California Free Press

Off the Top of My Head

A Spokesman from the Department of Peace Was Interviewed by CNN

by John Lawrence

Hostilities in the world have died down significantly after the US established a Department of Peace. Now in addition to interviewing a military expert every time a war or a potential war threatens to break out, a spokesman from the Department of Peace, a so called peace expert is also interviewed. Recently peace expert Roshina Macerdinot responded to questions from CNN anchor Emily Sohodinat. Question: "How do you interact with the parties involved in a potential conflagration that threatens peace in the world?" Answer: "Well, first we don't take sides. We try to understand the issues from the points of view of both sides. We never denigrate either side or refer to one side as "the enemy." We try to work out a compromise that is acceptable to both sides, and we work hard with both parties to implement it given our substantial resources to do so. Fortunately, the Department of Peace now has a budget commensurate with the Defense Department which signifies our commitment to peace and not just to defending ourselves. We are proactive knowing that, if we can prevent war, we can save the destruction of life and real estate. In that sense we are pro life. One of our principles is to get the parties to understand that it is not productive to seek revenge no matter how outlandish was the behavior of one of the parties that instigated the conflict. Revenge just leads to a cycle of violence, sometimes never ending."

Sohodinat: "So you advocate just eliminating the Department of Defense? In other words you don't see the need to defend ourselves in a hostile world?

Macerdinot: "On the contrary. If all of our efforts at creating peace and resolving hostilities break down, our Defense Department stands ready to defend ourselves. It's just that we put an enormous amount of effort into creating peace and resolving hostility in the first place so that the resources of our Defense Department never have to be brought to bear hopefully. One of the ways we do that is to show respect to both parties. But if all else fails, we stand ready, with the largest military in the world to defend ourselves. However, our military budget is commensurate with out peace budget. We put as much effort into implementing peace as we do in creating and sustaining the weapons of war. A lot of our efforts are put into alleviating poverty in the world and mitigating the effects of climate change which affects the poorer countries more than it does the advanced countries although the advanced countries such as the US have been more responsible for putting most of the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere."

Sohodinat: "Well that's all well and good, but it seems a little bit pollyanish. Wars have taken place since the dawn of recorded history and probably long before that. So now we have a Department of Peace, a Division of which is the Peacebuilders such as the Peace Corps and another Division is the Peacemakers which is an augmented and upgraded diplomatic corps. Still even with all these initiatives, do you think you can change what has been a universal and ubiquitous human behavior such as war?"

Macerdinot: "Certainly it's worth a humongous effort. We know we are succeeding when the Peace Corps, which is one of our Divisions, is being given the same ritualistic recognition and honors as is the military. In fact we have created a Peace Industrial Complex which rivals the Military Industrial Complex. We are partnering with China to build infrastructure all around the world. We know we are succeeding when CNN interviews representatives who are both Military Generals and Peace Generals. We know we are succeeding when the perks and incentives for entering the Peace Corps are substantially equal to the perks and incentives for entering the military. We know we are succeeding when the Peace Academies rival West Point and Annapolis. We are turning out graduates committed to the arts of peace as fast or faster than we are turning out graduates proficient in the arts of war."

Sohodinat: "So what is peace? Is it just cessation of hostility or is it more than that?"

Macerdinot: "It's actually much more than that. It's when every person in the world has a shot at what used to be called "the American Dream." It's when no child goes hungry anywhere in the world. It's when there is clean water, nutritious food, adequate health care, a good sewage system and all the elements of a civilized life are available to everyone wherever they might live. It goes without saying that a stable and clean environment with climate change under control must be brought to fruition. Everyone, no matter where they might live, should have the tools available to live a healthy life and live up to their potential."

Sohodinat: Well, we are running out of time for this interview, but as I understand it, the Department of Peace is now on a par with the Department of Defense in terms of its funding level and the proficiency of its personnel. You all are committed to understanding and interoperating with other countries offering them friendship and respect regardless of their internal problems and political systems different from our own rather than criticising or bullying them."

Macerdinot: "That's correct. Finally, the world has learned from the Ukraine and Israeli-Hamas wars that the human suffering and destruction of real estate that war entails is not worth it, and that maximum efforts need to be made to create and maintain peace and understanding before hostilities reach the breaking point. It's important that at least as much funding and effort goes into the creation of peace as goes into the preparation for war. Jesus said "Turn the other cheek" if someone strikes you. We advocate that as well, but not in a purely defenseless manner. It's never too late to resolve the situation peacefully even if you're struck, but if worse comes to worse we still have the ability to defend ourselves. Revenge never works because it leads to a cycle of violence"

Sohodinat: Thank you, Roshina.

Macerdinot: Thank you. Nice to be with you.

Off the Top of My Head

Will There Ever Be a Department of Peace?

by John Lawrence

Let's face it. The US Department of Defense is really a misnomer. It's true name is the Department of War. Why not call it what it really is. That's its mission. That's its raison d'etre. In fact the United States Department of War, also called the War Department (and occasionally War Office in the early years), was the United States Cabinet department originally responsible for the operation and maintenance of the United States Army, also bearing responsibility for naval affairs until the establishment of the Navy Department in 1798, and for most land-based air forces until the creation of the Department of the Air Force on September 18, 1947. The Secretary of War, a civilian with such responsibilities as finance and purchases and a minor role in directing military affairs, headed the War Department throughout its existence. The War Department existed from August 7, 1789 until September 18, 1947, when it split into the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force. The Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force later joined the Department of the Navy under the United States Department of Defense in 1949.

But there is no countervailing Department of Peace! I'm proposing one. Furthermore, the trillion dollar annual budget for the Department of War should be divided in two with half going to the Department of Peace. So $500 billion for war; $500 billion for peace. Please note that I'm not advocating doing away with the war department. I'm just advocating balancing it with a Department of Peace. Halving the Defense Department budget will still leave it with a larger military budget than any other country in the world. So when will it be a good idea to actively pursue peace if not now? Can the human mind even visualize what a Department of Peace would encompass or be involved in? Part of its mission would be to do just that - imagine what peace would look like. How do you spend the allotted resources in such a way as to bring about peace in the world? Dare I say that eliminating poverty and disease in the world, assuring educational opportunities and building infrastructure would be a good place to start. The Peace Corps would be incorporated into a Department of Peace, and its budget made commensurate with the budgets of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Space Force. Instead of extracting resources from what used to be called the Third World, the Department of Peace should be in the business of providing resources to the Third World. Instead of being totally focused on US interests, how about focusing on the interests of others particularly those who have been exploited by more technically advanced nations.

Bear in mind I'm not proposing defunding the Defense Department, just halving its budget and spending the rest on peace. The Defense Department would always stand ready to fight and win any war if all efforts for peace fail. But efforts at peace should take place preemptively and proactively long before tensions fester. Part of creating peace just consists of showing respect for all parties. That costs nothing. As an example of what not to do consider Israel's relationship with the Palestinians. They let it fester until the horrible recent events resulting in much destruction, death and suffering on both sides. Israel, the US and other interested parties had years to come up with a solution that was fair to both sides. But, admittedly, there was some trying especially by President Clinton, who almost got Israel and the Palestinian Authority to agree to peace. Yasser Arafat just refused at the last minute to say yes. But wars have been fought by human beings for millennia. Homo Sapiens probably wiped out the Neanderthals and other humanoid species. Why should we believe anything else given the history of human warfare in most cases based on religion and/or ethnicity?

China, at least, is building infrastructure throughout the world, and in particular in Africa with its Belt and Road initiative. This is a peace building exercise which is not recognized or given credit by the US. The US is a Johnny-come-lately to the idea of building infrastructure in the Third World. It can hardly accomplish this at home. If it wasn't for Biden's excellent diplomatic skills, nothing in that regard would be happening in the US itself. The US can barely keep its government open. It's not a good prognosis for the leader of the free world especially in light of the fact that a multiply indicted authoritarian who tried to overthrow the government is favored to win the next election straight out of the German playbook circa 1932.

Off the Top of My Head

The Absence of War is Not Peace

by John Lawrence

Human beings do not use the absence of war to create peace. They use the absence of war to prepare for the next war. The time between wars could be used in a more constructive way and that is to do everything possible to prevent the next war. Instead what we do is to build up our offensive and defensive capacities so that whatever side we are on prevails in the next war. The US military-industrial complex is allotted almost a trillion dollars a year whether or not there is war or absence of war. There is never ever really peacetime. It's sole purpose is to prepare for the next war. Meanwhile the Peace Corps is allotted next to nothing in order to create the conditions that might prevent the next war. What are those conditions you might ask? They are very simple: creating educational opportunities for the undereducated, creating economic opportunities for those in poverty, creating hospitals and clinics for those whose health is at risk, building infrastructure for those lacking access to modern infrastructure. In other words building more successful societies from the ground up for those lacking what the most advanced societies already have. Above all poverty and lack of healthful conditions must be alleviated all over the world including in the advanced nations themselves before anything approaching world peace can be achieved.

So what is the lesson of the Israeli-Gaza war? It is that in the time period before the war, nobody did nothing to create the conditions for a lasting peace which would have been the two state solution. Instead people just stood back content to have the Palestinians live miserable lives without political or economic rights. Nobody cared. Nobody worked hard to correct or ameliorate the situation. People were content just to let the situation fester until the next violence broke out, and then it did with very dramatic and horrific results. When there was an absence of war, people just said ho hum, there's no urgency to create the conditions for a lasting peace. Then when war breaks out everyone gets very excited and upset, horrible things happen to children and old people. People want revenge. Hate proliferates. War is exciting. Peace is dull and undramatic. People get bored with the absence of war. People's senses come alive during war. During the absence of war in which there is no real peace, people pursue their self interest or in other words lining their purses. During war they get all excited. There is nonstop news coverage. People get upset by (wo)man's inhumanity to (wo)man as if people doing horrible things to other people is unimaginable. It's not. People's senses come alive and they come out of their collective stupors.

If the US just spent half its defense budget on war and the other half on peace, it would still have a larger defense budget than any other country in the world, and just think what the Peace Corps could do with a $500 billion budget. Why it could even compete with China's Belt and Road initiative which is building infrastructure in parts of the world where inadequate infrastructure exists. The two largest world economies could compete creating peace in the world instead of trying to out compete each other with larger and better weapons and more vitriolic and challenging rhetoric. However, this is not OK with conservatives who feel very threatened by the Chinese COMMUNIST Party although the Chinese system brought 800 million people out of poverty in 40 years primarily by adopting a free enterprise capitalistic system. Oh but it is still authoritarian politically, you say. That is subject to interpretation as the Chinese political system is based on Confucianism which promotes a meritocracy unlike the US where any bozo can become President.

So where is the American Department of Peace? We have the Department of Defense(Offense). We have the Department of Homeland Security. We have the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). What agencies of the Federal government are devoted to creating a more peaceful world? Basically, none, and so is it any wonder that, while the human race continues to invent a plethora of gadgets, it can do hardly anything to create world peace? Peace depends on mutual respect among the leaders of the various nations of the world. Instead US authorities criticize and lord it over the leaders of other nations because they are not exactly like us. Instead of walking a mile in their shoes, they insist that every other nation walks a mile in our shoes.

Off the Top of My Head

What To Do About Religious Intolerance Leading to War

by John Lawrence

The current situation in the Middle East is a reminder that throughout history war has been religious based. Think of the wars in Europe between Protestants and Catholics or the Crusades which were wars between Christians and Muslims or the persecution of Jews throughout history. If we are ever to have peace in this world, religious tolerance is paramount. So there should be religious studies in schools at all levels, but not studies about one religion. Students should be required to study all the major religions which are Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Not only that, but students should be required to attend religious services in all these religions. Only by understanding the different religions can one develop a tolerance for them all. Only when we come to a time when it doesn't matter what religion a person espouses will we be able to all get along. It shouldn't matter what one's religion is. They shouldn't be perceived as "the other." All human beings need to get to the point where they are human beings first and their religion is a matter of indifference.

I think this can only be accomplished by an educational system in which a student becomes familiar with all the different religions, has friends who are members of different religions and comes to see that, regardless of one's religion, human beings are all basically the same. In other words all societies should become secularized. It would help greatly if all students were required to attend religious services of all the five great religions mentioned earlier. What is more important than peace on earth, and to accomplish this tolerance of all religions must be inculcated in students everywhere. Tolerance of other religions is more important than the beliefs of any particular religion. As long as one perceives that someone is a member of a different religion than their own and is perceived as "the other," there will be suspicion, fear, tension, hatred and war. World peace is something that needs to be worked at to be accomplished and understanding and tolerance of religion is a good place to start.

In addition to tolerance of different religious views, an uplifting of the economic circumstances of the world's poorest citizens will do more to create peace than anything else. War is often the result of the perceived superiority of living conditions of one group of people by another group. One group is the downtrodden and one group has all the advantages and is living the good life. Everyone in the world needs to be brought up to at least a decent standard of living before there will be peace in the world. So religious tolerance brought about by education regarding all the world's religions and attendance at all religious services combined with an all out effort to bring all the world's peoples up to a decent standard of living will do much to bring about world peace. These efforts have to be done at the same time that the earth itself must be protected from environmental degradation especially with regard to climate change. The old paradigm in which earth's resources were to be exploited without consequence, in which humans were told that they had "dominion" over earth's resources, must go to be replaced with an ethic not of exploitation but of respect for the planet and all its resources including its human resources.

Off the Top of My Head

Toxic Masculinity

by John Lawrence

Traditional masculine traits are dominance, aggression, emotional repression, violence. These traits have been historically mostly expressed in terms of the military. In the First World War, many of the participants were more than eager to cover themselves in glory by proving their manhood in combat. Instead many of them ended up dying miserable deaths in muddy trenches or hung from barbed wire. The persistence of war in the human experience can be laid squarely at the feet of men and their interpretation of what is manly in my opinion. In fact peace or even world peace is seen as a feminine idea. Most traditional men would not consider peace in the form of world wide understanding and compassion even possible because it would be based on feminine values. The only peace even possible in the traditional male mind is "peace through strength." Traditional male values prevent even an acknowledgment of what peace would really consist of because it would consist of emotional values that are traditionally feminine. The predominant attitude is that joining the military will "make a man out of you." A real man is only supposed to express a limited and actually stunted set of emotions and certainly is not supposed to express any vulnerabilities. Physical force or the threat of force is acceptable in a man's world. Understanding, cooperation and diplomacy are not.

Traditional male activities are beer drinking (a man can hold his liquor), fast car racing or pickup driving (showing dominance by means of a powerful machine), participation in or spectating at competitive sports, participation in or admiration of the military. Dominance, competitiveness, the use or threat of violence, pugnaciousness, toughness, looking down on men who don't conform to this stereotype - these are all traditional male traits. None of these traits are physically or mentally healthy. For instance, holding your liquor can lead to cirrhosis of the liver. Emotional repressiveness can lead to an inability to relate to women even though some women are attracted to the traditional male type. In fact it can be argued that Trump's popularity is a result of his expression of traditional male values. In an article in FiveThirtyEight entitled With His Version of Masculinity, we find this:

But the quest to seem masculine is particularly complicated in this year’s GOP primary because Trump has been so successful at projecting a macho image that Republican voters have responded to. This masculine identity isn’t about demonstrations of physical prowess — nobody talks about how far Trump can run or whether he can bench-press a certain weight. His version of manliness is fueled by other kinds of behavior — including his belittling of other candidates, aggression toward women, “tell it like it is and don’t apologize” affect — that are associated with traditional ideas about how a man should behave. The other GOP candidates largely aren’t trying to imitate those aspects of Trump’s macho identity — but experts told us that without Trump’s signature belligerence, his version of masculinity might not resonate as much. And that means his rivals may have an especially difficult time convincing the GOP primary electorate that they’re as strong a leader as Trump.

“In this view of masculinity, men are supposed to be dominant, powerful, aggressive,” said Theresa Vescio, a professor of psychology at Penn State University who studies masculinity. “And the more that people — both men and women — think that good men should be high in power, status, dominance and toughness, the more they say that’s what a man is, the more they support Trump.”

It might seem strange to some that a man who is not particularly physically fit or athletic, never served in the military and eats junk food is an exemplary manifestation of manhood. It seems ridiculous that Trump's penchant for belittling his opponents is seen by some as "manly." That his getting away with stiffing contractors, creditors and not paying taxes are manly traits. But somehow Trump's unwillingness to apologize about anything or ever admit he did anything wrong is seen by some Republicans as the counter to "liberal values" like having compassion and respect for people who disagree with you. Instead Trump calls his detractors and competitors names, assails them as weaklings and asserts his macho masculinity while he hides behind a bevy of lawyers and uses his money to shield himself from any negative consequences. His seeming ability to get away with stuff is seen as quintessentially masculine. The article continues:

These are the voters who are especially likely to find Trump’s version of masculinity appealing. Trump is particularly effective at drawing on his supporters’ fears about threats to traditional masculinity, while simultaneously building himself up as a paragon of that version of manliness, according to the experts we spoke with. His image as president was aggressively militant, threatening other world leaders and avoiding compromise. And his refusal to apologize for a well-documented track record of sexual harassment and assault makes him seem authentically masculine and powerful to some voters, according to Dan Cassino, a political scientist at Fairleigh Dickinson University who studies male gender identity. “It’s as much about tearing others down as it is about building others up,” Cassino says. “The insults, the misogynistic behavior — these are very negative masculine traits but he’s willing to assert them in a way others aren’t, and that means nobody thinks he’s lying about who he is.”

By projecting an image of himself as a powerful, strong, dominant man who’s willing to shrug away modern conventions around how men and women should behave, Trump has reached people who support traditional gender hierarchies. “There are a lot of conservatives — men but some women too — in this country who increasingly feel like they’re on the outside looking in, while liberals run things,” said Paul Elliott Johnson, a professor of communication at the University of Pittsburgh who studies gender and politics. “Trump invites those people to feel victimized and then says, ‘I will fix the problem.’”

As detrimental to society in general as these toxic traditional masculine values are, they will even probably contribute to the annihilation of the human race altogether either through war or the ignoring of climate change. There is not even any talk of world peace any more. It's not even on anyone's radar. The militarization of the American psyche is complete. The Peace Corps is never even mentioned in the media. Most people would not even know that it exists. The Peace Corps represents the feminine values of help and caring for those less fortunate. The traditional male simply looks upon them as losers in the game of life, probably because of their inferiority to white males. As traditional white males, they believe that they have simply outcompeted those who come from as Trump has termed them, "shithole countries."  Let people with feminine values agonize over them and their claims that rich white men should help them out with their situations due to climate change. Macho men would scoff at their suggestions that the rich nations should bear the cost of ameliorating the effects of global warming or as U.N. chief António Guterres declared, "global boiling." As Trump and other macho men might say, "suck it up." There will probably never be world peace until women run the world. And where would that leave the traditional man and his toxic values? Healthy manhood, in my humble opinion, should be nothing more nor less than loving, supporting and cherishing the girls and women in our lives whether they be girlfriends, lovers, wives, daughters, mothers or grandmothers. All the rest of the positive values a man can manifest are simply personhood values which can be exemplified by both sexes.

Off the Top of My Head

Can a Puma Be Raised to Prefer Plant Based Meat?

by John Lawrence

Actually, this is a good question. If meat eaters could be trained to eat plant based meat, they would no longer be predators. If lions can lie down with lambs, then maybe there is even hope for the human race. In fact some animals that would attack each other in the wild, when raised together as babies, become the best of friends. Anthony, the lion, was brought to “Keepers of the Wild” animal sanctuary as a sick cub after being auctioned off in Virginia, and Riley, the coyote, was rescued by Arizona game and fish. Both were just over one month old when they met. Coyotes and lions are social animals, and Riley and Anthony grew quite fond of one another almost immediately. So they grew up, not to eat each other, but to be friends. Does this portend some hope for the human race? If babies of all races, religions and nationalities grew up together, maybe they would continue to have mutually constructive relationships as adults. Perhaps this would be a way that world peace could be attained. No more predator and prey relationships. No more friend and enemy relationships. It's worth a try. It would be a great sociological experiment, and there is nothing weird about it. It would only entail play dates for children of all races, nationalities and religions as they grew up. As they grew older, they would grow into an age appropriate understanding of their friends' backgrounds. If animals can form these kind of relationships, probably so could humans.

After photographer Isobel Springett, took in an abandoned fawn, it was almost immediately adopted by Springett’s Great Dane, Kate. Pip clearly feels very strongly for her canine caretaker, and even though Pip joined a herd, she still finds time to spend with Kate. Perhaps animals can lead the way. Perhaps they can be the prime movers towards a more mutually beneficial society. Perhaps there would no more be predators and prey. What would this portend for the human race? One thing it portends is that, in order to end war and conflict, everyone would have to be adequately fed with a plant based diet. As long as some people have nothing and others have seemingly everything, there will always be war as the underdogs try to redress the balance. If everyone is relatively well off, the incentive for altering the status quo by violence and force is greatly diminished.

In a hidden realm at the end of the world, amidst the massive ice mountains of Chile’s Torres del Paine National Park, condors soar, colorful caracaras keep a sharp eye out for prey and vivid pink flamingos make a theatrical appearance. This kingdom is the stronghold of the puma, a large mountain lion that hunts for guanacos – cousins of llamas – as they roam from the valleys to the hillsides. Follow the fate of Solitaria, a female puma in her prime. The mother of four cubs, she hunts and teaches her young how to live in this extraordinary landscape. Narrated by Uma Thurman. This is a beautiful story about a successful huntress who is so tender and loving with her four kittens, but is relentless when it comes to the life and death struggle with guanacos. The guanacos must be eternally vigilant for any sign that there might be a puma lurking and stalking them. It's an athletic contest that occurs on a daily basis. Both kinds of animals must use their entire skill set to stay alive and to eat. Guanacos eat a plant based diet, and pumas eat guanacos. Could pumas raised from babyhood with baby guanacos grow up to see each other as friends instead of as rivals and enemies? Could pumas be trained to a plant based diet? The implications for human survival and the survival of the human species might be significant.

Off the Top of My Head

The Biden Policy in Ukraine Is Unraveling

by John Lawrence

President Biden's original policy in the Ukraine war included the notion that the war would be confined to Ukraine's physical territory and not lead to a wider war. The west would supply Ukraine with weapons, and Ukraine would have a fighting chance of pushing Russia out of their territory. The whole strategy was predicated on the goal of preventing World War III. Now that policy is failing due to the fact that the west has gradually increased the firepower and sophistication of the weapons supplied to Ukraine, and also the fact that Ukraine is starting to attack inside Russia. The war is widening and intensifying. Ukraine, meanwhile, is in no mood to try and negotiate a settlement to the war, and NATO doesn't seem to be in any mood to force them to negotiate. So the war is escalating. Zelensky never misses a chance to demand more and more sophisticated weapons from the west. Biden and other western leaders continue to support his rhetoric that Ukraine can win the war. It's all about winning or losing, not about a negotiated peace.

So what went wrong, and how could this war get so out of hand? First, it is undisputed that Russia invaded Ukraine unprovokedly. However, there were negotiations and events leading up to the invasion which might have resolved issues which would have prevented the invasion in the first place. On Dec. 17 2021, Russia presented security demands including that NATO pull back troops and weapons from eastern Europe and bar Ukraine from ever joining. Russia had been upset for years due to the fact that, after the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO had marched resolutely eastward despite assurances to the contrary. I had written earlier:

"NATO expanded during the 1990s largely due to the imprecations of President Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright even though President Gorbachev had been promised that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" as part of a deal to reunify Germany after the Cold War.

Politifact reported:

After explaining why the U.S. wanted the reunited Germany to stay within the framework of NATO, Baker told Gorbachev that "if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east."

"I put the following question to (Gorbachev)," Baker recounted in a letter to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. "‘Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift 1 inch eastward from its present position?’"

Those comments, along with similar remarks from Baker’s European allies, like Genscher and Kohl, were part of what researchers at George Washington University’s National Security Archive called a "cascade of assurances" offered to the Soviets.

But Baker and other officials involved in the events have denied that the conversation ever turned on expanding NATO to other countries. 

So basically Gorbachev was sold a bill of goods that, if he consented to the reunification of Germany and with Germany as a NATO member, that NATO would not expand eastwards. However, "given assurances" is not the same as "legal and binding". Therefore, in July 1997, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic (where Albright was born) were formally invited to join NATO."

Ever since Russian Czar Peter the Great attempted to "westernize" Russia, there has been a dicey relationship between Russia and Europe, each eyeing the other warily. Culturally, in terms of literature, dance, music and athletics, Russia is a western nation. Even Putin expressed interest in being part of the west. George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join NATO?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join NATO, they apply to join NATO.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

The account chimes with what Putin told the late David Frost in a BBC interview shortly before he was first inaugurated as Russian president more than 21 years ago. Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining NATO “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”.

He told Frost it was hard for him to visualise NATO as an enemy. “Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world.”

However, Putin was rebuffed. He was further slighted when his demands that Ukraine not be considered for NATO membership before the war were, probably in his mind, disrespected. The whole Ukraine war could have been prevented perhaps by massaging sufficiently Putin's bruised ego - in other words intelligent diplomacy. In his mind it seems he and Russia were not properly respected nor were their interests properly taken into account. With two individuals, one of whom looks down on the other, more often than not a fight can ensue. It's the same between two nations. Mutual respect is important in any negotiation. Clearly, Putin did not feel that that was the case in negotiations before the war.

So now there is cross border fighting between Ukraine and Russia. This is clearly an escalation of the war and diminishes Biden's attempts of containing the war to Ukraine and preventing a larger conflict including perhaps World War III. The introductin of more sophisticated western weapons into Ukraine including offensive capabilities and more bellicose rhetoric on the part of Ukraine, no matter how justified, does not presage a good outcome for this complex situation. Putin and Russia could have perhaps been assuaged before the war by placing Ukraine's NATO membership on hold for a period of years, but Biden's insistence that any nation can apply and get NATO membership clearly was a non-starter for Putin. At this point the only alternative to escalation of the war and possibly a nuclear Armageddon, is a negotiated peace, something that Zelensky is disinclined to do and something that Biden is disinclined from telling him to do.

Off the Top of My Head

The Glory of War

by John Lawrence

Throughout history men have gone to war to cover themselves in glory and prove their masculinity. In World War I, many young British men were gung ho for going to war. They intended to cover themselves in glory and be home before Christmas. Instead many of them died face down in muddy trenches or were impaled on barbed wire. According to historycrunch.com: "...one of the main reasons for the excitement of the war was that many viewed it as an adventure. They read stories about soldiers bravely marching into battle and dying heroically on the battlefields for their countries. For many of these young soldiers, they viewed the Great War as their opportunity to play a role in the ‘glory of war’ and follow in the path of earlier soldiers in earlier European conflicts. To them, war seemed adventurous and a show of bravery that many claimed they ‘did not want to miss’." It was forever so but in general only the victors were able to cover themselves in glory.

War, I would contend, is primarily a masculine pursuit. It represents an attempt by men to prove their manhood. Even some American Indian tribes cultivated a warrior tradition. Their women would have nothing to do with men until they had proved themselves in war. According to Wikipedia: "What evolved among the Plains Native Americans from the 17th to the late 19th century was warfare as both a means of livelihood and a sport. Young men gained both prestige and plunder by fighting as warriors, and this individualistic style of warfare ensured that success in individual combat and capturing trophies of war were highly esteemed." Not for nothing were they called Braves. Martina Sprague in her book The Glory of War: The Way to Historical Immortality writes:  "What motivates men to go to war? The answer is the desire for recognition and the opportunity to gain eternal fame. War is perhaps the most common way in which a man can become a hero. We tend to romanticize war. War is portrayed as a daring adventure for a sacred cause, where the soldier will ultimately reach the highest level of self-actualization. As demonstrated by the great military figures in history, the promise of honor and heroism can help a man conquer the world."

Covering oneself in glory, proving one's masculinity, becoming a hero, these are ultimately traps which cause the perpetuation of war. Some men become addicted to war, the excitement of war. If one war ends, they will seek out the next one. Life is never so dull as life without war. It is the ultimate football game because the stakes - life or death - are so high. Witness the volunteers from other countries who are putting their lives on the line in Ukraine. The problem is that the pursuit of peace is never as exciting as the pursuit of war. Until peacemaking becomes as noble and glorious a pursuit as war, there is no hope for the human race to live peaceably and cooperatively side by side with each other. Until they give out as many medals and honors for peace heroes as they do for war heroes, the human race will go down fighting and ultimately extinguish each other.

I'm afraid that the war in Ukraine is only the latest example of people preoccupied with the excitement of war. Sure it was a clumsy and ignoble thing for Russia to do to so overtly invade Ukraine. They should have taken a page out of the CIA's book and been more subtle and covert about it. For example, the CIA undermined the democratically elected regime of Salvador Allende in Chile because he was a socialist and a Marxist ushering in the regime of Augusto Pinochet and his reign of terror. "According to the Chilean government, the number of executions and forced disappearances was at least 3,095 [under Pinochet]. Operation Condor, a U.S.-supported terror operation focusing on South America, was founded at the behest of the Pinochet regime in late November 1975, his 60th birthday." I'm afraid that Zelensky is following the same playbook of promoting the war based on 'glory for Ukraine' and his David and Goliath symbolism. His insatiable lust for American artillery shells and other advanced weaponry is duly granted by President Biden and the European allies with the goal of "winning the war." No one except the Chinese seem the least interested in creating a peaceful solution to the war. Instead the war will only be escalated when Ukraine gets F-15 fighter jets. Then they will be able to hit Russian targets in Russia escalating the war even further. Until now tragically it's only Ukrainian civilian lives and property that are being destroyed.

It seems like revenge, hatred for Russia and glory for Ukraine are the ultimate factors at work here not a search for compromise which both sides can live with. Does Russia have any legitimate national security interests in Ukraine's not becoming a member of NATO? Did the US have any legitimate national security interests in Chile nor becoming a socialist and Marxist state? There are always many reasons for war, but few for peace. Meanwhile, a lack of cooperation among the world's nations is hastening the day in which global warming will put an end to human civilization unless we can wake up and see that peace and cooperation are more glorious than war.

Off the Top of My Head

The Mid Terms: Out of the Frying Pan Into the Fire

by John Lawrence

Voters are going to vote Republican because they don't like the economy. Really? What have the Republicans proposed to do about that? Cut social security and Medicare. Yeah, that'll fix the economy all right. Give more tax breaks to billionaires? That'll fix the economy for sure. Take away Biden's forgiveness of student loan debt? That'll really fix it. "Kitchen table" voters don't like inflation? What are Republicans proposing to do about that? The only tool in the arsenal for inflation cutting is the Fed's raising interest rates and the Fed is independent of both parties. Besides the only tool the Fed has is probably not the right tool for fixing this inflation. But it will eventually destroy what seems to be a pretty good economy despite inflation. The biggest way to fight inflation is to end the war in Ukraine which will bring gas prices down. Additionally, all the weaponry that is being "given" to Ukraine is really being bought from US weapons manufacturers and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin. This is pouring more money into the American economy at a time when money needs to be extracted from the American economy to fight inflation. The Fed's raising of interest rates is an attempt to increase unemployment which is the traditional way that the Fed fights inflation. The so-called Philips curve says that inflation is directly caused by too much employment, and, if you increase unemployment, it will bring inflation down. There is a direct correlation between unemployment and inflation. So the Fed, although no politician will say it, is trying desperately to increase unemployment. This hurts poor people the most, and, whether it will decrease inflation under the present circumstances, is debatable.

However, the war in Ukraine amounts to a protracted stalemate. As long as the west supplies Ukraine with weapons and North Korea, Iran and China supply Russia with weapons, the war will continue. No one on either side wants to talk peace. Each side wants to win at all costs. So the war will drag the world economy down into inflation and recession. Russia holds the winning cards in terms of its ability to literally destroy Ukraine from the air regardless of what is happening on the battlefield. This is not World War II where success on the battlefield was the key to winning the war. It's more like World War I where trench warfare and stalemate predominated. Territorial Russia remains virtually untouched since the rules are that the war will be entirely fought on Ukraine's territory, and the west to its credit doesn't want an expansion of the war. In the final analysis this gives Russia the advantage. Ukraine is fighting a defensive war, and Russia is fighting an offensive war. It's likely that neither party will run out of resources. That means the longer the war goes on, the more of Ukraine will be destroyed. There needs to be a peace commission and a peace process in which both sides can air their grievances and aspirations. What makes the most sense? I'm sure there is a possible way out, but neither side seems to want to compromise in the interests of ameliorating the lives of the Ukrainian people and getting back to normalcy. For each side their national pride is more important than the lives of their citizens.

Joe Biden could propose a solution to the war which would also go a long way to ameliorating inflation. Unfortunately, Biden is only interested in demonizing Putin. This is not a productive way to create peace. Biden is only fueling the war, and Putin won't back down due to pride. The more Putin is demonized, the more his hackles are raised. The west should be trying to lower Putin's hackles, not raise them. Ukrainian lives hang in the balance. Russian soldiers' lives are also in the balance although Russian civilians so far have escaped most of the suffering. Ukraine taking back real estate will not in the final analysis win the war because Russia can lob missiles into Ukraine ad infinitum. Only a peace process, compromise, consideration for civilian lives and reintegration of Russia into the world community will make it possible for people in that region of the world to again lead normal lives. Winning the war for either side is not a realistic option.

Off the Top of My Head

We Need a Department of Peace to Balance and Offset our War Department

by John Lawrence

Let's face it. the Department of Defense is a euphemism. It was called the Department of War until 1949. So let's call it what it really is. Don't get me wrong. There are times when war is necessary as occurred in WW II. However, we spend about $1 trillion on our War Department while spending little or nothing on peace. Is there really a Peace Corps? Yes, and its budget is about $400 million. That's about 4 ten thousandths of the War Department budget. My point is that we should be making at least the same effort towards peace as we're making towards war, and we should be putting our money where our mouth is. This doesn't mean we totally disarm ourselves. It means that we are making an effort towards creating peace in the world if at all possible and are willing to devote an equal amount of resources towards it. In our present state it's all about threatening war in order to to create a state of peace. It's Pax Americana similar to the Pax Romana which meant that you didn't mess with Rome or else you were threatened with violence. Instead of creating peace by means of a threat of war, we should be actively pursuing a peaceful world instead.

What would a Department of Peace actually do? Well, diplomacy would be under this department instead of the State Department for starters. Second, the American equivalent of China's Belt and Road initiative. Building infrastructure around the world just as China is doing. But what's most important at the present time is converting the world to green infrastructure. The middle class in India is growing. They want to live just like Americans. As more Indians enter the middle class they are consuming more fossil fuels to provide the energy to do so. This is contributing to the looming climate disaster. Just what we don't need is more carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere as a result of more people gentrifying into the middle class. Therefore, a Department of Peace, which should include the Peace Corps, would step up the efforts not only to change the fossil fuel habit in the US, but to actively change it around the world. About a half a trillion dollar budget would be about right while decreasing the War (Defense) budget which is 10 times the combined budgets of the rest of the world to half a trillion.

President Biden wants a Civilian Climate Corps reminiscent of the Civilian Conservation Corps which President Roosevelt established to build parks and plant trees during the Great Depression. An excellent idea in view of the fact that planting a trillion trees would suck the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Unless we do that there is already enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 410 ppm to melt both poles. Why not require participation in the Civilian Conservation Corps for people receiving welfare benefits who aren't otherwise employed or who are unemployable in the prevailing economy. I'm thinking about the homeless and others for whom this might be a first step to getting back on their feet in the so-called real world. I'm in favor of the government being the employer of last resort, and employment in a Civilian Climate Corps is the perfect solution both for them and for the environment.

Building the elements of peace around the world would entail looking out for the health care needs of people outside the US in our era of pandemics. This is also good sense in a selfish way since viruses can transmit world wide in a matter of days if not hours. They don't respect national boundaries. People to people cultural contacts with people of other nations brings about understanding and the realization that, no matter what the religious or ethnic differences seem to be, human beings are all essentially the same deep down and all have the same needs and aspirations. Helping others to realize their aspirations creates peace in the world. Cultural and educational exchanges are an important way to increase mutual understanding. There are many ways to create peace in the world. The US shouldn't be always taking the stance of trying to put down those peoples and countries who don't follow the US way of life. Others might have a different way of setting up their societies, but rather than taking this as a threat, we should engage diplomatically and peacefully if at all possible knowing that in the final analysis, if push came to shove, we also have the means to defend ourselves. A Department of Peace and a Department of War should go hand in hand. Today it is lopsided in favor of war.

Off the Top of My Head

If Huge Numbers of People Believe Something, Does It Make It True?

by John Lawrence

Huge numbers of people believe Trump won the election. By all objective measures, it's a false belief. Huge numbers also believe some particular religious doctrine. Does that make it true? When it comes to religion though, there are no objective measures. Did God actually give Moses two stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments at the top of Mount Sinai or was it Mount Horeb as it says elsewhere in the Bible. Or was it Mount Serbal or Mount Catherine where Christians built a monastery in the belief that one of these mountains is where Moses received the stone tablets. Biblical scholars cannot even agree exactly which mountain corresponds to Mount Sinai. Or, is it possible that Moses had the stone masonry skills to have carved the stone tablets himself and then just told the story that he had received them from God? After all if people believed the tablets were created just by Moses and not by God, they would have given the Ten Commandments a lot less consideration as something they should be concerned about.

The January 6 Committee is attempting to prove that Trump knew he had lost the election, but misled his followers to believe in what others have called his Big Lie. Is there a willingness on the part of "followers" to believe anything their "leader" tells them? We'll never know the factual truth about Moses and the stone tablets, but we actually have factual data about the truth or falsehood of Trump's contention that the election was stolen from him. As Bennie Thompson, chair of the January 6 committee said, "Numbers don't lie." It doesn't matter what millions of Trump supporters believe because beliefs have to be measured with respect to objective facts whenever they're available, and in this case they are. With respect to religion we are free to believe whatever we want since there are no objective facts available no matter how hard anyone wants to believe that their beliefs are in fact the true facts.

So why do people believe stuff that isn't true? Why did all those people believe that the Emperor's new clothes were in fact a most wonderful set of threads? It took a little boy to point out that the Emperor was in fact naked. People will tend to believe whatever a person in power tells them because they don't want to be punished either directly or by other believers who could make them social outcasts for not believing what all of the rest of them believe. You don't want to say the Emperor is a fake if the Emperor could throw you in prison or worse. People didn't contradict the Roman Caesars when they told them they were actually gods. A lot of the wars have been between groups with contrary religious beliefs. After the Protestant Reformation, there followed the Thirty Years war in Europe between Catholics and Protestants. The war in Yugoslavia was among three religious groups: Eastern Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics and Muslims. They were all ethnically the same southern Slavs, the only difference among them which resulted in them killing each other was in their professed religious beliefs. Croats were largely Roman Catholic, Serbs were mostly Eastern Orthodox and Bosnia is majority Islamic. Different religious beliefs have resulted historically in human beings killing each other.

Trump's Big Lie resulted in his true believer followers almost fomenting a successful coup on January 6. It also helped Trump and other Republicans raise huge amounts of campaign cash from his followers based on their belief that the election was stolen from their "leader." Tolerance among people with different religious beliefs is a necessary component if earthlings ever hope to attain Peace on Earth, Good Will Among Men (and Women). Democracy is based on an accurate counting of votes. It's all about the numbers. It's not about beliefs. It's not about believing what some leader tells you to believe. Objectivity and science establish what is undisputedly true. Fortunately, democracy has a way to establish what is objectively true. Religion doesn't.

Athens Declaration Calls for End to Ukraine War and Creation of 'Lasting Peace'

Thousands of demonstrators join Fridays for Future's global day of action to stand with Ukraine by walking down Willy-Brandt-Strasse, a main thoroughfare in Hamburg, Germany. (Photo: Daniel Reinhardt/dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images)

Put forth by international progressive leaders "calling the world to sanity," the document envisions a global security framework committed to de-escalating tensions in the world.

 

Andrea Germanos

May 13, 2022

A group of international progressives on Friday released a declaration demanding an urgent withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine, a global end to "rampant militarism," and the forging of a collaborative movement to ensure lasting peace and a planet safe from climate catastrophe.

The Athens Declaration was unveiled at a press conference in the Greek capital by Turkish author Ece Temelkuran; British Member of Parliament and former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn; and former Greek finance minister and leader of the MeRA25 party Yanis Varoufakis. The three are all Progressive International council members.

"Every million dollars spent on major armaments is a million dollars not made available for schools, not available for hospitals, not available for housing, not available to feed the very hungriest in the world."

"Our purpose here," said Corbyn, "is to bring about.. a voice for peace."

In its entirety, the declaration states:

• We stand with the people of Ukraine, as we stand with every people suffering invasion, displacement and occupation.
• We demand an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of Russian forces and a comprehensive Peace Treaty guaranteed by the European Union, the United States and Russia in the context of the United Nations.
• We urge respect for International Law and all refugees, who must have their rights protected and offered a place of safety regardless of ethnicity, religion etc.
• We oppose the division of the world in competing blocs that invest in rampant militarism, hyper-modern weapons of mass destruction and a New Cold War.
• We believe that lasting peace can be achieved only by replacing all military blocs with an inclusive international security framework that de-escalates tensions, expands freedoms, fights poverty, limits exploitation, pursues social and environmental justice and terminates the domination of one country by another.

With these thoughts in mind, we call upon democrats across the world to join forces in a New Non-Aligned Movement. In this context, we view non-aligned, democratic and sovereign nations working together as the route to lasting peace and a world that can avert climate catastrophe and bequeath to the next generation a decent chance at creating the conditions for globally shared prosperity.

Temelkuran—who said during the press conference that the declaration "is calling the world to sanity"—put the need for such a document in the context of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

"We are actually closer to war, all-out war, than we'd like to think," she said, warning that "we are also dealing with fascism—and fascism, like war, does not happen overnight."

"It begins by normalizing the ugly, and the wrong, and also the evil," said Temelkuran.

"Has the pandemic taught us nothing about global inequality and global insecurity?"

"One of the most dangerous facts about today," she continued, "is the non-challenge of the international institutions and the proud shamelessness of authoritarian leaders."

But "when there is no hope, there is our determination to come together, to speak to truth, and to defend justice and human dignity," she said. "This is where we are."

In his remarks, Corbyn also addressed Russia's invasion, saying that "the situation facing the world at the present time is dire and grim."

He pointed to the roughly six million who've been forced to flee Ukraine and "the horrors of the war" that "are taking life, are devastating the place," and "threatening the world's food supplies."

Corbyn also warned that "the economic devastation of this war will have a massive effect on the global economy, and because of the inequality of the global economy, it's the poorest people in the poorest countries that will suffer the most, followed by the poorest people in the richest countries."

"If the world just goes on into developing into more and more military alliances greater and greater levels of expenditure on armaments and weapons of mass destruction, you then have to ask yourself, every million dollars spent on major armaments is a million dollars not made available for schools, not available for hospitals, not available for housing, not available to feed the very hungriest in the world."

"Has the pandemic taught us nothing about global inequality and global insecurity?" he said.

"So our plea today," said Corbyn, "is for an urgent and immediate ceasefire where all of the world's leaders demand it... and a future security arrangement guaranteed by all the world's major powers as a step towards a more peaceful world."

The declaration was announced a day after Progressive International's four-day summit began.

In a keynote address Thursday, Corbyn called the summit "a site of construction" and said it was convened "to take stock of this dying world, and to build the new one that will replace it—brimming with life, bound by love, powered by popular sovereignty."

---

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

Two Truths About War and One About Planet Earth

by John Lawrence

1) Truth is the first casualty of war. 2) War is hell. 3) Planet earth can't survive without the cooperation of all nations. Despite the outcome of the war in Ukraine, the whole planet will go up in flames unless all nations can cooperate to solve the problem of global warming. If peace among all nations on earth is not possible, then we can kiss planet earth good-bye as a habitable refuge for humans and other forms of life. The cockroaches may survive, but there is no guarantee even for them. While we humans are busy fighting wars, the planet is warming, and there is not a lot of time to fix this problem before it gets to the point of being unfixable. Global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions rose by 6% in 2021 to 36.3 billion tons, their highest ever, as the world economy rebounded strongly from the Covid-19 crisis and relied heavily on coal to power that growth, according to a new IEA analysis released this March 2022. So we're going in the wrong direction heading for a cliff full steam ahead. Not only are we not turning around this catastrophe, we're accelerating it.

"The increase in global CO2 emissions of over 2 billion tons was the largest in history in absolute terms, more than offsetting the previous year’s pandemic-induced decline, the IEA analysis shows. The recovery of energy demand in 2021 was compounded by adverse weather and energy market conditions – notably the spikes in natural gas prices – which led to more coal being burned despite renewable power generation registering its largest ever growth"

So now with the sanctions on Russian gas, there is a likelihood that even more coal will be burned as gas prices soar around the world. We are shooting ourselves in the foot! More natural gas usage, even Russian natural gas, should be encouraged because it produces less greenhouse gas emissions than does the burning of coal. So whoever loses the war in Ukraine, the biggest loser of all will be planet earth. Combined with the methane emissions estimates that the IEA published last month and estimates of nitrous oxide and flaring-related CO² emissions, the new analysis shows that overall greenhouse gas emissions from energy rose to their highest ever level in 2021.

The IEA report emphasized:

"The use of coal for electricity generation in 2021 was intensified by record high natural gas prices. The costs of operating existing coal power plants across the United States and many European power systems were considerably lower than those of gas power plants for the majority of 2021. Gas-to-coal switching pushed up global CO² emissions from electricity generation by well over 100 million tonnes, notably in the United States and Europe where competition between gas and coal power plants is tightest."

So now because of sanctions on Russian natural gas, even more power plants across the US and Europe will be switching to coal! We should be closing all coal powered plants and even those powered by natural gas replacing them all with renewables, geothermal and nuclear. There are alternatives available, but the human race would rather be all concerned about war fighting and not at all concerned about the fate of the planet and the fate of the human race. When it comes to war, there is an unlimited budget. When it comes to peace, there is hardly any money available. Why? Because war is profitable. Defense contractors will be making record profits in the United States and Europe and their stock prices will soar. Meanwhile, there is a paltry budget for switching to renewable energy.

Off the Top of My Head

NATO Should Have Been Dissolved When the Warsaw Pact Was Dissolved After the End of the Cold War in 1991

by John Lawrence

NATO was formed in 1949 after the end of World War II as a counter to the ideological rivalry between communism as espoused by the Soviet Union  and capitalism as espoused by the US and Europe. That ideological rivalry ended in 1991 when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact were dismantled. The Warsaw Pact was a security pact between the Soviet Union and eastern European nations in direct response to NATO. Russia became essentially a capitalist nation in 1991. Ergo: no further ideological rivalry. At the same time China was also becoming a capitalist nation despite the name of its ruling party. The Berlin Wall had fallen in 1989. Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, was given assurances that NATO would not advance one inch eastward, an assurance that was abrogated by US administrations shortly thereafter. The security structure of Europe should have been reworked after the fall of the Soviet Union, and NATO should have been eliminated at the same time the Warsaw Pact was eliminated. If that had happened Europe, not the US, would have been responsible for its own security.

So today Vladimir Putin is putting pressure on the western world to do something about the neglected assurances given to Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't move one inch eastward. Ukraine became a part of the Soviet Union after the Second World War and achieved its independence in 1991 when the Soviet Union was dissolved. Crimea had also been part of the Soviet Union and Russia prior to that. In 1954 Nikita Khrushchev, along with the other leadership of the Soviet Union, transferred the Crimean Oblast from the Russian Soviet Federative Social Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Western leaders say that Putin wants to reestablish the Soviet Union or at least maintain control of nations that were previously part of the Soviet Union. Putin has said he wants to establish a new security structure for Europe. That is quite a different prospect from reestablishing the Soviet Union especially in light of the assurances given to Gorbachev about NATO's not moving an inch eastward.

The question must be asked: what is the purpose of NATO, which was established to counteract communist expansionism, when communism no longer exists at least as manifested by Russia. Gorbachev's advisor, Arbitov, had said, "We are going to deprive you of an enemy":

"In another sense, however, the passing of the cold war could not have been more disorienting. In 1987, Georgi Arbatov, a senior adviser to the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, had warned: “We are going to do a terrible thing to you – we are going to deprive you of an enemy.”

"As the Soviet Union passed out of existence, Americans were left not just without that enemy, but without even a framework for understanding the world and their place in it. However imperfectly, the cold war had, for several decades, offered a semblance of order and coherence. The collapse of communism shattered that framework. Where there had been purposefulness and predictability, now there was neither."

Guess again, Mr. Gorbachev. The US military-industrial complex was not to be deprived of an enemy under any circumstances. The subsequent neocons saw to that. What Putin is asking for now is a new framework, a framework that should have been established by the west in diplomatic consultation with Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union and the termination of the Warsaw Pact, NATO's mirror. However, the US and perhaps the other actors as well cannot conceive of a world without war or the threat of war. They cannot conceive of a diplomatic treaty or framework which would leave the world at peace. Peace is an unknown entity and is for all intents and purposes inconceivable. Therefore, Russia is poised to take by force that which might not have been necessary in Putin's eyes if a framework had been established in which NATO hadn't started moving eastward or even conceivably in which European security arrangements could have been established which would have protected  all European nations including Russia sans NATO.

Off the Top of My Head

How to Solve the Homeless and Climate Change Crises in One Fell Swoop

by John Lawrence

It has been estimated that there were 6 trillion trees on earth before the industrial revolution. Today there are only half that number. Trees are the most natural and proficient way to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So part of the solution for global warming is to plant 3 trillion more trees. At the same time there are approximately half a million homeless Americans. It is estimated that 150 million people are homeless worldwide. Habitat for Humanity estimated in 2015 that 1.6 billion people around the world live in "inadequate shelter". These figures probably include the 80 million refugees worldwide. So why not pay this under utilized labor force to plant trees like the U.S. did in the 1930s when it created the Civilian Conservation Corps? What is needed is a worldwide Civilian Conservation Force. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was a work relief program that gave millions of young men employment on environmental projects during the Great Depression.The CCC helped to shape the modern national and state park systems we enjoy today. People in the CCC were given adequate food and shelter in addition to a stipend to plant trees among other things to benefit the environment. Today addressing climate change is critical. At the same time most homeless people are contributing nothing of value to society although some of them do have jobs. But most are not only homeless but hopeless. Giving them a critical role in solving the global warming crisis would not only help to save planet earth, but would give the homeless an important mission.

Considered by many to be one of the most successful of Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, the CCC planted more than three billion trees and constructed trails and shelters in more than 800 parks nationwide during its nine years of existence. This is exactly what is needed today - PLANTING BILLIONS OF TREES! So why not do it, but on a world wide basis? Instead the US offers young non college bound people an incentive to join the military. Recruits with less than two years experience earn an annual salary of $19,660 plus a generous benefit package. Isn't saving the earth as a habitable place for future generations more important? So why not make the benefits for a renewed CCC at least equally generous?

This is something that has a precedent in US history, but saving earth as a habitable environment for future generations is evidently not as important as spending a trillion dollars a year to preserve the US military establishment so it can threaten to destroy other nations and peoples. In addition the role of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency and the fact that major world institutions are based on the US dollar allows the US to threaten other countries and individuals with sanctions. It's a one two punch that makes it less likely that anything of significance will be done to make the earth habitable for future generations. Instead the US military is a major source of carbon dioxide pollution in the atmosphere. The Cost of Wars Project found that US military pollution had accounted for 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, which amount to 257 million passenger cars annually. They compared this astonishing output as higher than the emissions from whole countries like Sweden, Morocco, and Switzerland. Research shows the US military is one of the largest climate polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more CO2e (carbon-dioxide equivalent) than most countries.

At a time when cooperation among nations is paramount to the solution of the climate change crisis, the US is hell bent on military confrontation with other countries particularly Russia and China. Instead of creating peace in the world, the traditional preoccupation with solving problems by means of the military is still the order of the day. Therefore, it isn't likely that there will be a solution to the climate change crisis. Instead a bunch of wishful thinking and misplaced hopes will lead to a gradual diminution of habitability on planet earth.

Off the Top of My Head

Russia's Assurance that NATO Would Not Expand an Inch Eastward After the Cold War

by John Lawrence

Does Putin have a point? It is something no western leader will even acknowledge. The fact is that assurances were given to Gorbachev in return for his agreement to let Germany reunify that NATO would not expand an inch eastward. The New York Times reported:

"The biggest obstacle [to the reunification of Germany] was, of course, the Soviet Union. Despite economic hardship at home, the Soviets maintained 380,000 troops in East Germany and still held legal rights of occupation emanating from the unconditional German surrender in 1945. Bonn and Washington thus wanted Moscow to remove its troops and to renounce its claims, without forcing NATO troops out as part of the bargain.

"What would Mr. Gorbachev demand in return? To learn the answer, Mr. Baker [U.S. Secretary of State] and Mr. Kohl [German Chancellor] journeyed to Moscow within a day of each other. On Feb. 9, 1990, Mr. Baker asked Mr. Gorbachev, “Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position?” Mr. Gorbachev, according to Mr. Baker, answered that “any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.” Their meeting ended without any final deals made. Mr. Baker left behind a secret letter, detailing what he had said, for Mr. Kohl in Moscow.

Back in the U.S. President George H W Bush was not happy with Baker's assurances to Gorbachev, and he formulated his own letter to Mr. Kohl that didn't contain the assurances Gorbachev requested. However, in talks with Gorbachev Kohl chose to emphasize Baker's assurance that "NATO would not move an inch eastward" which resulted in Gorbachev agreeing to the reunification of Germany. The New York Times article continued:

"Mr. Kohl chose to echo Mr. Baker, not Mr. Bush. The chancellor assured Mr. Gorbachev, as Mr. Baker had done, that “naturally NATO could not expand its territory” into East Germany. The documents available do not record Mr. Kohl using the presidential phrase — “special military status” — that the National Security Council had rushed over to him. Mr. Kohl’s foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, visiting the Kremlin as well, assured his Soviet counterpart, Eduard Shevardnadze, that “for us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand itself to the East.”

"Crucially, the Gorbachev-Kohl meeting ended with a deal, as opposed to the Gorbachev-Baker session the previous day. After listening to Mr. Kohl, Mr. Gorbachev agreed that Germany could unify internally. Mr. Kohl and his aides publicized this major concession immediately at a press conference. Then they returned home to begin merging the two Germanys under one currency and economic system."

No U.S. President or leader has ever acknowledged the truth of this situation that, despite the fact that no formal treaty or agreement was ever made, informal assurances were given to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand an inch eastward. So today Russia and the US are on the brink of war in Ukraine because, basically, the U.S. will not acknowledge that Putin has a point. They refuse to concede even that and instead choose to demonize him. This is not how to create peace in the world - by heaping bad intentions on a foreign leader without acknowledging that he has a legitimate complaint. One of the pundits on CNN had the right idea. He said that the west should acknowledge the legitimacy of Putin's position and agree to pull back NATO forces from eastern Europe for at least 25 years or so. Making some sort of concession like this could avoid war and create some manner of peaceful relations between Washington and Moscow. Instead the U.S. - even under Biden! - takes a hard line and insists that Ukraine has a right to choose to be part of NATO. By formally putting off the date at which that could happen, Putin's legitimate concerns could be acknowledged. Instead the U.S. has essentially double crossed Russia on the deal Gorbachev made that "NATO would not expand one inch eastward."

Off the Top of My Head

3 Generals: US Military Could Aid and Abet Next Insurrection

by John Lawrence

A large number of the January 6 insurrectionists were active or former members of the military. Fox News is ubiquitous on military bases and VA hospitals. Now even Generals are worried about the next insurrection fueled by right wing extremist media. The chickens are coming home to roost. The US' bloated military and military-industrial complex budgets have turned the lemmings into potential insurrectionists. Fox News is not only ubiquitous on military bases. It is playing on almost every public TV. Places like airports, car dealerships, bars - you name it. Everywhere a public TV is on, it's usually tuned to Fox News. What - is CNN too intellectual for public display? You'd lose too many customers? Are real Americans consumers of Fox News? What kind of person is a patriot? What's the definition of patriotism? Were the January 6 insurrectionists true American patriots? They thought so. Maybe a jail sentence will disabuse them of that notion.

I wrote on November 5, 2021:

"It seems that about half the American people want rational, competent government which advances the interests of the American people and plays a constructive role on the world stage. The other half wants a government based on their pet peeves. They are amenable to being swayed by conspiracy theories and misinformation. The former are mainly Democrats; the latter, Republicans. This is nowhere better exemplified than the 2016 election in which competence and experience in the form of Hillary Clinton was defeated by resentment and lies in the form of Donald Trump. In contrast to China which promotes the best and brightest to high positions in its government, the US form of democracy allows for politicians to appeal to the lowest common denominator which has no knowledge or information about anything beyond the worship of symbols like the American flag. This is clear from the visuals of the January 6 insurrection in which the American flag was displayed ad infinitum as if that is what made these people true patriots who could demand that their hero, Donald Trump, should be President in defiance of every provision of American constitutional democracy."

About half the American people have a military related consciousness about patriotism. A patriot is someone who doesn't let other people mess with him. A patriot is a dominant person and demands that the US dominates the rest of the world because we know better, we are stronger and we are better. Some others might think that a patriot is someone who tries to make the US and the world a better place, someone who seeks to alleviate sickness and poverty, someone who has compassion for others, not someone who thinks we're number 1. A true patriot might be someone like Dr. Fauci who has spent his life trying to heal the sick and end the pandemic. There are true patriots and false patriots just like there are true gods and false gods. It all depends on your values.

The 3 Generals wrote in the Washington Post:

"As we approach the first anniversary of the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, we — all of us former senior military officials — are increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military, which would put all Americans at severe risk.

"In short: We are chilled to our bones at the thought of a coup succeeding next time."

The Biden administration and the January 6 committee has been moving in the right direction. A further move might be to require a rotation of TV channels on military bases so that military personnel weren't fed a steady diet of Fox News. Right wing propaganda in news and social media is fueling chauvinistic and jjngoistic values. The values of healing, supporting, teaching, charity and compassion for others should be emphasized instead. If these are feminine as opposed to masculine values, so be it. Maybe the world won't ever be at peace until women run it. These are the values of peace and love and true patriotism. If we want a world at peace and not at war, we need to inculcate these values in the American people, not the values of Fox News.

Off the Top of My Head

Cooperation Among Virtual Enemies on Climate Change Next to Impossible

by John Lawrence

Can we stop fighting as the human race has been doing for millenia because we have a common problem that calls for cooperation: climate change? The human race and in particular nation states have never been able to cooperate on a world wide basis. What's more almost every aspect of contemporary society needs to be changed in order for planet earth to be rescued. For instance, the third largest greenhouse gas polluter after the US and China is cattle. Yes, cattle worldwide emit more carbon dioxide equivalents in the form of methane than any country on earth with the exception of the US and China. We should all stop eating beef immediately. How likely is that to happen? And then there's cooperation between the US and China, between the US and Russia. We can't chastise and sanction these countries and then expect them to cooperate with the western world when it comes to climate change.  Time magazine reported:

"From his first months as Secretary of State under Obama, Kerry set out to build a bridge to China on climate while tensions festered on other matters, putting the issue at the center of the relationship. In 2014, in Beijing, Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Barack Obama, with Kerry by his side, announced agenda-setting plans to cut emissions, effectively inviting other countries to get on the same page. On the back of Kerry’s climate diplomacy, Obama and Xi feted each other a year later at a state dinner in Washington—perhaps the zenith of relations between the two countries in recent years. In the early days of the Biden Administration, longtime watchers of international climate politics speculated about whether Kerry would try to repeat that effort. Kerry told me that from the outset he knew that wouldn’t be possible—the Trump presidency had spoiled the well, and, while less vociferous, Biden hasn’t sought to placate China. “It’s a very, very different time now,” Kerry says. “It’s a very different set of political circumstances.”

"Instead, he sought a subtler form of rapprochement, traveling to China in April, becoming the first senior U.S. official to visit since the start of the pandemic. His message, he says, was to create a lane for climate collaboration amid the iciness. The reception was a sharp contrast from the jubilant atmosphere at the state dinner six years earlier. The two parties released a joint statement, agreeing to cooperate but not much more. Then in September, after making the 7,000-mile trip to Tianjin, Kerry encountered even more tense feelings. Despite the long journey, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi only met with him virtually, and said that climate collaboration could not be an “oasis” away from the other rifts in the relationship. “If the oasis is surrounded by desert, sooner or later the oasis will also become desert,” he said."

The crucial points are "Trump spoiled the well" and “If the oasis is surrounded by desert, sooner or later the oasis will also become desert”. Trump set the world back years when it comes to climate change. What will he do if elected President in 2024? The Chinese Foreign Minister's point is that you can't seek cooperation on climate change while at the same time fomenting a chilly relationship verging on a Cold War which the Pentagon is trying to do. For that matter how can we rely on China to produce the major amount of consumer goods for the US while trying to give China orders about how it is to conduct itself on the world stage. It just doesn't compute. You can't compartmentalize a relationship to that extent.

The other point is that how can the rest of the world believe what we say about the urgency of doing something about climate change which entails sacrifice while at the same time holding open the possibility that a climate change denier might be elected President in 2024?

Off the Top of My Head

Replace Halloween With a Day Honoring Mother Earth and Its People

by John Lawrence

Americans will spend $10 billion on Halloween this year, a day dedicated to goblins and ghouls. There is enough scariness in the world. What the world needs is not a day dedicated to rotting children's teeth, but a day dedicated to preserving the environment so that they have a stable and hospitable planet to live on. Instead of "trick or treat" how about a day of "how can I serve my neighbor?".No other country celebrates Halloween and makes such a big deal and spending spree out of it. In Latin American countries they celebrate Día de Los Muertos, the Day of the Dead honoring their ancestors. This is totally different from American Halloween which celebrates nothing except the selfish acquisition of candy. American Halloween has no socially redeeming value whatsoever.

What are we teaching children by celebrating Halloween? That American life is all about the acquisition of stuff - in this case candy. And if we don't get what we want we will do harm to others. Instead of a trick why not teach children to do a favor for others. Let's eliminate tricks from Halloween. It's teaching children that it's OK to do harm to others if they don't get what they want. Enormous sums of money are spent on Halloween which could be spent for more constructive purposes like providing funds to help the growing number of refugees around the world including the refugees internal to our own country which the homeless surely are.

Greta Thunberg shines a spotlight on global warming every Friday with her school strike for climate. School Strike for Climate (Swedish: Skolstrejk för klimatet), also known variously as Fridays for Future (FFF), Youth for Climate, Climate Strike or Youth Strike for Climate, is an international movement of school students who skip Friday classes to participate in demonstrations to demand action from political leaders to take action to prevent climate change and for the fossil fuel industry to transition to renewable energy. Let's make Halloween a day for honoring future generations and Mother Earth. We could also make Halloween a school strike for peace because peace is necessary if the world is to cooperate in meeting the challenge of global warming.

The celebration of Halloween sends all the wrong signals to children. Instead of public service, it sends the message of selfish acquisitiveness. Instead of concern for others it sends the message that, if they don't get what they want, they will do you a disservice. Halloween has no redeeming value. It is just a spendfest on candy and costumes which money could be better spent on more worthwhile goods and services for themselves and others. Instead of candy, children should be taught about nutritional literacy and the value of eating healthy foods. But instead children are carefully taught to disregard any concern for others and even the dangers of self indulgence for themselves. Many eat candy until they get sick. Sugar has no redeeming nutritional value, and Halloween has no redeeming social value whether it be honoring our ancestors as the Mexicans do or honoring a planet suitable for habitation by our children and their children. The world is scary enough with the pandemic and climate change. Instead of honoring scariness, let's celebrate the redemption of the planet and the health of the global population.

Off the Top of My Head

American Troops Have Left Afghanistan. So Has American Money - $300 Million Per Day

by John Lawrence

Afghanistan's economy must be in freefall. The US was spending $300 million a day each and every day there for 20 years! Now the US is spending nothing. American troops have left and, more importantly, American money has left. So can we now cut the defense budget? It would have been better if, instead of sending in American troops 20 years ago, we had sent in the Peace Corps for a fraction of the money the American military presence has cost. By now much could have been accomplished like roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, water and sewage systems and other critical infrastructure. Instead we spent $300 million a day for 20 years blowing things up and getting blown up ourselves. It's a testament to the folly of warfare. Now, hopefully, diplomacy and resettlement of refugees and building infrastructure will take place both there and here at home where efforts in the domain of Peace are badly in need as well. The US has infrastructure needs, resettlement of refugee needs (think the growing homeless population), both hard and human infrastructure needs, building things up instead of blowing things up.

All the generals who were shuffled in and out of Afghanistan couldn't think of what we could have done better there because all they could think was in military terms. They couldn't conceive of the possibility that the reason they were all so unsuccessful was precisely because any and all military solutions were not the right ones. They could not conceive of building peace there, only fighting an enemy. Well, it got them substantial pay raises, and it made money for the military-industrial complex. Now we need a peace-industrial complex. If we want to save the planet and not just indulge the present American inhabitants of planet earth to the max, we need to build green infrastructure all over the world. But even before we do that, we need to solve the worldwide pandemic which we can not seem to solve even here at home because there are so many people who won't believe in the obvious solution until one of their family members dies.

Forever wars have stunted the mindsets of the American people leading them to embracing far right jingoistic and chauvinistic militarism. The mindset would be considerably different if the US had put as much energy as it has put into militarism into peace activities, if peace had even been given due consideration as an alternative to war. In fact it's not too much of a stretch to say War is Us. This mindset came to fruition on January 6 with the insurrection. Biden is trying to turn the corner but he can only do so much per unit time. He has done considerable so far ending the war in Afghanistan and doing everything humanly possible to end the pandemic. His human and hard infrastructure agenda is still pending, but I believe it will eventually pass because it has been set up in such a way that either everybody wins if it passes or everybody loses if it doesn't. The way the twin bills were constructed, one that will pass by budget reconciliation and one bipartisan, represents political ingenuity. It's making the most of the slim Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress. Even after those twin bills pass and get made into law, there is much to be done, voting rights reform in particular. I think Biden will get the major part of his agenda accomplished - probably in 2 years. After that who knows what will happen if Republicans win one or both Houses in the midterm elections.

Off the Top of My Head

How Not to Win a War

by John Lawrence

1) Invade a country. 2) Set up a puppet government. 3) Pay officials handsomely or acquiesce in their corruption. 4) Spend $300 million a day none of which alters the life of the average citizen who exists on $2 a day. 5) Hire local interpreters. 6) Hire local contractors. 7) Cycle multiple generals in and out of the war each one of which thinks they're God's gift to military science.       8) Get the local people in the cities involved on your side by paying them lots of money. 9) Ignore the majority of the people living in the countryside. 10) Leave country after puppet government collapses. 11) Get half the population that sided with you out of that country and into yours.

Can't the vast military-industrial complex teach their own interpreters all the major languages of the world so they don't have to hire local interpreters who then expect the US to get them out of the country when the US loses the war? Can't the vast military -industrial complex provide their own services so they don't have to hire "private contractors"? The US never had a clear goal in invading Afghanistan except to make it a forever war. Some Afghans were OK with that because the $300 million a day the US provided made them rich. In a country which has a GDP of $20 billion, $300 million a day ($109.5 billion a year), over 5 times the GDP, totally distorts the country economically making some people fabulously rich while leaving the average Afghan tremendously poor. In 2020, GDP per capita for Afghanistan was 581 US dollars. Such a formula for success was guaranteed to lead the average Afghan to favor the Taliban who at least were on the side of the average person.

All the generals who have been interviewed have their own ideas about what could have been done better in Afghanistan, but none of them have any perspective outside of a military one. For instance, none of them ventured an opinion that maybe sending in the Peace Corps to improve the lives of the average Afhan living on $2 a day might have done more good than sending in the world's mightiest military with all the bells and whistles at its command. The first step for the Peace Corps is of course to learn the language of the people. How else to convince them that you are actually interested in them and want to help them. Improving the lives of the average person is the last thing the military thinks of. Maybe that's the lesson that needs to be learned here. An American effort devoted to peace rather than war could be done for a lot less than $300 million a day over 20 years which is the cost to Americans for this fruitless war. The Peace Corps needs to be beefed up. Actually improving the lives of poor people around the world will do more to end terrorism than the services the world's mightiest military can provide. In addition processing Americans through the Peace Corps rather than the military will do more to diminish domestic terrorism since those who have been processed through the military have a militarized mindset which predisposes them to being attracted to right wing proto military groups.

Off the Top of My Head

The Militarization of the American Mind

by John Lawrence

From seemingly rational thought processes that would make it impossible to end the war in Afghanistan to the insurrection at the Capitol to the "American movie" chock full of violence to the "well regulated militia" justification of gun proliferation, there is no end of rationalizations for the American military-industrial complex and gun culture on every level. Why does it come as a surprise to some journalists that many participants in the January 6 insurrection were current or ex military or police officers? They are exactly the ones with the mind set that believes Trump won the election, and that it was OK to do what their leader commanded them to do - invade the Capitol. The Generals who say that Biden shouldn't end the Afghanistan war on the grounds that the Kabul government will collapse are exactly the ones that argued we shouldn't end the Vietnam war because the South Vietnam government would collapse. Sure when the US sets up a puppet government and then props it up with money and a military presence, it probably will collapse when the US leaves that country which it never should have invaded in the first place. Afghanistan is Vietnam all over again or as Yogi Berra would say deja vu all over again.

The division among Americans into two tribes can be understood in terms of the two paths Americans take after high school graduation. There are those who go to college and there are those who go into the military. Those are basically the two choices high school graduates have. Those who go to college are taught to think critically to some extent, while those who go into the military are taught to obey orders. Unfortunately, Trump, as their Commander-in-Chief gave them the order to invade the Capitol, and they felt justified in following it because that is what their training led them to do. The choice to go into the Peace Corps or AmeriCorp is not really viable for most high school graduates because the perks of going into the military greatly exceed the perks of going into more peaceful pursuits, and they are less glorious. This is also a characteristic of the militarization of the American civilian mind. The military-industrial complex including, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, profits greatly from ongoing militarization and military thought processes, employs most of the college graduates and provides debate ending rationalizations for American military preparedness despite the fact that their extremely expensive hardware doesn't work half the time, and the threats to America are primarily cyber in nature as well as domestic terrorism.

The divide and contrast between high school graduates who go into the military and are taught to follow orders and those who go to college is reflected in the political divide between those on the right and those on the left.The military is all about symbolism including snappy uniforms, medals for valor in combat, saluting the flag and honoring themselves for their patriotism. On the left results in the improvement of the lives of the American people - and not just the elite civilian Officer's Corps - are more important than symbols of glory. They are more likely to question authority rather than unquestionably following orders. The January 6 insurrectionists were following Trump's orders at least that's what they were thinking in their own minds and by their own admission. I would like to see the FBI release to the public the number of insurrectionists who were military or former military. I bet that would be most of them, especially the males. A lot of ex military go into police work because of the familiarity with weaponry which they gained in the military. Since guns are a familiar way of life for them, naturally they become arch supporters of the Second Amendment, "well regulated" or not. They are used to classifying groups of people as either friendly or the enemy, and this mind set lends itself to police work.

In the final analysis, America is so used to being the world's policeman and profiting in various ways therefrom, that it is unthinkable that we should cooperate with our supposed adversaries to forestall global warming or to thwart future pandemics let alone the current one. We must always have an enemy or at least an adversary to justify our existence. A peaceful world in which everyone gets along and cooperates to solve the problems we earthlings face and have to deal with is unthinkable. Even though the US has a glut of vaccines while the rest of the world is begging for them, Americans feel free not to have their arms jabbed because after all they are free - free to be stupid, free to ignore the safety of other Americans and free to get infected with the virus and die taking others with them.. They just want to get back to normal entertaining themselves to death and ignoring totally any responsibility to their fellow citizens not to mention fellow citizens of the world, many of which they would like to maintain in their necessary roles as the enemy.

Dr. Fauci wondered why we couldn't all unite to fight the common enemy  - COVID - instead of fighting among ourselves about taking the vaccine. Uniting to fight a common enemy like COVID or climate change just isn't the way Americans and maybe humanity in general do things. We need to disagree even about things that are crucial for our continued existence as a species. As a nation we need an enemy whether it be Russia or China seemingly to justify our existence.

Off the Top of My Head

What Can Joe Biden Do to "Restore the Soul of the Nation"?

by John Lawrence, November 24, 2020

The Biden Administration has its work cut out for them. Rejoining the Paris Accords on climate change, rejoining the World Health Organization, appointing a head to the Environmental Protection Agency who is actually not trying to destroy the Environment etc etc. All of these things while so necessary are kind of obvious. To restore the soul of the nation, the number one thing Biden needs to do is to demilitarize the nation. The US spends about a trillion dollars a year on its military more than the ten next highest spending countries combined. It's not just a question of the defense budget; it's all the spending in the military-industrial complex as well. This is at a time when the main threat to the US is domestic not foreign terrorism. Dwight Eisenhauer warned about the encroaching military-industrial complex. "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

The violence, discord and division that we see within the United States is a direct reflection of the violence and discord the US has perpetrated in Vietnam and Iraq, two wars which Presidents of the US lied about. The 80 million refugees living in horrible refugee camps in the world are a direct result of US military policy which currently stations soldiers at nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad. The US military is the largest employer in the US. The next largest employer, Walmart, employs 1.5 million people. There were a total of 1.3 million active duty military and more than 800,000 reserve forces as of September 2017, according to Defense Department personnel data. But this doesn't count the number of civilians in the military-industrial complex employed by companies like Lockheed Martin (110,000 employees), Boeing (161,133 employees), Raytheon (195,000 employees), BAE Systems (85,800 employees), Northrop Grumman (90,000 employees), General Dynamics (107,000 employees) and many more.

The fact of the matter is that high school graduates who have neither the money nor prospects for college usually go into the military where many benefits await them like free advanced and specialty training, a guaranteed paycheck, free health and dental care, enlistment bonuses, free room and board, educational benefits, a pension and much more. Going into the military right out of high school does not deprive you of a college education. The military can help pay for college or pay off college loans. Most enlistees are eligible for up to 100 percent of college tuition through the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) while on active duty. Additionally, the Air Force has the nation’s largest community college, the Community College of the Air Force for which enrollment is automatic upon enlistment in the Air Force. Armed Forces education benefit programs include the Forever GI Bill, Army, Navy, Marine and Navy College Funds, College Loan Repayment (including Student Loan Forgiveness) and Student Loan Deferment and Forbearance. As an Uber driver I pick up a lot of military people. One Navy guy told me he joined the Navy so that after 5 years he could get free training to become a helicopter pilot at a civilian school. They even can get a pension after 5 years.

Now the high school graduates like me who have college prospects often like me,, end up in the military-industrial complex. I worked at General Dynamics Convair Division in San Diego for several years, later at the Naval Electronics Lab on Point Loma which has changed its name several times to protect the guilty as they say. So many college graduates especially in the engineering fields end up in the milkitary-industrial complex while high school graduates that don't go to college end up in the military, not because they love the military, but because they love the generous benefits. When you add up all the people in the military plus all the people in the military-industrial complex, it's clear that the US is a militarist state whose employment base is military related. This is nonsensical when a greater threat is from domestic terrorism than foreign terrorism, and there is no threat from foreign nation states only from scattered terrorists which could be dealt with with a fraction of the military and military-industrial complex budget that presently exists.

Now consider the benefits accruing to those who join the peace Corps and AmeriCorps. What there still is a Peace Corps. You never hear a word about it in the media. The Peace Corps provides each Volunteer with housing and a living stipend that enables them to live in a manner similar to people in their community of service. Unlike other international volunteer programs, there is no charge to participate in the Peace Corps. There is no application fee, although costs may only be partially covered for required medical examinations during the application process. Upon completion of two years of service, the Peace Corps provides each Volunteer with more than $10,000 (pre-tax) to help with the transition to life back home. This money is yours to use as you wish. AmeriCorps has some educational benefits after completion. The Segal AmeriCorps Education Award is a post-service benefit earned by individuals who complete approved terms of national service in AmeriCorps programs. Well, suffice it to say, the benefits of joining the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps don't compare with the benefits of joining the military and the funding available for these two programs is meager compared to the military budget.

So what Joe Biden can do is to increase the benefits for Peace Corps and AmeriCorps while increasing the funding for those programs and decreasing the funding for the military and the military-industrial complex. This will have the effect of demilitarizing the consciousness of American citizens and will actually do a lot of good in America and the world. When I was in the military-industrial complex, they encouraged you to vote Republican because Republican administrations would increase military funding while, Democratic administrations would reduce it. The message was clear: If you wanted there to be funding for your job, you'd better vote Republican. That's why there should be a pathway for transitioning to a Peace economy from the Militarist economy which guarantees jobs in the Peace-Industrial complex for those presently employed in the military-industrial complex. In the same way there should be a guarantee of employment in the renewable energy field for those losing their jobs in the fossil fuel field.

A transition to a Peace economy away from the military economy in parallel with a transition to a renewable energy economy away from the fossil fuel economy will do a lot to make the United States and the world a better place, and also, by the way, to restore the soul of the nation.

Off the Top of My Head

Expand Habitat for Humanity in Honor of Jimmy Carter

by John Lawrence, November 11, 2020

The best way to build wealth among poor people is to expand a program that gets them into a house. The debt industry profits off of poor people whether it's Payday lenders, student loan debt, car loan debt, credit card debt or mortgage debt. The debt industry, aka the banking industry, profits off of poor people's debt. That's why the poor need to build wealth which will also close the economic inequality gap. Home ownership is the main way the middle class builds wealth which is then intergenerationally transferable. Habitat says "In fiscal year 2019, we helped more than 7 million people, and an additional 2.3 million gained the potential to improve their housing conditions through training and advocacy." It's not clear how many new houses that 7 million figure represents because they also help people by doing housing improvements. Looking at Habitat's Form 990 reveals some interesting data. They have annual revenues of approximately $300 million. Revenues less expenses for FY 2018 was about $13 million. Without doing an exhaustive analysis of this Form 990, it would seem that $13 million is a paltry amount of money to build new homes if in fact it all went to building new homes. It is to be noted that the CEO made about $400,000. They also seem to spend an enormous amount on advertising and fundraising.

A government program based on the Habitat model could magnify the number of new affordable homes built per year and could be combined with AmeriCorps which is already working with Habitat. Government service building affordable homes should be an alternative to military service with comparable benefits. One drawback of Habitat is that it does not serve homeless or low income families who can't afford a modest mortgage. So a government program based on the Habitat model should look at improving on the Habitat model. Another thing is that Habitat claims to be a "Christian organization." Does that mean that religiously nonChristian families are not eligible? A government program should not have connections to a particular religion but should be open to people of all or no religions. It should be nondenominational. The people who eventually own the homes have to put in a certain amount of "sweat equity." This is good because it makes the homes more affordable. A program based on FDR's Civilian Conservation Corps could employ youths in public service for 2 years building houses in return for free college education and other benefits. These homes need to be solarized and be built in such a way as to be non-emitting of greenhouse gasses.

The best way to co-opt Trump voters is to offer them economic opportunities. Promised economic opportunities (promised but not delivered) are the thing that pushed Trump over the top in 2016 in the rust belt states. A program of building houses ala Habitat not only would help poor people, who are disproportionately minorities, but would tend to placate poor whites who are mainly Trump voters. That's why programs helping the poor can't be labeled "Black Lives Matter" programs. They can't be just for black people although black people would disproportionately benefit. To design a program only for black people would further alienate Trump voters. Bringing this country together, as Joe Biden has professed he wants to do, means that all programs to help people must of necessity be color blind. Another benefit is that people who contribute to public service in AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps will tend to vote Democratic because they will have seen how Democratic programs have benefited not only themselves but other people as well.

Many people who join the military do so for the benefits and because they have no better prospects after high school. Military service for 5 years gains them a free college education plus many other generous benefits, even a pension. They also get brainwashed to vote Republican. Even those working in the military-industrial complex are brainwashed to vote Republican. As a college graduate the jobs available to me were mainly in the military-industrial complex. Once there I was pressured to vote Republican because it was believed that Republicans would expand funding for the military and hence the military-industrial complex. It was thought that a Democratic administration would cut funding for the military-industrial complex and we could be RIFd (Reduction in Force). Expanding programs in the peace industry should have the opposite effect. I left the military-industrial complex many years ago fortunately, and my economic future doesn't depend on future funding it. Many others are not in the same position.

As the nation transitions from fossil fuels to renewables, it's important that workers in the fossil fuel industry have a path to transition to new jobs. The same holds true in transitioning workers in the military-industrial complex to the peace-industrial complex. It's also important to give young people the possibility of serving their country in a way that contributes to peace and economic stability with comparable benefits instead of serving in the military. The peace industry (like building houses here and abroad) needs to become more important than the war industry. The issue of global warming in particular means that all nations of the world must cooperate and foster a spirit of cooperation while putting their antagonisms aside. Peace, renewable energy, economic development for poor and middle class people need to replace a power structure that fosters political antagonism among the nations of the world. Jimmy Carter not only wields a hammer for Habitat for Humanity in his nineties, but also put solar panels on the roof of the White House (which Ronald Reagan took down). If we had had Jimmy Carter for a second term and Al Gore instead of George W Bush (with his fossil fuel loving vice President, Dick Cheney), we would be further along the path toward replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy and further along the path of dealing with global warming.

Off the Top of My Head

A House Built Upon Sand: the US Economy

by John Lawrence, June 26, 2020

The wise man built his house on rock, and it withstood the rains and the floods and the wind. The foolish man built his house on sand and it collapsed. An apt metaphor for the US economy in the midst of a pandemic that is only getting worse. Before the pandemic hit, it was a full employment economy in which half the people couldn't survive a $400. emergency. It was an economy built on consumerism. Consumerism was 70% of GDP. About half the economy was small business, but these jobs and this economic activity was vulnerable. Much of it was non-essential. It was bars (by the way you can drink at home); it was restaurants (by the way you can eat at home). It was travel and hospitality (by the way you can sleep at home if you're willing to make your own bed).

The essential parts of the economy continued to operate even when the pandemic hit. It isn't fair that minimum wage workers were more exposed to the coronavirus, but, be that as it may, with some exceptions these workers did not get sick in higher ratios than anyone else. If more of the jobs were essential, productive and less frivolous, there would have been fewer jobs lost and much less unemployment. The economic house was built on sand and when the pandemic hit, it collapsed. At the same time the fault line of black racism and inequality was fully exposed. It's as if the hurricane of the pandemic cut away the underbrush and exposed this situation for what it is thanks to #BlackLivesMatter.

The Homestead Act signed by President Abraham Lincoln which gave free land to white people allowed whites to build equity and wealth while blacks who were promised 40 acres and a mule after slavery were denied even that. They ended up in many cases working the same land as sharecroppers and living in worse poverty than when they were slaves. After World War II the G.I. Bill aimed to help American veterans adjust to civilian life by providing them with benefits including low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans and financial support. African Americans did not benefit nearly as much as White Americans. Historian Ira Katznelson argues that "the law was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow". In the New York and northern New Jersey suburbs 67,000 mortgages were insured by the G.I. Bill, but fewer than 100 were taken out by non-whites.

Additionally, banks and mortgage agencies refused loans to blacks, making the G.I. Bill even less effective for blacks. Once they returned from the war, blacks faced discrimination and poverty, which represented a barrier to harnessing the benefits of the G.I. Bill. So whites were able to build wealth through home ownership while blacks were denied that opportunity. Wealth from home ownership is the difference between the middle class and the poor. Home ownership became the means for the intergenerational transfer of wealth for white people. Each generation of black people started out from zero. There was an intergenerational transfer of poverty instead.

Blacks who were able to get manufacturing jobs after the Second World War did fairly well, but those jobs have by and large fled the country. In the financial crisis of 2008, the Great Recession, blacks were screwed as well. While the Federal Reserve bailed out the banks and mortgage companies hundred cents on the dollar, blacks who needed help paying their mortgages did not get it and were foreclosed on. The government could have bailed them out instead, but it didn't.

So now the country is faced with not only a public health crisis but also an economic, financial and racial crisis which would be much less severe if those manufacturing jobs still existed. The economy is not coming back as it was constructed pre-pandemic. There is no way that small business based on 100% occupancy is going to survive based on 50% occupancy. Many of the businesses like professional sports, cruises and even churches are predicated on high occupancy. People will not be comfortable with high occupancy unless a vaccine is found for COBID, but finding a vaccine is not a foregone conclusion. There are some viruses for which a vaccine has never been found including HIV, malaria and tuberculosis.

It takes a lot of money to develop a vaccine, and that money has been lacking from US budgets. There are two obstacles to faster progress, said Dr. Gregory A. Poland, director of the vaccine research group at the Mayo Clinic. “One is scientific, and one is embarrassing,” he said. The embarrassing part is the lack of investment. It takes 10 years and more than $1 billion to develop a vaccine — a small fortune for a medical advance but a pittance for a weapons system. While defense research is driven by one mega-customer, the Pentagon, vaccine researchers face a confusing hodgepodge of potential backers. In short the US has spent its money on weapons of war instead of protecting its people from pandemics which are far more deadly than terrorist attacks. 405,000 Americans died in WW II. Over half that amount have already died in this pandemic, and it's getting worse due to American foolishness at the top levels.

There is a chance now for America to start out on a new path, and that path would be more or less what Bernie Sanders and other progressives have identified as their agenda: a Green New Deal would create good jobs for millions of unemployed Americans and it could give priority to black people so that they could get started on wealth building. Low cost housing loans and subsidies could give black people the same advantages they didn't get with the Homestead Act and the G.I. bill. At the same time a Green New Deal would be converting the country to renewable energy and rebuilding infrastructure, both of which are necessary if earth is to remain habitable for the human race. Medicare for All would only bring the US up to the level of most other civilized countries.

We have to reset our priorities, reduce the military-industrial complex and make peace and have cooperation with our so-called enemies. We can quibble about Russia's and China's internal affairs or we can cooperate with them as peers to forestall global warming and create a planet worth inhabiting. We can spend our money on war or we can spend it forestalling future pandemics. The solution to many of our myriad problems is clear, and it doesn't require a revolution necessarily. Reform is all that's necessary to implement Medicare for All. Reform is all that's necessary to implement a Green New Deal. But countries that do not do what's necessary and obvious to meet the needs of the people create a situation in which violence may ensue. It's no longer a question of capitalism vs socialism. Most countries of the earth including Russia and China are a combination of both. I started with a Biblical reference so I will end with one: "Blind guides! You strain your water so you won’t accidentally swallow a gnat, but you swallow a camel!" God bless the USA.

Off the Top of My Head

Rename Military Bases? ... Repurpose Them Instead.

by John Lawrence, 6/13/2020

Renaming military bases is all about surface level, cosmetic changes, changes at the level of symbols, but whatever we do let's not make any structural changes in American society. Just let's everybody be nice to everybody the way white people have always been nice to other white people. There are 800 military bases in more than 70 countries costing American taxpayers around $200 billion a year to maintain. There are thousands of military bases in the continental United States. Much of the military budget is allocated to operating a network of over 1,000 bases here at home. The Department of Defense is one of the federal government’s larger holders of real estate, controlling a total of over 25 million acres in the United States — roughly equal to the size of Kentucky. The Pentagon stated in 2013 that there are "around" 5,000 bases total so that figure would indicate many more bases than either the Politico or 24/7 Wall St. above referenced articles suggest. Whatever the accurate figures are, either way the US supports a staggering number of military bases at home and around the world.

How many Peace Corps bases are there? Zip, zero. Why am I even asking such a ridiculous question? The Peace Corps works in 61 countries of the world, fewer countries than the number which have military bases. While the defense budget was increased by $34 billion for 2020, after weeks of negotiations, Congress approved and President Trump signed a bill that includes level funding of $410.5 million for the Peace Corps. “While we realize our lawmakers have many difficult decisions before them when putting together our federal budget, it is disappointing they chose to flat fund Peace Corps once again,” said NPCA President Glenn Blumhorst. “Other than a very minimal – one tenth of one percent – increase in spending last year, this will mark the fifth consecutive year that Peace Corps will be forced to manage its operations with the same amount of funding. When inflation is factored in, the agency will need to sustain operations with tens of millions of dollars less in purchasing power. Peace Corps is already experiencing negative impacts, at a time when the needs and importance of international service is as important as ever.”

So while the US continues to police the world and continues to police its citizens domestically, especially black ones, a paltry pittance is allocated to create peace in the world. What we really should be doing, instead of symbolically renaming military bases, is to repurpose those military bases to provide public housing for the poor and homeless, Medicare for All facilities for all Americans, educational and training facilities to manifest and implement a Green New Deal, Peace Corps and AmeriCorps training facilities so that US citizens can help in rebuilding parts of the world that the US military has bombed out and destroyed especially in the Middle East, resettling refugees that US military operations created, implementing proper sanitation systems for the 2.5 billion people in the world that don't have them, providing clean water systems for 780 million people that don't have them.

As usual the American power structure wants to make symbolic improvements to American life rather than the substantial and structural changes that the Black Lives Matter movement at times suggests. The movement in reality is much more than just improving black peoples' lives although that is a necessary part of it. It is necessary but not sufficient. Millenials, black and white, are suffering under a ton of student loan debt. Americans are being financially bled to death by a profit oriented health care system. The lives of future generations are being destroyed by a lack of response to global warming. These are the things that matter. It's not all about Confederate symbols.

But while they're at it, why don't they rename one of the military bases after my ancestor, General William S Rosecrans, who fought against Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg at Stones River, and later outmaneuvered him in the brilliant Tullahoma Campaign, driving the Confederates from Middle Tennessee. His strategic movements then caused Bragg to abandon the critical city of Chattanooga. In 1880 he was elected to Congress, representing California. Rosecrans wrote a book, Popular Government, with a former newspaperman, Josiah Riley, which advocated registration and voting reforms. How appropriate at this time in history for the BLM movement in particular. Rename Fort Bragg Fort Rosecrans!

Off the Top of My Head

A Missed Opportunity: World Peace

by John Lawrence, May 9, 2020

In 1989 the Berlin Wall came down largely because of the friendship and rapport between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. In return Secretary of State James Baker had promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move into eastern Europe. William D. Hartung writes in Prophets of War: "Back in 1989, at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, James Baker ... had promised Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev that if Moscow withdrew peacefully from eastern Europe, NATO would not move closer to Russia's borders by bringing former Soviet satellite states into the alliance." However, this did not stop the US from going back on its word.

It didn't deter the US Committee to Expand NATO, a right wing group of neocons who had direct connections with the largest player in the military-industrial complex - Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin was "suffering" from the reduction in defense expenditures in the early 1990s brought about by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Bruce Jackson a director of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) who had championed the Iraq war was Chairman of the US Committee to Expand NATO. He lobbied hard for Lockheed Martin exports of military equipment to Poland and other eastern European countries with the understanding that he would do whatever he could to have them admitted to NATO. His primary motivation though was to increase Lockheed Marin profits by finding new export markets.

"The committee spearheaded the effort to move elite opinion around to the view that bringing Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into the alliance was a plus for US security, even if it undercut relations with Russia. So Gorbachev and Russia were shafted and lied to in order primarily to increase sales for Lockheed Martin. The pledge given by James Baker meant diddly-squat because Jackson and the Clinton administration were pushing in a direction directly counter to this pledge. Gorbachev had said "We are going to deprive you of an enemy." Not so fast, Mr Gorbachev. The Republican neocons and the military-industrial complex were not going to lose the profits they had made during the Cold War. They needed enemies in order that Lockheed Martin and the rest of the military contractors could prosper, and by God they were going to have them. So they decided to act provocatively with respect to Russia and went on a campaign to sell weapons to eastern Europe with the tacit quid pro quo that they would be admitted to NATO.

Lockheed CEO Norman Augustine even promised to support Romania's bid for NATO membership at the same time Romania was negotiating the purchase of an $82 million radar system from Lockheed Martin. So you see if there was a prospect for peace between the US and Russia, it had to be squashed by the military-industrial complex in order to ensure that Lockheed Martin's balance sheet would stay in good order. Lockheed Martin launched a marketing blitz in eastern and central America which they saw as a huge export market for military weaponry and fighter aircraft like the F-16s. Before the Polish deal could be consummated though Congress would have to vote to expand NATO. To that end Lockheed spent furiously to lobby key members of the Senate. In the 1995-96 election cycle alone Lockheed and its executives distributed $2.3 million in political donations, more than any other military contractor. NATO expansion passed the Senate by a vote of 81-19 because of the sales job done by the Clinton administration and the supporting efforts of people like Bruce Jackson and his organization - the US Committee to Expand NATO.

The US had a perfect opportunity created largely by Gorbachev to establish a peaceful relationship with Russia in the early 90s. But peaceful relations with Moscow would have threatened the profits of Lockheed Martin and other denizens of the military-industrial complex. In the end they won, and their neocon successors have done everything in their power to further disassemble diplomatic treaties limiting nuclear weapons and other weapons systems in order to provide lucrative markets for Lockheed Martin and others. They know that creating an arms race will greatly enhance Lockheed Martin's profits and their own bottom lines. They are doing everything they can to increase hostilities so Lockheed's profits will never again be threatened by an event like the Berlin wall coming down in 1989.

Off the Top of My Head

A Jobs Program for Inessential Workers
by John Lawrence, April 30, 2020

Turn inessential workers into essential workers by putting them to work building green infrastructure. This is essential work that is not getting done. Much of the previous inessential work they did is better left undone even in a recovery. It is still inessential. It'll always be inessential compared to what needs to be done in creating and building green infrastructure. Building out solar and wind renewable energy could employ thousands if not millions of people. Repairing roads, bridges, waterways, clean water systems, airports, railroads and all other infrastructure could employ millions. This is essential work that has remained undone despite the fact that the American Society of Civil Engineers has given the US a D rating for infrastructure. High speed rail needs to be built. The widespread adoption of electric cars has to be mandated, and construction of a national electric vehicle charging network to power them has to be built.

Unemployed people still need jobs. Mark Cuban said on CNN this morning that there should be a jobs program similar to that of the New Deal. He is exactly right although he didn't make the necessary connection about the essential work that's still being left undone and the inessential work that doesn't need to be done even in a recovery. Forget Cuban's sports and entertainment enterprises. I hate to tell you that they are basically inessential. What is essential is greatly expanding the public health undertakings of the Federal  government which has been totally behind the curve in this pandemic.

We must ask ourselves what is essential and not go back to a new normal in which all the inessential businesses of the past are brought back just in order to provide employment to the millions who have lost their jobs. The pre-pandemic economy was 70% consumerism. The economy post epidemic should be much less a consumerist economy and much more an investment economy. The four components of gross domestic product are personal consumption, business investment, government spending, and net exports. Of these government spending must be ramped up to provide the essential jobs in infrastructure building as well as in the areas that the pandemic has made clear are indeed essential: health care, education, transportation, agriculture.

Government spending must go up; personal consumption must go down. It's as simple as that. As for business investment, it's a lost cause as business will only do what's profitable for itself as has been made abundantly clear. Investment in fossil fuels and plastics which the big oil companies are making is only destructive to a green economy, not constructive. As far as exports are concerned, the dollar has already been weakened as much as it could possibly be by zero interest rates, so increased exports, although desirable, are not likely to happen any time soon.

Private enterprise knows only one thing in terms of the economy "reopening": get back to consumer spending. It ain't going to happen. People are still afraid of the virus. The pandemic is not over. They will use their money to pay off debts instead of going in debt to the hilt like they are used to. People will save their money instead of entertaining themselves to death. Why? Maybe they have learned their lesson that a high employment economy predicated on the fact that people will always have a job and always have a prepensity to consume is just a chimera. Rather than living paycheck to paycheck, I hope people will understand that there may come a rainy day, and they need to save for that. That lesson has really been brought home by the coronavirus pandemic.

The true heroes are essential workers not the military. The military itself was brought to its knees by COBID-19. There is a lesson there. It's more important to spend our collective money on preparing for the coming pandemic of global warming than on a bloated military. It is more important to house the homeless and guarantee the economic rights of shelter and health care to all Americans as in the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights. It is more important to help people all over the world escape from extreme poverty because poverty breeds health crises which then can spread all over the world. It's more important to make peace with our rivals rather than try to control them with military threats and sanctions.

May the next President (and I hope to heaven that it's not Donald Trump) see the light of a more rational, compassionate and humane world, one more concerned about the health and welfare of all the world's peoples. I hope Governor Cuomo's values of being tough, smart, disciplined and most importantly loving spread to every corner of US and world society, and we get on with essential business instead of the inessential business of amusing, entertaining and consuming ourselves to death.

Though 'Children Need Peace Now More Than Ever,' US and Russia Block UN Efforts to Impose Global Ceasefire

Published on Monday, April 20, 2020

by Common Dreams

American and Russian diplomats have publicly praised calls for a global ceasefire, but say they cannot sign on to a blanket agreement. 

by Julia Conley, staff writer

 

9 Comments

Protesters display signs as they march to mark the third anniversary of the war in Iraq March 19, 2006 in Portland, Oregon. (Photo: Greg Wahl-Stephens/Getty Images)

The U.S. and Russia are reportedly standing in the way of an international agreement for a global ceasefire called for by the United Nations, claiming their militaries must retain the ability to attack enemies even as countries around the world face thousands of coronavirus cases.

The Trump administration is reluctant to agree to a universal ceasefire, Foreign Policy reported Friday, because of U.S. counterterrorism operations and partially because a ceasefire could impede key ally Israel's ability to conduct military operations throughout the Middle East.

President Donald Trump's position puts him at odds with "a broad global consensus for a ceasefire over all violent conflicts in the midst of COVID-19," tweeted author Henry Tam.

There is a broad global consensus for a ceasefire over all violent conflicts in the midst of #COVID19;
Except for Trump & Putin, who insist conflicts, deaths, & their countries' arms exports should continue: https://t.co/ntD0QCjtBS

— Dr. Henry Tam (@HenryBTam) April 20, 2020

While both the U.S. and Russia have "publicly praised" the idea of a global ceasefire, according to Foreign Policy reporter Colum Lynch, White House officials insist the U.S. must be able to continue its operations around the world despite the pandemic, which has killed more than 160,000 people worldwide so far and has infected more than 2.3 million. 

"The U.S. pushback against a globally encompassing ceasefire may come from the Trump administration's increasingly heavy dependence on elite counterterrorism operations and covert strikes to kill Islamic State and Iranian-linked military operatives over the past six months," wrote Lynch.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is reportedly reluctant to support a blanket ceasefire due to Russia's continued operations in Syria and its support for groups in Libya and other countries, according to The Guardian.

Luc Dockendorf, a career diplomat from Luxembourg, summarized the American and Russian positions as supporting the ceasefire for other countries only.

Great powers be like: “We support @antonioguterres’s call for a #GlobalCeasefire for *everybody else* but reserve our right to continue blowing shit up” https://t.co/zYsVSVe4Xp

— Luc Dockendorf (@LucDockendorf) April 17, 2020

Since U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres first called for an immediate global ceasefire last month—saying that "the fury of the virus illustrates the folly of war"—French President Emmanuel Macron attempted to garner support from Trump and Putin by making the agreement non-binding. 

Under Macron's proposal, countries could be exempt from the ceasefire "to continue to carry out military operations against individuals and armed groups designated as terrorists by the U.N. Security Council," Lynch reported.

Macron's draft would make the ceasefire "impossible to enforce," Simon Tisdall wrote at The Guardian Sunday, potentially putting vulnerable populations in as much danger of violence as they are now.

A U.S. State Department spokesperson told Foreign Policy of Macron's proposal that "the United States supports the Secretary General's call for a global ceasefire, but have noted that we will continue to fulfill our legitimate counterterrorism mission."

Although U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Kelly Knight Craft indicated last week that an agreement based on Macron's limited, non-binding proposal could be reached in the coming days, even that process has met impediments due to the Trump administration's objections. The U.S. demanded in March that the resolution include the phrase "Wuhan virus" to refer to the coronavirus, and last week demanded that language praising the World Health Organization (WHO) for its response to the pandemic be removed—an impasse which had not been resolved as of Friday. Trump held funding for WHO last week—at least temporarily—drawing condemnation from public health experts.

Humanitarian group UNICEF urged all countries to halt violent conflicts during the pandemic, calling on world leaders to "protect children under attack."

As we face the unprecedented challenges of #covid19, children need #peace more than ever.

To protect #ChildrenUnderAttack, we need a global ceasefire, NOW.

Please RT if you agree with these #FridayFeelings! v/@unicef@un @unpeacekeeping @unpeacebuilding @unmissmedia pic.twitter.com/hZIrM1Yd6j

— Kent Page (@KentPage) April 17, 2020

"As we face the unprecedented challenges of COVID-19, children need peace more than ever," tweeted UNICEF strategic communications advisor Kent Page.

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

In the Age of Pandemic Has War Become a Luxury?

by John Lawrence, April 12, 2020

Saudi Arabia and Yemen have declared a cease fire. Sailors are becoming infected on aircraft carriers. War planning requires groupings of military people. So has war become a luxury we can no longer afford? Are we really "all in this together"? Does the pandemic require cooperation among all nations since the pandemic doesn't respect national borders? Will the pandemic, when it's over, have changed the way human beings conduct their affairs in the world or will we get back to business as usual. If the pandemic engenders cooperation instead of rivalry among the nations of the world, does this mean that we will all be socialists or communists? Does it even matter?

If the pandemic makes us realize that war is a useless exercise with few benefits, will the US military-industrial complex be defunded. Will the money then go to health care workers, to Peace Corps and AmeriCorps workers who will attempt to bring clean water and modern sanitary systems to developing countries? Will there be a push to create more sanitary conditions in the world so that pandemics don't get started? Plagues and pandemics before have motivated people to build modern sanitary systems in places like London and New York in the 19th century where urban populations in close proximity created the conditions of cholera and bubonic plague. Is homelessness a social situation we can no longer afford?

Will the meaning of 'essential services' become normalized in the economy post corinavirus? What then will be considered essential and what could we live without? As long as there is no vaccine for coronavirus, new cases will continue to crop up even after the economy has "reopened." The flu epidemic of 1918 lasted 10 months and had several spikes. We can expect more spikes in the current pandemic until there are widespread vaccinations available. So what is essential? Sports events? Cruises? Rock concerts? Movie theaters? Now with Netflix and Amazon prime we can watch movies at home. Any movie we want to see. I'm catching up on all the great movies I've missed over the years. Last night I watched "To Catch a Thief" with Cary Grant and Grace Kelly. Free on Amazon Prime. The fidelity  both video and audio was excellent on my smart TV. I have no need to go to a movie theater where I can't control the volume. Hint: they are too loud.

Perhaps now we can grasp the concept that cooperation among peoples and nations is more important than manufactured rivalries over some nation's form of government. Perhaps now we can grasp the concept that diplomacy is more important, getting along is more important and winning isn't everything. Maybe now public health and human rights can be seen as more important than having everyone pull themselves up only by their own bootstraps. Maybe we can get on with the business of cooperating to combat the real enemy - climate change and even future pandemics. Maybe we will bring the US infrastructure into the modern world with a Green New Deal. Maybe we can finally grow up and have a consensus about what is really important, what really matters. Maybe doctors, nurses, caregivers, and social workers will come to be seen as more important that Wall Street brokers, the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps as more important than the War Corps. As Governor Cuomo says, "Love will conquer all." Happy Easter.

Off the Top of My Head

Civilization and Its Discontents

by John Lawrence, March 22, 2020

Are we becoming more or less civilized? What does civilization even mean? Doesn't it mean that there is less conflict and more harmony among all the 9 billion human beings that inhabit the world? Doesn't it also mean an increased knowledge about how to care for the planet which is our common home? I don't think it means more and more stuff. There is something to be said for material well-being, but, after a certain level has been achieved, further increase only represents gluttony especially if it is not more or less equally distributed among all the earth's population. Progress towards civilization means less conflict, less war, not more freedom. Freedom is a component but is not essential to civilization. Love and diplomacy are.

By any measure human society is becoming less civilized and more solipsistic. The emphasis on extreme individualism and ego-centrism in the US has meant that the US has gone from the world's savior after WW II to the world's dominant and ruling empire placing itself and its prerogatives above the welfare of the world's people. The slogan for the French revolution was "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" and it's France's motto to this day. Although the American and French revolutions happened at about the same time and were based on many similar values, the US totally forgot about the fraternité part. It was replaced with "every man for himself and "don't tread on me." This emphasis on individualism without a corresponding emphasis on compassion and social responsibility was increased during the Reagan and Alan Greenspan era. Greenspan was an acolyte of Ayn Rand who brought a flower arrangement depicting a dollar bill to her funeral. Rand was an extreme individualist whose views didn't recognize any other validity than that which was central to her own mind.

Extreme individualism has found its latest proponent in Donald Trump who might have been a character in one of Ayn Rand's novels, a hero whose only interest was himself and his own interests without any regard for anyone else. Trump has projected this philosophy onto an entire nation with his motto of "America First." However, his real motto is "Trump first." Fraternité or brotherhood has nothing to do with Reagan's or Greenspan's or Ayn Rand's thought processes and there is a direct line among them and their influence on the US turning a once compassionate nation into the equivalent of the Roman Empire, but, whereas the Romans only sought to rule Western Civilization, Trumpism and the American Empire seeks control over the entire planet.

In recent days even Trump has uttered the words "We're all in this together." That's nice to know Mr Trump, but it took a global pandemic for Trump to realize or give credence to this sentiment. However, there is another pandemic that makes the coronavirus pale by comparison, and that is global warming and climate change with respect to which Trump has never uttered the same words and is not likely to. Instead Trump and his Republican progenitors have consistently sought to make America the world's preeminent nation and ruler of the world.  Civilization has retreated since the high point of the FDR administration. Even Democratic administrations other than that of Jimmy Carter have triangulated with the devil.

I come back to fraternité. Wouldn't there have been more progress towards civilization if this word had been taken more seriously and not just among Americans or Frenchmen, but among all human beings in a globalized world. Globalism in terms of civilization should lead to peace on earth and a reasonable distribution of material goods instead of a US which hoards everything for itself (the hoarding of toilet paper is symbolic!) and tries to dominate other nations with its military and its economic prowess in terms of the dollar being the world's reserve currency. Since the dollar has been weaponized by its application to sanctions, other currencies are seeking equivalency and will probably soon have it if not dominancy.

It's taken a world wide pandemic to make US leaders realize that we are all in this together. When the pandemic subsides, will this be the takeaway? Will it mean an increase in civilization in terms of understanding and compassion for all peoples of the earth? Will it mean an increase in diplomacy and a reduction in weapon caches? Will it mean a reduction in the size and expenditures on the military-industrial complex? Will it mean some sense of humility instead of hubris on the part of US leaders? In other words will the coronavirus pandemic have resulted in an increase in civilization? Hope springs eternal, but don't bet on it.

Off the Top of My Head

Could a Gene Mutation Make People More Loving?

by John Lawrence

There was an amazing Nova program about dogs. Research has shown that there was a gene mutation when dogs split off from wolves and became domesticated by humans. It turns out that wolves are as intelligent as dogs, but dogs have a special ability to bond with humans and other animals that wolves don't have - even domesticated wolves. They have also shown that people with Williams syndrome have the same gene mutation which makes them more loving and more empathetic towards people and animals. People with Williams syndrome have lower IQs than average, but exhibit a willingness to love and have empathy for others.

This brings up an interesting point. Perhaps humans have evolved in a way that puts more emphasis on the rational mind and IQ level than on their ability to have empathy for others, and perhaps this is why there is so much conflict and war in the world. Certainly, much more human effort has gone into developing weapons of war than implements of peace. Maybe this is what, in the long run, dooms the human race as an evolutionary experiment. A heightened level of empathy is now necessary if the human race is willing to do what's necessary to save the earth as a habitable planet for future generations.

Among the hallmark traits of people with Williams syndrome is an apparent lack of social inhibition. Dykens and Rosner (1999) found that 100% of those with Williams syndrome were kind-spirited, 90% sought the company of others, 87% empathize with others' pain, 84% are caring, 83% are unselfish/forgiving, 75% never go unnoticed in a group, and 75% are happy when others do well. Infants with Williams syndrome make normal and frequent eye contact, and young children with Williams will often approach and hug strangers. People affected by Williams syndrome typically have high empathy, and are rarely observed displaying aggression. In regards to empathy, they show relative strength in reading people's eyes to gauge intentions, emotions, and mental states.

Dogs unlike wolves have a strong need to emotionally bond with humans. They will even bond with other animals which will let them. This is what makes dogs so invaluable to humans and why they are trainable whereas wolves aren't. The narrator in the Nova documentary says, "Dogs appear to be, not just loving, but almost, indiscriminately affectionate. New research suggests that this could be partly because dogs get flooded with the “love hormone,” oxytocin. And the reason for that may lie partly with some very special genes." Evidently there was a gene mutation which turned wolves into dogs.

The young woman with Williams syndrome, Callie Truelove, exhibits the traits of lovingness and empathy. The narrator says, "Callie radiates an incredible warmth towards the people around her." Her mother chimes in, "She just loves people. From the time she was able to go to somebody by herself she’s always been very friendly."  While some of the symptoms of Williams syndrome are debilitating, the ability to love and be loved isn't one of them. Callie says, "I love each and every single human being on this whole entire world. If I could just hug all of them at once I would, ‘cause I love them so much."

Callies's father says, "She absolutely does love every single person that she meets. I’ve pastored a church for 20 years, and Callie has reached more people, just with her everyday life, than I possibly could in a lifetime." The narrator says, "Callie’s hyper-sociability is a side effect of her condition, tied to changes in three genes, one of which supercharges oxytocin levels." Again I wonder if using gene therapy, could the human race be modified so that only this gene was changed making humans more loving and empathetic without the other gene changes that Williams syndrome people exhibit which are more debilitating. If so, would the human race become over time more empathetic and less warlike? Would there finally be "Peace on earth. Goodwill towards all." If there were more Callies, this certainly would be possible.

Now more than ever we need more people like Callie in the world with higher levels of oxytocin if the world is to survive global warming. We must cooperate on a supercharged level if we are to enable the survival of future generations. Right now it seems that humans are only focused on maximizing the benefits of their present day lifestyles that require the perpetuation of fossil fuel usage and only marginally interested in doing something about climate change. I wonder what Callie would say about this.

Off the Top of My Head

Why We Need to Help China Build Renewable Energy Systems in Africa

by John Lawrence, February 8, 2020

China is helping underdeveloped African countries to develop. They are building railroads, ports, infrastructure in general. They are loaning these countries the money and putting Chinese workers to work. It's called the Belt and Road initiative. For the most part this effort is laudable. It represents peaceful development as opposed to military control, monetary sanctions or corporate exploitation which is what most African countries had been used to in the past. However, there is at least one negative consequence of these developments. China is building hundreds of coal-fired power plants in these countries? This is at a time when the world must be reducing its use of fossil fuels to forestall global warming.

Recently, President Xi Jinping hosted the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, promoting his signature foreign policy of building massive infrastructure and trade links across several continents. China, as the world's biggest polluter, has also been taking dramatic steps to clean up and fight climate change in China. The forum, attended by leaders and delegates of nearly 40 countries, came amid growing criticism of China's projects, including their effect on the environment. The UN estimates the world needs to reduce its coal-fired electricity by two-thirds in the next decade to meet our climate goals. So what's wrong with this picture and what can be done about it?

First, instead of treating China as an adversary and a rival, the US could partner with China in building power generating plants, but, instead of coal powered ones, plants that generate electricity from renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal. This would be a win-win-win for Africa, China and the US. Some of the Democratic candidates have pledged to do just that. According to Bernie Sanders we should "Commit to reducing emissions throughout the world, including providing $200 billion to the Green Climate Fund, rejoining the Paris Agreement, and reasserting the United States’ leadership in the global fight against climate change." That's right. Instead of using our high polluting military to fight everywhere in the world, we should establish a Belt and Road initiative of our own not in rivalry with China, but instead in cooperation with China. Combined the efforts of these two great nations could make a huge difference both in the development of underdeveloped parts of the world but also in terms of reducing the effects of climate change by making sure that that development is not based on energy derived from fossil fuels like coal and oil.

At present China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt and the Philippines. I'm sure these countries welcome these investments, but these power plants need to be built so that they generate power from renewable sources and not coal. "China has done a very good job of emphasizing the target of greening the Belt and Road," said Courtney Weatherby, a Southeast Asia analyst at the Stimson Center in Washington, D.C. "But it's not clear when you look at the actual projects that China is funding that they are truly green."

The NPR article went on:

In neighboring Vietnam — a country highly dependent on coal — China is a major investor in the energy sector. China is involved in 15 coal power plants in operation, six under construction and at least two in the planning stages, according to Nguyen Thi Hang with Hanoi-based environmental group Green Innovation and Development Centre. "China's investments in Vietnam is both good and bad but it is also coupled with negative impacts on people's health and livelihoods," Nguyen said.

There is still a question of how to supply energy sustainably. If China falls short, Chinese officials at least know they can expect scant criticism on coal investments from the U.S. government. President Trump's administration has also been promoting coal.

The US needs to partner with China in green development projects that can benefit the entire world while promoting the growth of renewable energy projects and eliminating fossil fuel projects. This would do a lot to bring peaceful cooperation to the world as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and saving the planet from global warming. This means a Green New Deal as part and parcel of our foreign policy instead of a foreign policy based on militarism and weaponizing the dollar by the use of sanctions. There is a great potential for bringing genuine peace to the world by cooperating with other countries in a world wide Green New Deal. This would save the planet not only from climate change but from militaristic rivalry and destruction not to mention the waste of resources. There is the potential for peace among all the earth's nations and peoples if all are working together on a worldwide Green New Deal.

Off the Top of My Head

What a Bozo: Trump's Middle East "Peace" Plan

by John Lawrence, January 30, 2020

Suppose you and your best friend got together and worked out a peace plan between you and your worst enemy without either of you ever consulting your worst enemy. Suppose your peace plan gives all the best parts to yourself and the worst parts to your worst enemy. That's a Peace Plan? Get real. Trump and Netanyahu are chumps and suckers. Total amateurs who don't know a peace plan from a hole in the ground. They should have saved their blowhard breath. Then they try to buy off the Palestinians with $50 billion. Chump change, really.

It's a total non-starter. But it's what you'd expect from a couple of greedy, insensitive bastards. Supposedly, Jared Kushner worked this all out. You've got a couple of New York real estate developers thinking they know how to create peace in the Middle East. Really? You have to start by treating both sides with respect and acknowledging the human dignity and equality of both sides. This was the furthest thing from their imaginations. This peace plan is all about Israel and not at all about Palestine. Here, Palestine, we're gonna shove this down your throat with a spoonful of sugar ($50 billion) to make the medicine go down. If you don't like it, lump it, because this is the best deal you're ever gonna get.

Needless to say, the total insensitivity of Trump and Netanyahu and the total lack of even trying to treat the Palestinians with respect dooms this ersatz peace plan before the words of self congratulations were even spoken by a pair of indicted and impeached hacks who are trying to capture the spotlight and somewhat salvage their ruined reputations. When will we ever get talented, diplomatic and sensitive men to lead both countries? Oh, I guess we'll have to elect women for that. These two men are taking the low road where you ask your enemy to make all the sacrifices in order to have peace. No sacrifices for Israel. All the sacrifices go on the heads of the Palestinians. Now I suppose that Trump in his inimitable bombastic way will claim he has created peace in the middle east, something his predecessors had utterly failed to do.

"It's stunning that Donald Trump doesn't know that this is insulting to Palestinians," tweeted James Zogby, founder of the Arab American Institute. A peace plan that's an insult to one of the parties. Now that's a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one. It's downright Orwellian. Recall that George Orwell in his novel, "1984" famously said “War is peace / freedom is slavery [and] ignorance is strength.” This perfectly fits Trump and Netanyahu and their followers. But then again it's the philosophy of the US government which believes it can create peace by keeping the world in a constant state of war, military threat or sanctions.

So Israel is proposing a land swap. They'll take the Jordan valley which is the breadbasket of Palestine while generously giving Palestine some of the useless desert that now belongs to Israel. Sort of a reminder of the homelands many Indians and South Africans were deported to - worthless, barren scarps of land. In return the favored people will keep the lush parts. Who are they trying to kid? Who are they trying to fool? We'll take the best for ourselves and give you the scraps from the table. How do they justify this? Because they're "better" than the Palestinians? Smarter? No doubt. What they forget is that Palestinians are human beings too and not about to take a back seat to Israel, thank you. They're not going to the back of the bus. Have Israelis not learned anything from the struggles of other peoples? Or of themselves? Think reciprocity.

'This Is Not a Peace Plan, It Is a War Plan': Trump-Netanyahu Deal Decried as Shameful Attack on Palestinian Rights

Published on Tuesday, January 28, 2020

by Common Dreams

"Any attempt to address the Israeli-Palestinian issue that does not begin and end with the full acknowledgment of the Palestinian right to self-determination, freedom, justice, and equality is a non-starter."

by Julia Conley, staff writer

 

32 Comments

Palestinians watch the televised press conference of U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on January 28, 2020, at the Khan Yunis refugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip. (Photo: Said Khatib/AFP via Getty Images)

Human rights advocates condemned U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's "annexation plan" for large swaths of Palestinian territory as the two leaders on Tuesday presented what they termed a "peace deal" for Israel and Palestine.

"This is not a peace plan. It is theft. It is erasure."
—Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)

Critics joined Palestinian leaders in rejecting the premise of the so-called "vision for peace," which was drafted by the White House and Netanyahu without the input of Palestinians.

The resulting plan is "shameful and disingenuous," tweeted Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).

They could have guaranteed justice, and brought everyone into this peace deal.

Instead these two embattled heads of state, impeached and indicted, have a “ just us” peace deal.

It’s shameful and disingenuous! https://t.co/THIniOEv8B

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) January 28, 2020

The plan aims to expand and make official Israeli control of Palestinian territories while assuring Palestine that it will be afforded "a pathway to a future state"—but one that will have no military of its own and in which Israel will maintain security control over some areas. 

"This is not a peace plan," tweeted Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights. "It is a war plan."

This is not a peace plan, it is a war plan.

A war on peace
A war on justice
A war on freedom
A war on equality

A war on Palestinian existence

— (((YousefMunayyer))) (@YousefMunayyer) January 28, 2020

"It's stunning that Donald Trump doesn't know that this is insulting to Palestinians," tweeted James Zogby, founder of the Arab American Institute.

It’s stunning that @realDonaldTrump doesn’t know that this is insulting to Palestinians. It’s not a “state” it’s a “Bantustan.” Palestinians lose more land w/out sovereignty & independence. Israel gets more land & keeps settlements. It’s Trump’s plan to try to legalize illegality https://t.co/RDE6iJ0krf

— James J. Zogby (@jjz1600) January 28, 2020

"This plan is simply a rubber stamp for the Israeli government's continuing violations of international law, separate-and-unequal policies, land grabs, and human rights abuses against the Palestinian people," said the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights in a statement. "Any attempt to address the Israeli-Palestinian issue that does not begin and end with the full acknowledgment of the Palestinian right to self-determination, freedom, justice, and equality is a non-starter."

Major points within the deal include:

• Jerusalem will be established as Israel's "undivided" capitol, undermining Palestinians' aim to recognize East Jerusalem as their capitol;
• the recognition of the majority of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine;
• the recognition of the Jordan Valley, which makes up a third of the occupied West Bank, as part of Israel; and
• the refusal by Israel to grant Palestinians the "right to return" to their homes lost in the Six-Day War and other conflicts.

Palestinians in occupied territories held protests on Tuesday ahead of the deal's announcement. Larger demonstrations are planned for Wednesday.

"I am not against peace, but what is being talked about is not peace," Ahmed Shafiq, a student in Gaza, told The Guardian. "Peace is not imposed on people."

The so-called "peace deal" amounts to "an endorsement of Israel's aggression, allowing it to take over whatever Palestinian lands it wants and punishing the victims for daring to object to having their homeland stolen," said Omar Baddar, deputy director of the Arab American Institute, in a short video the group released.

Want to know why this "ultimate deal" is a sham & a disgrace that will never lead to peace? @OmarBaddar explains:#DealOfTheCentury #Apartheid pic.twitter.com/1k9Ig0q9ND

— Arab American Instit. (@AAIUSA) January 28, 2020

A map released showing Trump and Netanyahu's vision for the future of Palestine resembled "a Native American reservation" more than a sovereign state, said entrepreneur Shahed Amanullah.

This doesn't look like a state. It looks like a Native American reservation. https://t.co/ZwHMt0L0V7 pic.twitter.com/S2gO5gdV4t

— Shahed Amanullah (@shahed) January 28, 2020

"This is not a peace plan," tweeted Omar. "It is theft. It is erasure."

Munayyer of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights called on Americans and the international community to reject Trump's attempt to "whitewash the apartheid reality alongside his Israeli partners-in-war-crimes."

"The only suitable response from people of conscience is to reject this effort and demand immediate accountability for Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights," Munayyer said. "The separate-and-unequal reality the Israeli government has imposed on Palestinians, with the support of the U.S., flies in the face of the values Americans claim to uphold. Freedom, justice, and equality for Palestinians is the only way forward.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from occupied Palestine, slammed Trump and Netanyahu for releasing the plan as both are facing re-election campaigns and legal battles.

"It's fitting that the Trump-Netanyahu plan was released by a forever impeached president on the same day that Netanyahu was indicted for corruption," Tlaib tweeted. "This political stunt gets us no closer to peace or justice."

It’s fitting that the @realDonaldTrump-@netanyahu "plan" was released by a forever impeached President on the same day that Netanyahu was indicted for corruption.

This political stunt gets us no closer to peace or justice. As a member of Congress, I consider it a non-starter. https://t.co/PIYYZ75PWc

— Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) January 28, 2020

"This is a political ploy by both leaders to distract from their abuse of power, designed to help Netanyahu win the election in less than six weeks," Emily Meyer, co-founder of Jewish progressive group If Not Now, said in a statement. "The plan itself is a plan for permanent Israeli military occupation and control, not a plan for peace. It is simply a continuation of Trump's strategy since entering office: to disenfranchise Palestinians and deny their rights, their agency, and even their identity."

---

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

Off the Top of My Head

Trump Will Run on the Economy

by John Lawrence, January 20, 2020

What's not to like about the economy? Lowest unemployment in 19 years. The stock market is through the roof. Low income workers have made the biggest gains in wages. According to the Wall Street Journal: "The lowest-paid Americans saw weekly earnings grow more than 5% in the second quarter from a year earlier, more than the national median gain of 1.7% for all workers, according to a quarterly survey of households produced by the Labor Department. Workers with less than a high-school diploma saw their wages grow almost 6%, and younger workers’ pay grew almost 3%." So is trickle down really working?

The Fed stands by to give more money to the rich if the economy shows a sign of faltering. The Big Banks are too big to fail. Unlimited prosperity, right? Except all this economic growth is adding to rather than subtracting from global warming.  More people are traveling while jets are spewing more jet fuel effluent into the atmosphere. The automobile industry has a huge investment in fossil fuel cars. Every year more carbon dioxide goes into the atmosphere as oil still predominates in world markets. The American as well as the Chinese consumer economy is providing more middle class goodies each year which are tossed away creating more and more waste. Plastics are piling up in the oceans. More and more weedkillers are used to grow crops whose residues end up in human blood streams. Feed lot animals are fed a diet of antibiotics to make them grow quicker so they can be slaughtered sooner. This creates the situation in which they are not really useful for overcoming human diseases any more. The American way of life, which the whole world aspires to, is polluting the planet and despoiling the atmosphere, but it keeps the economy churning. Entrepreneurs are thinking up even more ways to sell us useless products and vapid entertainment.

The economy is predicated on waste, inefficiency and destructive weapons production including nuclear weapons. More and more money goes into the military-industrial complex to develop more and more expensive planes and battleships which are so complex they don't work half the time. But we are promised a computer fix after they alter a few lines of code. And all those people making a living off the military-industrial complex waste would be out of a job if peace broke out. All those people involved in the labyrinthine insurance industry would be out of a job if Bernie's Medicare for All came to fruition. The economy thrives on inefficiency and waste. If things were done rationally, so many people would be out of a job that the economy would grind to a halt.

Wall Street is not about to change its policy of promoting companies which seek maximum short term profits instead of sustainable growth that benefits all stakeholders including Mother Earth who in the final analysis is the most consequential stakeholder. But Americans and humans in general don't want to tighten their belts in order to save the planet. They would rather have short term profits and growth particularly if it can be tailored to fit into their lifespans. After their death all hell can break loose, but they won't be here to experience it. They had a good life at the expense of future generations. Ta ta, future babies. Trump will win because people care more about their present life than they do about the future generations of life on earth. Besides all those people in the military-industrial complex, which in the larger sense includes anyone who has ever been in the military, will vote for Trump because association with the military, whether pecuniary or not, represents masculine pride, virility and vanity. Ayn Rand would approve.

Off the Top of My Head

Is World Peace Possible?

by John Lawrence, December 25, 2019

Matthew’s Gospel reminds us of these words from Jesus: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father.”

I watch a lot of RT TV. This is a Russian sponsored TV channel. Naturally, for the most part, they are presenting Russia's point of view. CGTN is China's TV network, and, of course, they present the Chinese point of view. So I take these programs with a grain of salt just as I take US based programs with a grain of salt. What I have noticed, for instance, is that no US based program will be critical of the US military-industrial complex whereas RT certainly will. Meet the Press has Boeing, one of the chief denizens of the military-industrial complex, as a sponsor so nothing critical of the MI complex there.

Lately, I've noticed a certain pro-Trump bias on RT. This coincides with the purported hacking of the 2016 US election in favor of Trump. It sort of makes sense that Russia is pro-Trump for two reasons: 1) Trump "established" a positive relationship with Putin and 2) Russia would like to sow discord within the US in order to weaken it vis a vis Russia. What doesn't seem to make sense here is that, if Trump is as pro-Russia as he seems to be, why is the whole US government establishment sans Trump anti-Russia? Doesn't Trump control the US foreign policy establishment as leader of the free world? Or is it just the Democrats that are anti-Russia? You'd think that, if the President of the US was pro-Russia, the whole US foreign policy establishment would be going out of their way to make peace and improve relations with Russia. This is not happening unfortunately.

Instead the US foreign policy establishment and most of the media have tried their best to start another Cold War with Russia as a bogeyman. Why? Because a few hackers placed pro-Trump ads on Facebook? Even if they were ordered to do so by Russian authorities, isn't the world wide web open to anybody to put any content they want thereon? What if someone in Uganda placed a pro-Trump ad on Facebook? Does that mean that the country of Uganda tried to hack our elections and, therefore, we should invade or sanction Uganda?

Either the US as a nation has to have a policy about who can place political ads on Facebook and other social media or it is open for anyone in the entire world including government sponsored actors to say anything they want to which would amount to a de facto global policy of free speech. So instead of placing blame on Russia, wouldn't it make more sense to negotiate with Russia diplomatically to come to a policy about what is appropriate for citizens of a foreign country to say about the politics of any other country? Probably there should be a UN sponsored agreement that would set a policy that all nations should abide by including private citizens within those nations when it comes to commenting in social media on the political goings on in other countries. In the absence of that, why it's open season for anyone to say anything about the political workings of any other country.

However, the approach towards a peaceful settlement of any dispute is not the course the US is taking at the present time. Under Trump other nations, corporations and citizens are threatened with sanctions or actual military invasion unless they adopt policies that the US under Trump wants them to. Diplomacy takes second place if that. The US under Trump is taking advantage of the perquisites of empire. It orders rather than negotiates. This leaves other countries including Russia who might want to be friends with the US in the position of having been rejected by someone who they hoped might be a friend. Going back to Gorbachev, it was clear that this is what he hoped to accomplish. He had been instrumental he thought in ending the Cold War and the unhinged rivalry between the US and the USSR. He had said words to the effect of "We are going to take away the USSR as your enemy." The implication was that rivalry between Russia and the US would no longer justify the huge military buildup in either country.

However, the US military-industrial complex would hear nothing of it. It suffered a decline in funding as peace broke out in the early 90s after the Berlin wall came down. Therefore, it was imperative to recreate the rivalry between the US and Russia. Ukraine became the perfect excuse for doing so. A negotiated settlement of the Ukraine situation is possible, but the US won't hear anything of it. A few days ago Russia and Ukraine negotiated a deal to send Russian natural gas through Ukraine to Europe. If Russia and Ukraine are enemies, which the US would like to encourage, how could such a negotiated deal take place? The truth is that other countries, even supposedly those who are at odds with each other, are willing to sit down and come to peaceful agreements, but this is not the way that the US does business. The US just sanctioned any company involved in the Nordstream 2 pipe line between Russia and Germany even though Germany (an ally) wants the deal and just as Russia and Ukraine successfully and peacefully completed another deal.

Because of a long history of enmity, the US is having more success in recreating Russia as an enemy even as Russia is willing to become a friend. However, the US hesitates to place China in the same category. China is too powerful. US and Chinese businesses are intertwined, and China is the US' largest creditor. Even though the US is wary of growing Chinese influence in the world, it will negotiate with China. You can negotiate your differences with friends. Maybe the same approach should be taken with your supposed or recreated enemies. This is the way to create a more peaceful world.

Off the Top of My Head

The Glorification of War

by John Lawrence, May 14, 2019

In a book written by Admiral William McRaven entitled "Sea Stories, My Life in Special Operations" we find this passage:

As terrible as it sounds, every SEAL longs for a worthy fight, a battle of convictions, and an honorable war. War challenges your manhood. It reaffirms your courage. It sets you apart from the timid souls and the bench sitters. It builds unbreakable bonds among your fellow warriors. It gives your life meaning. Over time, I would get more than my fair share of war. Men would be lost. Innocents would be killed. Families would be forever changed. But somehow, inexplicably, war would never lose its allure. To the warrior, peace has no memories, no milestones, no adventures, no heroic deaths, no gut-wrenching sorrow, no jubilation, no remorse, no repentance, and no salvation. Peace was meant for some people, but probably not for me.

Where do I begin to deconstruct this? Longing for a worthy fight...longing for war [honorable or not]. What kind of a person goes through life longing for war? It might as well have been written by Nietzsche: "A good war halloweth any cause." I think SEAL training destroyed this man's soul. No wonder that so many of them have PTSD and can't adapt to civilian life. There is no better way to describe it than that they have been fucked by their training and their zeitgeist. "War challenges your manhood." So in order to prove you're a man, you go to war? You long for war? If there were no war in your generation, you would be very disappointed?  And the women who go to war - does it challenge their womanhood? How about the transgender people who go to war - does it challenge their man-converted-to-womanhood? This guy is a sick puppy. I don't care if he is an Admiral.

"War sets you apart from the timid souls and the bench sitters." So people who believe in peace and don't see the glory in war are bench sitters? I suppose Jesus Christ was a bench sitter by his definition. Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks - they were all bench sitters. Doctors who drive through drifted snow in the middle of the night to deliver a baby are bench sitters. Husbands who go to work every day at boring jobs to support their families are bench sitters? Mothers who sit up with a sick child all through the night are bench sitters? This guy wants to identify war with manhood. What does that say to the women who are currently employed in the Army, Navy and Air Force? War used to be considered a terrible thing by all who experienced it. Remember "War is Hell", words spoken by General Sherman before he gave the order to burn Atlanta? Admiral McRaven wants us to believe it's a test of a person's personhood - I'm assuming he wants to include women in this at this point.

"It gives your life meaning." How pathetic if war is what gives your life meaning, and peace,somehow, is meaningless. It takes the human race further down the path of destruction and Götterdämmerung. So the birth of his children if he had any did not give his life meaning? The love affair between him and his wife, if he has one, did not give his life meaning? There is no meaning in life except for war? Hitler would be proud.

"Peace has no memories" Not even the birth of a child? "No milestones" Not even graduation from college? "No adventures" Not even sky diving? "No heroic deaths" As long as one of them is not his. "No gut-wrenching sorrow" Yes, what would life be without gut-wrenching sorrow. Bring it on! "No jubilation" Yes, killing is so much more jubilant than any other human activity - even sex! "Peace has no repentance?" Yes, it's much more pleasurable to repent over all the innocents you have killed. Finally, "Peace has no salvation"? Please, Lord, save us from peace. Peace condemns us to hell. Save us by providing us with the opportunity to go to war and prove our manhood.

The human race has learned nothing from its eons of warfare. It abhors peace. Peace like nature abhors a vaccuum. We must be stimulated at all costs, and war provides the perfect opportunity for stimulation. The future of "Peace on earth. Good will towards humans" is likely never to be achieved because of the attitudes of people like Admiral McRaven.

Off the Top of My Head

While the US Bullies, China Invests

by John Lawrence, March 9, 2019

China has been entering into mutually beneficial arrangements with many countries of the world in accordance with its Belt and Road Initiative. The US doesn't like it because the US modus operandi is to tell other countries what to do based on sanctions. If they don't comply, they will be sanctioned or even bombed. The latest country to have a cozy relationship with China is Italy. Now the US is even ordering its European allies around and European countries are rethinking their relationship with the US especially because of the idiocy of the Trump administration.

China has told the US to mind its own business after Italy was warned not to join the Belt and Road Initiative. So now the US is trying to order other countries not to participate in a mutually beneficial relationship with some other country. Is it the US prerogative to tell countries what other countries they can do business with? The US thinks so. It sees the Chinese Belt and Road initiative as a threat. The South China Morning Post reported:

China’s Foreign Ministry told Washington to mind its own business on Wednesday after US officials warned Italy that its international image would suffer if it signed up for the Belt and Road Initiative, an ambitious intercontinental infrastructure programme.

Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a press briefing in Beijing that Rome does not need Washington’s advice on conducting its affairs.

“This position taken by the US side is laughable,” Lu said. “As a major country, Italy knows exactly what policies serve its own interests and it can make its decisions independently.”

Lu was responding to a report by the Financial Times that Italy planned to sign a memorandum of understanding on joining the Belt and Road Initiative when President Xi Jinping visits the country later this month. ...

But White House National Security Council spokesperson, Garrett Marquis, told the FT that the Belt and Road Initiative was unlikely to help Italy economically and could significantly damage the country’s international image.

Xi is expected to visit Italy on March 22 and 23. If Italy signs the memorandum, it will be the first of the seven leading industrialised nations, or Group of Seven, to sign up officially.

On Monday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went further in criticising the initiative, saying projects under the scheme were “almost certainly designed for foreclosure”. ...

Asked by a member of the audience if the Belt and Road Initiative could remove European and Asian countries from the US sphere of influence, Pompeo said “these deals are, in fact, often too good to be true, and many countries have already begun to see that”. ...

The Belt and Road Initiative, first proposed by Xi in 2013, is a vast China-centred strategy to increase global trade with more than US$1 trillion in investment.

But the US and other countries have been increasingly critical and last year, US Vice-President Mike Pence, in a wide-ranging criticism of Beijing, accused China of using the belt and road to engage in “debt diplomacy”. ...

On Wednesday, Lu said the initiative had been welcomed by more than 150 countries and that the US should stop slinging mud at it.

Beijing will hold its second belt and road forum in April, with dozens of world leaders invited, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who has criticised the cost of some projects.

So Pompeo and the rest of the US neocon establishment is concerned that China might drive a wedge between the US and some of its allies by entering into mutually beneficial arrangements without the US' permission. Who knows? Peace might even break out making the trillion dollar yearly investment by the US in its own military-industrial complex irrelevant, irrelevant, that is, except for US taxpayers that have to pay the bill. Does China have a winning strategy here? Instead of investing hugely in weapons of war and trying to order other nations around by the use of sanctions, China is facilitating the economic development of many nations and making for a more peaceful world, a world in which China's influence will no doubt supersede that of the US whose global hegemony is based on the use or implied threat of force.

Off the Top of My Head

Trump Will Get a Few Billion From the Defense Budget So He Can Defend the Border?

by John Lawrence, February 16, 2019

What's wrong with this picture? I am not in favor of Trump's 30 foot concrete wall, but why does the trillion dollar defense budget not include money for border security? Now what should have been a sober discussion about border security has become a magnormous political football. We spend billions on ships and planes but trifling, meager sums on sophisticated border security that would prevent drugs, illegal contraband and illegal immigrants from coming into the country. Each party has taken up political sides, and a common solution that makes sense is nowhere to be found although one is apparent and evident in plain sight.

Satellite surveillance combined with more manpower deployed at numerous stations along the border capable of rapid deployment via helicopters is the obvious solution. Better tracking of visas so people can't come in with a visa and just disappear would require merely twentieth century technology. People that argue endlessly about what should be mutually agreed upon in short order are either insane or dumb. Einstein's definition of insanity needs to be broadened a bit. He said if you repeat the same behavior over and over and expect it to give you a different result, that's insane. People that can't defend a country's borders while devoting a trillion dollars to fighting endless, pointless wars and supporting 1000 military bases in other countries are also insane. Close those 1000 military bases abroad and build 1000 stations along the US border the purpose of which is to surveil and intercept any illegal contraband and/or human beings trying to get across the border.

The problem with ultra tight border security is that it would not cost very much. The military establishment has figured out a solution to US defense needs that requires a trillion dollar budget and makes them all rich. By comparison the best border security in the world would cost only a pittance. How would they justify then the massive sums they're wasting that could be spent on diplomacy, creating friendly relationships with other countries and rebuilding infrastructure in other parts of the world that has been destroyed by American bombs?

The US should be spending more on the peace budget and less on the military budget which although called that isn't really even a defense budget. It's an exercise that wastes money and creates enemies around the world in order to justify itself.

Off the Top of My Head

Trump's Revenge: Trump Tower Moscow?

by John Lawrence, January 21, 2019

Let me start off by saying that I don't like a lot of what Trump's done or that he stands for. His pooh poohing climate change is his worst sin. His appointment of neocons like John Bolton and others is abhorrent. Tax cuts for the wealthy? Disgusting. But I do like a few things: his meetings with Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un to name two. As far as his supposed collusion with Russia, he probably colluded to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. I don't think he gave American top secret information in return for a building permit. All the rest is really nit picking. Lying to Congress, perjury - these are all things where competing lawyers yell gotcha! The rest is a bunch of hooey that Democrats are using to bring Trump down, and you can hardly blame them for that after the best qualified candidate in the 2016 election - Hillary Clinton - lost to a blowhard, male chauvinist with no government experience even though she won the popular vote. But then it was a crying shame that Al Gore lost to George W Bush under the same circumstances.

If it takes a business deal by the President of the US to build a hotel in Russia in order for the US and Russia to become friends and end the neo-Cold War that the neocons have restarted, then I'm for it. But it's the last thing the US military and military-industrial complex want. Why? They would lose money and power and prestige. They want a country not where there is peace in the world with America playing a constructive role. They want world dominance with the US in the dominant position. It enhances their positions and their reputations. To make peace with Russia or North Korea would cost very little money, but to keep war and the threat of war at the forefront of American foreign policy costs a lot of money. That's the crux of the matter.

The Democrats want to make their policy of proving Trump guilty of something their main priority. Something nefarious like selling secrets to the Russians. But what Trump is guilty of is right there in plain sight: denying climate change and giving tax cuts to the rich among other things. The Dems are staking their whole claim on Trump's "colluding with Russia." Over what? We know the guy wants to use his position as the most powerful man in the world to line his own pockets. But somehow that doesn't rise to the level of treason. Nor is it worthy of impeachment. It is worthy of voting him out of office in the next election, however.

The Dems would be better off to adopt the agenda of the progressive wing - the Bernie Sanders wing - and agree with Trump at least in that part of his agenda in which he wants better relations with Russia and North Korea. It is really a peace agenda. Maybe they don't like the way Trump has gone about it, but improving relations with our "enemies" should be what American foreign policy is all about, not a continuation of the Cold War and a justification for spending even more money on the military and the military-industrial complex. Spend it on infrastructure and bettering the lives of the American people instead.

Off the Top of My Head

Strong on Defense or Strong on Peace?

by John Lawrence, January 2, 2018

Republicans pride themselves on being strong on defense. Even Hillary thought she had to prove her cred by being a hawk on defense. It all backfired in Libya and other places. Instead of being strong on war, let's start out this New Year by being strong on peace. Peace is not just the absence of war. It is much more. It is building bridges, repairing bombed out walls, opting to make the world a better place for those yet born. Peace is diplomatic treaties instead of creating more instruments of war, beating the swords of the future into the plowshares of a better life for all now. Peace is creating as many allies as possible. Peace is creating a good life for everybody instead of letting the majority of the world's population, including in the US, live in poverty.

If peace were just the absence of war, that would be pretty boring. We'd be waiting for the next good war to come along so we could have some excitement. We have to get over the mindset that war and destruction is exciting but peace and peaceful endeavors are not. We should be constructive instead of destructive. There is a lot of building to do to create a better world. We need to leave fossil fuels in the ground and switch to renewables ASAP if we don't want more extreme weather - more ferocious hurricanes, more horrendous wildfires, more thousand years floods that come now every year. Rich enclaves like Miami and Fisher Island will be underwater in a few years as sea levels rise and the arctic ice sheets melt. The $250,000 admission fee to own a house on Fisher Island will make America's richest zip code a worthless undersea Atlantis.

Plastics are polluting our oceans. Sea life is ingesting them and then we eat the fish. Industrialists and corporate agriculture are spraying crops with copious amounts of pesticides and herbicides. They are putting profits ahead of people. GMOs are creating frankenfoods that won't be killed by Monsanto's weedkillers which then kill everything around them getting on the plants that we then eat.

More than 40 million Americans live in poverty according to the US census. Philip Alston, a New York University law and human rights professor, led a UN study traveling across US. The group went to Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. Alabama, California, Georgia, West Virginia were among the states they visited. "Most Americans don't care about it. They have bought the line peddled by conservative groups that poor people deserve what they are getting," Alston, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, told CNN. The US, unlike the rest of the developed world, doesn't believe in human rights when it comes to lifting people out of poverty.

The report notes that the US has highest child mortality rate of 20 rich countries (OPEC comparison). It also has among the highest child poverty rates in the developed world, at 21%. It also considered obesity rates, income inequality and incarceration rates. The US is a leading example of all the above.

Off the Top of My Head

Should Europe Provide Its Own Military?

by John Lawrence

Trump has said that the US is a sucker to provide military protection for Europe at our own expense. He wants Europe to pay for its own defense. That could mean an European army as French President Macron has suggested. Or that could mean payments to the US to provide protection similar to the way the Pope pays the Swiss guards for protection. So what's wrong with this idea? The US could cut its defense budget by a third at least if Europe provided for its own protection. After all they are the main ones being protected by NATO. You wouldn't need NATO any more. All you would need is an alliance of some sort.

But the US military-industrial complex is not going along with this idea because, first of all, they would be losing a lot of money. Secondly, they would be losing a lot of money. Those huge defense contracts, which keep the US economy humming and provide jobs at all levels, would go away. However, if the money was spent instead for peaceful purposes like building infrastructure, there is no need for the jobs to go away. They would just take a different form. Lockheed Martin would just pivot from being a defense contractor to being a peace contractor. The peace-industrial complex would take the place of the military-industrial complex. Instead of all the folks in the military bearing arms, they would be bearing shovels. It might not be as sexy as firing off rounds, but it would provide for the defense of the country in another way. Instead of a third class infrastructure, the US would regain once again a first class infrastructure.

Off the Top of My Head

North and South Korea Making Peace Without US 'Help'

by John Lawrence, September 21, 2018

President Kim of North Korea and President Moon of South Korea have met together 3 times this year. Moon traveled to North Korea just recently for a meeting September 20. Evidently, President Moon is not hung up over a "complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula" like Washington is. The two Korean Presidents realize that they don't need Washington's OK before they go ahead and normalize relations between the two Koreas. Nevertheless, Kim has asserted that complete denuclearization is the goal. They are going about it in the right way with mutual respect shown by both sides. Washington wants Kim to kowtow before they will agree to anything. That's not the right way to make peace.

If Kim and Moon can work out an amiable relationship and normalize relations between the two Koreas, then the US is the odd man out. South Korea may well at some time tell the US to pack their bags and go home. They're not needed any more. It remains to be seen what the US would do at that point. Would they insist on staying despite South Korea's telling them to get out? Would they impose sanctions on South Korea for "dealing with the enemy"?

The Guardian reported:

The third meeting comes with talks between the US and North Korea over Pyongyang’s nuclear programme having made little progress since a summit between Donald Trump and Kim in June. Trump cancelled a trip by his top diplomat last month. While North Korea has repeatedly agreed to working towards the “complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula”, experts warn the language is vague and fails to address key US demands that the North give up its nuclear weapon unilaterally and allow weapons inspectors into the country.

Despite the difficulties, Chung said Kim’s “trust in Trump remains unchanged”, and that he had not spoken negatively about Trump to anyone, even his closest advisers. Kim also complained the international community had not appreciated steps already taken by North Korea to end nuclear and missile tests, according to Chung, and revealed he had shut a missile launch facility.

However, experts have warned the North could reopen its only known nuclear tests site at Punggye-ri, which it said it closed in May.

Chung also said Kim hoped to end hostilities between North Korea and the US by the end of Trump’s first term, which ends in January 2021. North Korea has consistently pushed for a formal end to the 1950-53 Korean war, which ended in an armistice instead of a peace treaty.

South Korea’s diplomatic overtures have also highlighted a growing rift between Seoul and Washington, with US officials frustrated by the pace of nuclear negotiations and South Korean authorities focused on improving ties with their unpredictable neighbour.

North Korean state media echoed many of the same statements conveyed by officials in Seoul, with language that emphasised denuclearisation as a shared responsibility, not one for Pyongyang alone.

The North’s official Korean Central News Agency said: “Noting that it is our fixed stand and his will to completely remove the danger of armed conflict and horror of war from the Korean Peninsula and turn it into the cradle of peace without nuclear weapons and free from nuclear threat, he said that the North and the South should further their efforts to realise the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.”

So North and South Korea are making peace while the US sits on the sidelines like an angry bully who will not accept peace between North and South Korea unless they do it on the US' terms. It's the US way or the highway. The final result will probably be a peaceful, reunited Korea, but one which is not aligned with US interests. Will they be the first nation in the world to stand up to the US and tell it to remove its military bases and personnel from a united Korea or will a united Korea remain at war with the US? Or will Trump try to take credit for creating peace in the Koreas? Time will tell.

Off the Top of My Head

The Militarization of Space

by John Lawrence, August 14, 2018

The Trump administration has a brave new idea: the militarization of space. Along side of that idea is the enemification of Russia. I just made that word up. It means making Russia the enemy. What happened to the International Space Station where Russians and Americans worked side by side in peaceful cooperation to further human knowledge? Well, the Trumpsters are having none of that.  As VP Pence said, we don't just want to have a presence in space, we want to dominate space. I guess NASA would be "just a presence in space."

Well, if Trump is going to modernize the branches of the military, may I suggest that in addition to the Space Force and the Air Force, he should also change the archaic names for the other military branches. The Army should become the Land Force. The Navy should become the Sea Force, and the Coast Guard should become the Shore Force. Then Trump and Pence would have all their ducks in a row. Maybe we should also have a Border Force which would serve to militarize the border. The Border Force would have a budget comparable to the other branches of the military and would make sure that no one came across the border illegally.

Peaceful cooperation with other countries is so twentieth century. In the 21st century America seeks to dominate the world and space. Domination becomes the guiding principle. As Nixon would say, "the lift of a driving dream." The last guy who had that driving dream was Adolf Hitler. It didn't work out so well for him, but maybe the US can pull it off. With the world's largest economy and the world's reserve currency, the US is almost at the point of achieving total domination. It can punish other nations militarily and it can punish other nations economically. After all, it says in the Bible that man should dominate nature not cooperate with it. Just as the German philosopher, Nietzsche said, the higher order beings should dominate the lower order beings with the family being the smallest unit of domination. Just as in the military, the higher officers have rank over and dominate the lower officers. At the bottom are the plebians and grunts. So it works also in civilian life. The rich dominate the poor and run the political and financial institutions. The man dominates the woman and the woman dominates the children. That's what a perfect society would look like. Total militarization and dominance. Everyone would know his or her place. What place does love have in this society? A smidgen maybe.

So what the US has achieved is Pax Americana, a peaceful world predicated on the use of force to keep state and individual actors in their respective places. The only problem is that this vision of society and international relations is doomed to failure. There are enough people in the world that won't accept this state of affairs. There will be blowback and pushback. Some people have a vision of peaceful cooperation among the peoples of the earth. Some even want to protect the environment so the earth doesn't burn up and flood out in a final Gotterdammerung.

 

Off the Top of My Head

"I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be Russia"

by John Lawrence, July 19, 2018

Oh, the English language and the tangled webs we weave. If there's no reason it wouldn't be Russia, there's no reason it would be either. If there's no reason why it wouldn't be Russia, is there a reason it would be Russia? Trump did not state that so basically what Trump said is it could have been anybody, Russia included. Mangled language will get you off the hook every time. Russia must be smiling slightly because their knowledge of English is somewhat better than the American media's or the American politicians who seem to be assuaged by Trump's non-statement. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a 400 pound guy sitting on a bed somewhere.

So nobody cares, least of all the American media and American politicians, that Trump had a good and friendly meeting with Vladimir Putin. Friendship between the two world leaders who, between them, have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 100 times over seems not to matter to them. All that matters is what they keep obsessing on - they meddled in our election They did to us what we've been doing to the rest of the world for decades. Oh, but we have a right to do it and they don't. What good is it to be the world's only superpower if they can get away with stuff that only we are allowed to do. Like Nixon said or to paraphrase, when the US does it, it is not a crime.

Trump said that Russia will help with North Korea. Now that's really news. The American media ignored it. They just want Putin to get down on his knees and grovel with Trump standing over him saying, "You're fired, you lowly sonufabitch." Trump on the other hand treats Putin with respect, the same way he treated Kim Jong Un. Instead of demanding compliance with US wishes, Trump seems to be willing to meet foreign leaders half way. This is the only way any peace process can get started - mutual respect. But American politicians can't stand the thought of any American President treating other world leaders with respect. Of course, Trump hasn't exactly treated our NATO allies with a lot of respect. But they're not going to turn on us any minute. We're safe for now.

I think Trump's willingness to engage foreign leaders, whom the US defense establishment has taken pains to characterize as our enemies, is perhaps the best thing, perhaps the only good thing, he has done with his Presidency. Creating peace in the world is a noble aspiration, but will never be cheered on by the US political-military establishment which will lose funding if there are more friendly and peaceful relations among nations.

'Peace Is Bad for Business': War Profiteer Stocks Plummet After Diplomatic Progress With North Korea

Published on Tuesday, June 12, 2018 by Common Dreams

Last year, investors were drooling over the prospect of all-out war with North Korea, but Tuesday's summit has them worried

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

23 Comments

As financial analyst Brad McMillan noted in an interview with USA Today, falling defense stocks represent investors' fears that the chances for a hot war between the U.S. and North Korea could be slipping away. (Photo: U.S. Air Force/Madelyn Brown)

American defense contractors were practically drooling over the prospect of all-out war with North Korea as President Donald Trump was recklessly flinging "fire and fury" last year, but Tuesday's summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un appears to have dampened war profiteers' dreams of yet another catastrophic U.S.-led military conflict—at least for now.

"If weapons are used they need to be replaced. That makes war a growth story for these stocks. What the agreement does, at least for a while, is take military conflict off the table."
—Brad McMillan, financial analyst

 

Demonstrating that even the slightest whiff of peace is enough to scare investors in America's most profitable military contractors, USA Today reported on Tuesday that shares of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics all "took a dive" as Trump and Kim signed a vague, non-binding agreement that is merely the first step toward a lasting diplomatic solution.

"Peace is bad for business," noted writer Ajit Singh in response to the new report.

According to USA Today:

Shares of Raytheon, which makes Patriot and Tomahawk missiles, fell 2.6 percent. Lockheed Martin, which supplies the Pentagon with air and missile defense systems as well as the F-35 Stealth fighter jet, tumbled one percent. And Northrop Grumman, which has increased its focus on cyber warfare and missile defense systems more recently, declined 1.3 percent. Boeing, which makes Apache helicopters and aerial refueling aircraft, dipped 0.2 percent. General Dynamics, a Navy shipbuilder, fell one percent.

By contrast, the Dow Jones industrial average edged up 20 points.

As financial analyst Brad McMillan noted in an interview with USA Today, falling defense stocks represent investors' fears that the chance for a hot war between the U.S. and North Korea—which he describes as "one of the big potential growth stories recently"—could be slipping away.

"If weapons are used they need to be replaced. That makes war a growth story for these stocks," McMillan added. "What the agreement [between Trump and Kim] does, at least for a while, is take military conflict off the table."

Let’s take a moment to think about the real victims of the North Korea peace talks...[checks notes] defense stocks pic.twitter.com/61OB9rf9a7

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) June 12, 2018

But before you start feeling bad for America's war profiteers—and before you give Trump credit for dragging their stocks down—just remember that Democrats and Republicans in Congress just granted the U.S. president's wish for a $717 billion Pentagon budget, much of which goes straight into the pockets of companies like Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Off the Top of My Head

Trump Makes History With Korea

by John Lawrence, June 12, 2018

I'm not a big Trump fan, but I give him credit for breaking the ice with North Korea. The US penchant for making pariahs out of world leaders and taking a Holier Than Thou attitude towards supposedly "rogue regimes" is over. Thank God for that. It's unconscionable that a country with nukes is 30 some miles away from Seoul, a city with 28 million people. Some pundit has said that, if the North dropped a nuke on Seoul, we might lose 100,000 people. Really? It would be more like 28 million people. It's like having a festering wound that nobody (except Trump) was willing to do anything about.

Trump has broken through all the niceties of diplomacy and shown up the pathetic lack of success by former Presidents due to their sclerotic approach to world affairs. It should be pointed out that the US bureaucratic establishment didn't want Trump to do this. It was all about him. In this case he did the right thing in blowing up the outdated approach to world affairs championed by the US bureaucratic establishment. This is not really about all the details of sanctions versus nukes. It's about accepting an isolated world regime into the community of recognized countries. Pariah, no more, Kim will make further efforts towards bringing peace to the Korean peninsula, and this even has overtones for the whole world.

Peace, diplomacy, talk, sitting down for a meal together - these are all good things. We need to talk to our supposed enemies. We need to think and put our minds towards making friends out of our enemies. The details can be worked out later. This was Trump's genius. Instead of demanding a bunch of details first, make peace first and then work out the details. So this was an historic breakthrough, and we need to give Trump credit where credit is due.

So when will there be a Trump Tower in Pyongyang? Trump has broken through the bullshit. That's what his supporters elected him to do. He said that, if he can save millions of lives by sitting down with Kim, he's willing to do it, even though all kinds of people are terribly, terribly vicariously offended that the leader of the Free World should lower himself to sit down with a persona non grata, an outcast, an undesirable. Well, I think Trump has made an historic breakthrough here. For all his bluster, for all his head-in-the-sand approach to climate change, for all his giving tax breaks to the rich, this one thing that he's done pulls his reputation out of the mud in my mind at least. Trump has broken through the bullshit barrier imposed by bureaucrats whose greatest fear is that there should be peace and friendship in the world among all peoples.

Off the Top of My Head

America's Fascination With Gadgets Instead of Systems

by John Lawrence, June 8, 2018

A gadget is something that can be patented, manufactured and sold in individual units. A system is something that applies to a larger group or society as a whole. Naturally, everyone wants their own personal gadget. A smart phone is a good example. A good example of a system is the Constitution which applies to everyone within a nation's boundaries. The personal computer was such a breakthrough because it could be manufactured, packaged and sold to individual consumers the way a radio or a TV could. Bill Gates fought against the impulses of the first computer community to share software. No, he said we want to own the software and sell it to you as a product. Thus, the beginnings of Microsoft and Gates' vast fortune.

The Free Software Foundation asserts:

To use free software is to make a political and ethical choice asserting the right to learn, and share what we learn with others. Free software has become the foundation of a learning society where we share our knowledge in a way that others can build upon and enjoy.

Currently, many people use proprietary software that denies users these freedoms and benefits. If we make a copy and give it to a friend, if we try to figure out how the program works, if we put a copy on more than one of our own computers in our own home, we could be caught and fined or put in jail. That’s what’s in the fine print of the license agreement you accept when using proprietary software.

The corporations behind proprietary software will often spy on your activities and restrict you from sharing with others. And because our computers control much of our personal information and daily activities, proprietary software represents an unacceptable danger to a free society.

This focus on individual products and intellectual property takes the focus off any product which cannot be bought and sold. Thus nobody is thinking much about how to bring peace to the planet. To do that is to think about a systematic approach for which there is probably no financial reward because it can't be bought or sold. What if someone came up with a better Constitution than the one the US currently has? Would he or she be paid for this project? No, obviously not. Instead he or she would be reviled for even thinking there could be a better way to run society than the current way.

However, within the current system where warfare is taken for granted as a way of life, there are plenty of profit opportunities for developing weaponized gadgets that can then be sold to the Pentagon. There is a lot of money in a new weapon of war. Take the drone for example which is a relatively new gadget for which there is a lot of military potential.

Sharing is frowned upon in a society which promotes individual wealth and ownership. If something can't be commodified, bought and sold, it has no value in most peoples' eyes. That's why a systematic approach to peace which would involve cooperation, sharing and caring for others will never get anywhere in a competitive society where war or preparation for war is a way of life. There is no preparation for peace because peace is a value which has no individualized economic value. It can't be commodified, bought or sold. An airplane or a weapons system can.

Warning Against 'Return to Rhetoric of Nuclear Annihilation,' Koreans and Anti-War Voices Demand Trump Resume Peace Talks

Published on Friday, May 25, 2018 by Common Dreams

"You can't imagine rooting for peace for so long and then see it being taken away."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer

 

1 Comments

"The people of both North and South Korea, and especially women, have worked too long and have come too close to reaching the first steps towards the signing of a Peace treaty to see the talks collapse," Christine Ahn, Korea expert and founder of Women Cross DMZ, said in a statement." (Photo: OhMyNews)

Refusing to let a chance to achieve lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula slip away and warning against "return to a rhetoric of nuclear annihilation," a group of peace activists, foreign policy experts, and ordinary Koreans gathered outside the U.S. Embassy in Seoul on Friday to call on President Donald Trump to reverse his cancellation of the June summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and immediately return to the negotiating table.

"I do worry that Mr. Trump has made things more dangerous for us in Korea and I just hope that no-one pushes the button."
—Anonymous North Korean woman

 

"The people of both North and South Korea, and especially women, have worked too long and have come too close to reaching the first steps towards the signing of a Peace treaty to see the talks collapse," Christine Ahn, Korea expert and founder of Women Cross DMZ, said in a statement on Thursday. "We know that a diplomacy can be difficult. However, peace in the Korean Peninsula cannot have any more setbacks. It's been too long. It has been overdue more than 70 years."

Trump's announcement that the scheduled summit will not take place was met with dismay by both North and South Koreans.

"You can't imagine rooting for peace for so long and then see it being taken away," a woman who fled North Korea in 2006 said in an interview with the BBC on Friday.

Another North Korean, whose name was not revealed to protect her identity, told the BBC "we can't give up on the idea of peace in Korea yet."

"I do worry that Mr. Trump has made things more dangerous for us in Korea and I just hope that no-one pushes the button," she added.

Responding to Trump's abrupt decision cancel to the planned meeting with Kim on Thursday—which many experts blamed on the White House national security adviser and top warmonger John Bolton—North Korean officials signaled once again a willingness to negotiate with the U.S. and said their "commitment to doing our best for the sake of peace and stability for the world and the Korean Peninsula remains unchanged."

In an appearance on Democracy Now! on Friday, Ahn of Women Cross DMZ said "80 million hearts are broken across the Korean Peninsula" after Trump scrapped the planned summit. As Ahn spoke, Koreans gathered for a candlelight vigil to mourn the faltering peace talks and urge both the U.S. and North Korea to resume diplomatic discussions.

At candlelight vigil in Seoul, #koreans express anger at @realDonaldTrump for cancelling summit and destroying momentum for peace @WomenCrossDMZ @NobelWomen #WomenPeaceKorea pic.twitter.com/bbaiN7QxNM

— Medea Benjamin (@medeabenjamin) May 25, 2018

"I say to President Trump and Chairman Kim: be courageous and sit down and work for peace and reunification for Korean families and the Korean peninsula," said peace activist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Maguire in a statement on Thursday. "Every day you hesitate, someone dies and will not get a chance to be reunited and to see their families."

Watch the peace rally that took place outside the U.S. Embassy in South Korea on Friday:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License