Sunday, August 6, 2017

Presidential candidate Sen. Sanders, People of color, and his 'Paternalistic' appeal. 

       Normally, one would expect any culture to hold certain beliefs or understandings as settled, but the increasing factionalism, or polorization in our politics insist I preface my 'argument' with the clearly defined and precise term:

     Paternalism; Def.:  n.
                   1."feeling of a father for his children," 1851;"government as by a father over his children,"  1866,   
      2. [  ] "... governing [   ] in the manner of a father dealing benevolently and often intrusively with his children.
     [  a. The underlieing rational being the myth of racial or cultural  superiority whose object is to benefit the inferior class by rule/law or by absorbtion;

     b.  Usually associated with autocratic rule. ]    

     The question of whether Sen. Sander's appeal to 'People of Color' is paternalistic is the object of the argument.

        'Paternalism' disparages most social programs today, but the founders strategy in dissolving power within descreet, contending institutions would allow the people to resist the emergence of such an autocratic form. Laying the charge of "Paternalism" to all social programs misconceives the difference between liberty as an individual or autonomous value and democratic/republican governance to effect the common good. 

     The difference in paternalistic laws can be more readily percieved by comparing the instance of seat-belt laws with the Obama Care mandates. When I refuse to wear a seat-belt, I risk injury to myself. By comparison, when I make myself susceptible to contagious, pathogenic diseases, I threaten injury to the community.

The conclusion:

        Seatbelt laws are paternalistic; violative of personal liberty, but national health care laws are not.

     With this clarification we can ask whether Sen. Sander's proposals would result in more restrictions on personal liberties, ( the good of the 'inferior-classes' notwithstanding ).

       The othe side of this question is the object of the "appeal" itself; I.e.; The "people of color". Although this falls outside of my argument, being a "person of color" myself, and a supporter of the Sanders campaign also, my personal view, I think, is relevent, and should be considered. 

      My first sense upon seeing the article was one of insult, because of the implication that "people of color" must be, at least, political neophytes, or at best, facile in their understanding of good republican governence. My superficial suspicion tells me "The Union" will survive, even with the disappearance of the "colorless class".  

      In fact, Sen. Sanders appeal gives voice to a grave and imminent threat to our democracy. We find ourselves susceptible to a social contagion; a pathogenic disease called: "Oligarchy". Many senators and representatives today are creatures at al. of the wealthy organisations that have purchased their seats. As a result, we have two forms of representation now, but the men responsible for this usurpation are not being prosecuted for treason!

    Thereto, I offer the following:

     The only significant color in America today is Green. We can't imagine our lives without it-  without Money!

      If 'The Peoples Sovereignty' and 'Capitalism' ( ... contending institutions? ), cannot coalesce or even coexist, we'll have to give Karl Marx' theories a second look, if only for the hope of The Republic.                                                                                                                                                                     -  R.W. 0717

 "When the contest is between Money and Money, Money always wins."   - R. Warlov  -0717    

Saturday, July 1, 2017

 New Documents Show FBI Spying on Domestic Activist Groups

The National Security Agency (NSA) has been spying on American citizens on the pretext that they may be involved in terrorist activities. In fact, according to The head of Greenpeace USA, the NSA and FBI are spying on American's who have nothing to do with terrorism.

In a Democracy Now, interview with Amy Goodman, JOHN PASSACANTANDO, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA. claims the Bush administration is using federal information gathering and investigative agencies to gain advantages over its political enemies, much like the Nixon administration did during the Vietnam war.

"Well, it's a classic smear campaign. This administration has used the power it was able to consolidate post-9/11... to try to intimidate the peaceful groups that oppose this administration's policies, whether it be foreign wars or rolling back environmental laws. "

Amy Goodman reported that:

"... Newly released documents show counterterrorism agents at the FBI have been monitoring domestic organizations active in causes as diverse as peace, the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief. The documents came as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union."

Commentary by Robert Warlov:

If this then is the only way a democratic nation can respond to terrorism, then the Bush administration is telling us that the only way we can save our democracy, is to destroy it.

But I don't blame the government for responding to the terrorist's attacks this way. It can only use the tools it's been given.

If you take your son to the doctor because he can't hit a home-run, the doctor will look for a pill with which to "cure" him.

The "cure" to terrorism is not to be found in politics, but in the recognition that terrorism is a problem of community, not politics.

The world is fast becoming one community, as witnessed by our ability to communicate instantly. The terrorist are aware of this and on September 11th., attacked America in such a way as to send a message to the world.

Oddly, no one in the administration has spoken to this. I wonder why?

The terrorists are betting that America has harmed more people in the world through our foreign policy efforts than not. If they're right, if we have more enemies than friends, then their act becomes a clarion call of our weakness, that by this method we can be weakened, and possibly even killed.

What is the answer then, if not a commitment to everlasting war on our enemies abroad and a despotic, totalitarian government at home?

The answer lies in efforts and tools that belong to community, not to politics.

We must first address the question the terrorist's act posed: what evils if any did our foreign policy effectuate over the last fifty years? Who did we harm and why?

It's a fact that in 1952, the C.I.A. purposefully destroyed the budding democracy movement in Iran, and at just the right moment, flew the Shah of Iran into Tehran to take over. Iranians hated us for the horrors he, with the help of the C.I.A. perpetrated on the Iranian people for the next 25 years. Their "payback" came in the 1980's with the taking of American hostages.

The Shah was placed and kept in office by American power whose policy reflected not the moral concerns of the American people, but the values of American corporate greed. He became a despot responsible for horrific crimes against his own people. The Iranians blamed his evil friend too; The United States of America .

After the September 11th attack on our nation, the President told us the reason the terrorists hate us is because... "we're good and their evil." But the facts speak for themselves. Our foreign policy initiatives have harmed many people in the world and not all were to bring some greater good to fruition for us or them, but sometimes only to make a few rich American's richer.

As a nation, we must begin to address these wrongs, entering into a dialog with the other peoples of the world. We are big enough to admit our own failures in foreign policy, and fix these weaknesses in our government. Lessening or destroying our democratic principles wont do that, but strengthening and increasing them will.

The approach to a solution to terrorism is through faithful and honest dialog with the world and a promise to weaken the stranglehold that powerful corporate interests have on our government. President Bush should recognise these efforts. Telling the world we acknowledge our wrong doing is called 'confession', and the promise to turn away from that evil behavior is called 'Repentance'. If we really are the good guys, this is what we must do.

If WE, THE PEOPLE, and democracy are to survive in this coming single world community, we must recognize the true enemy of liberty. A government not responsive to the moral concerns of its people, one hijacked by the greed of the evil few is destined along with the nation to fail.

How sad to ponder a future where, after showing the world the highest good a nation could achieve, founded upon the love of liberty, America becomes only a fading memory in the minds of the worlds children, and the history books which pose but leave unanswered the question: How could it have happened?

-- Robert Warlov

Friday, August 12, 2016

Bernie's delegates didn't attend


Bernie's delegates didn't attend


So we're one fourth the voting populous and none have organizational skills- couldn't volunteer, teach others? It was very sudden- true, but what- Everyone's stuck at work? In 'Animal Farm', every time something went wrong, the donkey, thinking it was his fault would say; "I'll work harder". He was wrong, but at least he took personal responsibility for it. So keep working till you need a boat to get into your front door, and when it gets worse, well... just work harder! WE- YOU- ME- WE'RE KILLING THE EARTH. Tell EVERYONE that. Tell them Bernie Sanders' is the only one willing to stop it! Not Clinton. Not Trump Not Obama Not the Koch brothers, or Ryan, or Pelosi. He's not our proverbial "Last, Best Hope...", He's our ONLY hope! Sell Bernie. Sell hope because our lives really do depend on it. We go on without him if need be. Not #BernieOrBust but #EarthOrBust or "Life". We can't stop, because to quit is to die. STOP THE MACHINE NOW... even if you have to throw your bodies onto the gears. That's what Revolution means. That's what Bernie means.