from the guaranteed lifetime payments and cost-of-living increases which Bush threatens to cut. Current Social Security policy also minimizes the impact of years of unemployment, while guaranteeing support for disability and survivor benefits, all programs which black people rely on even more than whites. All in all, blacks have gained more than whites from the full range of Social Security's present benefits.

 

Bush thinks black people won't care if most of their people lose, so long as a few have a chance to get ahead. Bush has it wrong. Most of us would rather not win a long shot if our gamble requires that everyone else loses big. American blacks have had enough of that already.

Why Republicans (and Some Democrats) Fear Howard Dean

Posted on by
Reply

I’m reading everywhere that Republicans are overjoyed to welcome Howard Dean back into Democratic leadership. They were so heartbroken when his presidential candidacy misfired. They were so desolate that he would not become the Democratic presidential nominee. Dean would suit Republicans perfectly, they proclaimed. Good old boy heartland Americans will stand in line to vote against such a quintessential eastern liberal egghead.

 

Methinks Republicans doeth protest too much.

 

Republicans are, in fact, justifiably terrified that the wounded Dean has come back stronger than ever, and with a shiny new forum for his ideas and influence.

 

Exactly as they did back when Dean showed every sign of winning the primary, so now are Republicans screaming with one voice, louder than Dean ever did, in a concerted attempt to quickly marginalize and stereotype him before he infects America’s mainstream.

 

Republicans are rushing to solidify the impression that Dean the Scream and Dean the Extreme is unworthy of respect, interest, curiosity, or even a brief listen. (Such is American democracy?) In urgent unison they scream:  Do not hear this man. Do not read anything he says. Stop up your ears and avert your eyes before it’s too late, before you actually think about what he has to say. Don’t waste a minute of your time on him.

 

Because what Dean has to say will resonate with the rank-and-file. Dean’s vision is infectious, and it will shake to the roots the wobbly edifice of half-truths and innuendo carefully built up by conservative radio and television demagogues.

 

There are even some entrenched Democrats who have opposed Dean from the start, and for basically the same reasons: Dean is powerful and uncontrollable, in the way Clinton is. This doctor cares deeply, he’s comfortable with anyone, he thinks outside of predictable boxes. He unflinchingly speaks truth to power. He will poke unforgettable holes in Republican nonsense-as-usual, cut through institutionalized silliness, and from his bully new pulpit he will be heard. Dean is capable of rousing the rabble to their own cause, and of triggering a grassroots upheaval, He will help shape a Democratic platform that Americans desperately need, and will vote for in droves.

 

And that makes him absolutely terrifying.

What Social Security Is For (and Not For)

Posted on by
Reply

A teacher in my youth often railed against social security, so I asked an older friend why the program was so controversial. He had worked for the WPA during the depression, and recounted for me with teary eyes the long soup lines and the desperation of good people who couldn’t find work because of national economic failures. He told me that FDR had done a good thing, and that the real reason behind social security legislation was to insure that the richest country in the world would never leave old people to die in the streets, a tragic situation which might also foment revolution.

 

And indeed, a national or global crisis could plausibly occur again soon, arising from a number of contemporary as well as timeless scenarios, including disasters arising from war, terrorism, plague, economic uncertainties, and nature’s unpredictable catastrophes. During such events, many American citizens will be unable to provide for themselves. Without a reliable and universal social security program, our government will once again be forced to choose between stepping up and doling out additional taxpayer money to feed, house, and clothe the destitute–or to do the unthinkable and abandon their own, as capitalism’s collateral damage.

 

Social security has changed America’s face; today we see smiling seniors enjoying one another’s company for hours over McDonald’s coffee, where yesterday we saw gaunt haunted faces staring bleakly out of dirty windows.

 

Americans do not yet embrace FDR’s fourth freedom: freedom from want. Until we do, social security must simply insure that any American who someday ends up with too little money to survive will at least be able to get by. No one plans to be poor in old age; some of us are smarter, have more opportunities, more education, better values, are harder-working, bolder, more responsible, more talented, or luckier than some others. Social Security was never designed to give even greater success to those who already enjoy the rewards their own gifts and their country’s have provided. If the American people want to give everyone an opportunity to save, we should insist on thoughtful policies assuring a living wage for those who work hard and play by the rules.

What Are We Getting For Our Pentagon Dollars?

Posted on by
Reply

We have a huge Pentagon budget which pays for neither the costs of wars nor for protecting our homeland. So what do they do with all that money? To be sure, someone still needs to have the financial wherewithal necessary to protect and defend America’s economic and strategic interests abroad, as well as (on occasion) our heedless or haplessly wandering citizenry.

 

But America’s global economic and strategic interests could be far better attended to by a well-funded Commerce and State Department. Our citizens should stay out of countries where they’re not wanted, and behave as polite guests where they are invited. And if they find themselves innocently threatened? Well, that’s what the marines are for. Keep on paying them.

 

If America redirected just half the amount of funding we give to the Department of Defense to Commerce and State, we would all reap the rewards of wise, mutually advantageous longterm trade deals and proactive diplomatic dialogues. We’d be far less likely to feel any need to throw our unrecognizable, camouflaged firstborns into the maw of all those foreign hellholes we ourselves created by having a military budget so huge it dwarfs any other country’s tenfold. America’s primary diplomatic tool is a hammer. No wonder foreign countries all look like nails.

 

Which leaves us still with the necessity of defending our homeland. If our foreign policies precluded pushing smaller countries around to suit our pride and greed, if we refrained from occupying other lands with hundreds of farflung military outposts, not to mention callous and inequitable trade policies, then perhaps we’d have fewer terrorists angry at us because our governments underwrote their despots, our tycoons pillaged their resources, and our national interests left their families in danger, economic slavery, and without rights. I don’t see any terrorists threatening Canada, or Norway, or Sweden, and they top most lists of being the so-called envied lands of the rich and free. Now why is that?

 

It is our present policy to give great unaccountable gobs of money to a Department of Defense that cannot keep us safe from terrorists, cannot win unwinnable wars, and can only add terror and injustice to the terror and injustice already caused by others.

 

Our beloved America can do better, must do better if we are to live up to our wonderful traditions and ideals. I hope Americans soon decide to spend our taxes more wisely, for our own sake, and for the sakes of so many others.