Lobster and Lamb

They run to the podium to give great speeches
about the evils of overspending amid poverty's reaches.
One after another, they pose for the folks back home.
And then they dine on lobster and lamb

They pontificate and they spew,
while their colleagues eat and chew,
Filmed for campaign commercials they plan to fund,
from moneys taken from schools they plan to defund and throttle.
And they pass the bottles of fine 300$ a bottle,
no cheap soda for them, dining on lobster and lamb

Meanwhile, the lambs await the slaughter,
The children wait for food.
And poor mothers can no longer feed their brood.
At the risk of sounding somewhat rude;
What the hell are these people doing?
Turning the heat up on all of us,
and the people to slaughter, lobster and lamb

Christopehr H. Holte

Move On Fast Track petition

The way we are constituted our Trade Representation is creating an opportunity to corrupt world law for oligarchic rule by creating special courts that can run roughshod over democratic institutions. This is undemocratic in addition to being abusive to everyone but the CEOs and the wealthiest families in the world who support these kinds of laws. We need Trade Representatives who are actually representative of the people and not stooges for mighty corporations. Since I wrote this article in 2013, I've been waiting for a new version of the draft treaty. I still don't have that but I do have what they say will be the new version and the issues really haven't changed as of 3/16/2015. For current status read [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/03/tpp-and-its-assault-on-sovereignty-and.html]

Any of you who feel as strongly as I do, not only about particular trade bills but the way we constitute our various government organelles, should sign the Move On petition to defeat Presidential Fast Track Authority so that the TPP bill will actually have to be debated and so that people will see how the legal provisions of the bill are written for the benefit of the usual suspects in our giant oligarchic monopolistic international corporations, who have representation in our Trade Negotiators while labor, consumers and ordinary citizens don't. The Petition states:

"The White House and the U.S. Trade Representative are urging Congress to abdicate some of its power over approval of trade agreements by renewing "fast track" authority. Fast track would allow the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership to leapfrog customary legislative protocol and be put to a rapid "up or down" vote without a public hearing, floor debate, or amendments. Forcing Congress to vote on an agreement this complex without adequate time for open hearings, review, and public scrutiny, sets a dangerous precedent. Congress, we urge you: just say NO to fast track!"

Petition Background

Moveon further notes in background:

"For three years, a group of some 600 multinational corporations and trade associations have been quietly negotiating a trade pact IN SECRET that could void American laws that protect workers, jobs, health, and the environment. During negotiations here last summer, news leaked of some of the provisions U.S. trade officials were prepared to approve, and a public outcry derailed the talks. Trade Representative Ron Kirk resigned. Now that Michael Froman has been confirmed as the new U.S. Trade Representative he is pushing to renew "fast track" authority so President Obama can sign the agreement first, and then force a quick vote in Congress without any public scrutiny, floor debate, or revisions."

And it is a secret to the citizens, but not to the massive companies like Exxon, Bayer, etc... who have representation among the Trade Negotiators while labor and citizens don't.

"Rep. Keith Ellison has called TPP "the largest corporate power grab you've never heard of." Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, (who happens to share my name!) is one of just four U.S. Senators who voted against Froman's confirmation this summer. She said of TPP, “I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative’s policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant.” Warren explained, “In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.”

Of course we could find out that TPP isn't so bad, or we could find out it is far worse, because it is secret:

"The only TPP language made public was leaked in 2012 and shared by Public Citizen. Since then trade officials have kept a tight lid on the negotiations, only recently allowing members of Congress to view (not copy) the text, which remains "classified." Among the most disturbing revelations in last year's leaked TPP language, that seems to be mirrored in the Atlantic version as well: Foreign companies would have "preferred status" – granting them greater rights within our borders than our own companies enjoy. U.S. companies would have more incentives to offshore jobs, and foreign companies would not be bound by the minimum wage and could sue the U.S. if our health, safety, or environmental regulations interfered with their profits. Jurisdiction over such suits would rest not in the hands of elected officials or judges, but with an international business tribunal. Their decisions, which would be binding upon all member nations, would supersede our own laws – including our Constitution."

Actually the constitution has a provision that says that treaties have equal power of law to the constitution, so Move On is right. This is an attack on our countries sovereignty, and that wouldn't be so bad if the alternative weren't the "Private, Separate Advantage" of the few over the general welfare and Public Good.

Anyway you can read more and sign the petition here:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/congress-dont-renew-fast?mailing_id=15335&source=s.icn.em.cr&r_by=187257

Current Status see:

http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/03/tpp-and-its-assault-on-sovereignty-and.html

Up in the Mountains

Up in the mountains, where you think it never rains.
Out in the desert, where dessication is the norm.
Down come the rains, and the rivers swell and roar.
A trickle in the mountains, flooding at the foot.
Surging to where streams join, roaring to the desert.
some only flood dry pans, reminding us when they were oceans,
But others roar on down canyons, galloping to the sea.
 
But Oh the green on those mountains,
after the rainfall passes.
Where life seemed dead and dying,
responding to Gods crying.
how the plants bloom and thrive,
exulting in new growth.
up in the desert mountains,
where you think it never rains.

9/15/2013, inspired by rains in Colorado and New Mexico
Christopher H. Holte

The Kings Best Highway

I have to write a review of this book, "The Kings Best Highway" because I'm constantly citing it, sometimes forgetting to give it credit because nearly every word and story in it is engraved in my memory and heart, and it opened my mind to some ideas for how to improve our Federal System by going "back to" the kind of Post Office that Benjamin Franklin and other Founders envisioned.

The Post Office enabled our country in so many ways. And I'm grateful to this book for explaining some of them with wonderful stories about how the Boston/New York Post started out as a link between the Dutch Governor of New York and the British Governor in Boston and grew from there from a messenger route of horseback callers, to eventually our modern post office.

Along the way it tells so many wonderful stories: It tells how Benjamin Franklin indeed was the mastermind of American independence by encouraging Post Masters to buy printing presses and print newspapers. How we built that free press with subsidies so good that people would write letters in the margins of newspapers and mail those because they were cheaper than letters. It tells the story of the "committees of correspondence" that provided an alternative to British tyranny through the Post Office after King George fired Franklin and replaced him with Tories. And it tells the story of the revolution, much of which occurred along the postal routes between Boston and New York. It also includes the work that Lincoln did to defeat the spirit of compromise that had the South using corrupt courts to extend slavery to, and force it on, the North and how he showed that it was a lie that the Constitution gave the government no right to regulate its extension. And how he did this riding the rails, which the post office helped create. The narrative covers so many good stories that I'm not really spoiling reading the book.

For the URL:

http://kingsbesthighway.com/

What Putin Actually said

Putin actually makes his case eloquently and much clearer than any of the Pundit interpretations. So I'm going to quote him with a few comments and suggest that people read the New York Times post by him rather than taking my opinion or anybody elses opinion about what he said and meant at face value.

Article is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?hp&_r=0. I think his opening remarks and everything he says is important to read in context and analyze in context. He starts out:

"MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies."

Both Russia and the US, like China, Britain, Brazil, Argentina, and other large centralized countries, tend to be Insular and think their country is the navel of the world. This leads to an exaggerated sense of our importance, and also to us not really understanding each other. Americans mostly travel either for business or to stations in bases all over the world. We tend to congregate where there are McDonalds and Starbucks. We haven't been interacting with the Russians much lately. Part of that is that both our countries have a complex history together:

"Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again."

Putin is reminding us we didn't establish the UN unilaterally, but we did it when we were cooperating with the Russians in fighting the Nazis during World War II. Our right wing would have segued directly from fighting the Nazis to fighting the Russians. General like Patton openly confessed they believed we were fighting the wrong enemy. Some soldiers were deliberately sent to fight in the Far East because their loyalty to the United States vis a vis the Germans was suspect. Other Americans during the WWII were blindly loyal to Communism and Russia. This is not something to be proud of.

"The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades."

We've had less than consensus. We've had a series of wars since the UN was founded. Most of them have caused incalculable harm to those involved. In the end the UN has rarely held up to it's original promise. Nevertheless:

"No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization. "

We have an opportunity to change the game. The "Great Game" of rival empires has threatened the world peace and human survival again and again. Deconstructions of the Cuban missile crisis show that had the USA attacked Cuba for instance, it would have started World War III with the destruction of a naval fleet as a result of a tactical strike by on the ground Russian tactical nukes. Kennedies own generals were agitating for a unilateral attacks on Cuba, but Kennedy overruled them, despite them (or maybe because he listened to them) making fun of him behind his back. And the crisis was not only averted, but further crisis were avoided for a time. Unlike with the Cuban missile crisis we are dealing with an issue over oil and local strategic interests that doesn't need the "Great Game" overlay, but we risk losing all our remaining support for any action at all:

"The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance."

The only people who stand to gain from this are the military-contractors (war-profiteers) and Al Qaeda, which happens to dominate the Syrian Rebel movement. There are so many risks in attacking Syria unilaterally that Putin is right about them.

"Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world."

And as much as we want a humanitarian response, a humanitarian response won't put more weapons in the hands of either rebels or the Government, but will deal with the hundreds of thousands of refugees and the intense pain and suffering. However our war industries are worried about Profit so Putin tries to remind us that we are supporting Al Qaeda Salafists:

"Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all."

And Putin disavows that he's supporting the Syrian government reflexively:

"From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression."

And unfortunately Putin is right here too. At the very least the issue deserves investigation:

"No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored."

And I don't like what he says next, but unfortunately he's right here too:

"It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.” "

And increasingly the pattern is the USA making up pretexts for invasions, from frauds about students endangered in Granada to the WMD propaganda around the Iraq invastion. And while I'd like to believe that our "humanitarian interventions" have helped the people we've stepped on with our boots and bombs, it's also just not so:

"But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes. "

Our military is like a big sledgehammer being used to swat flies with predictable results:

" No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect."

There has to be a better way, but it requires a bit of cooperation from our "frenemies" and maybe a way to make our friends less enemy and more friend, because:

"The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded. "

Countries rightly conclude that the only way to prevent an invasion is to have a "Force Du Frappe" that can assure MADD everywhere, which is insanity everywhere:

"We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement."

So Putin's speech is an opportunity to get some sanity back into our own country. We don't need a cowboy riding a bomb down to blow up anybody. We don't need cowboy diplomacy. We need:

"A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action. "

I don't feel insulted by Putin. I feel we are finally getting ourselves dug out of a mess Bush and Reaagan created with their triumphalist politics. Of course we must "trust but verify" but that means agreeing on concrete actions and boundaries to behavior (guidelines):

"I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations."

I welcome Putin's response:

"If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues."

And I don't need to comment on his conclusion:

"My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal. "

Except "here here!"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?hp&_r=0

Fukushima in the mourning

Nothing like corium lava in the morning;
Eating through the floor day by day.
Nothing like stinking smoking slag on the dance floor.
Pouring down in molten layers into the ground
Black smoke rising and coating all around
with contaminated poisons in the air and the ground.

I cry radioactive tears
and my bones ache with potassium salts,
While cesium distractions poison my mind
And radioactive iodine tumors close my throat
While like the mad Hatter I loose my mind
Thinking that these fools have stolen my years.

Chistopher H. Holte first written October 5, 2012

The Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC) versus Democracy

Bad Constitution versus Unconstitutional

The other day I wrote a blog entry based on Naomi Wolfe's article. She made the case that the Domestic Security Alliance Council had assaulted Occupy from before they were created. But what is this organization, what does it do, and why would it be involved with trying to crush protest or democratic actions aimed at reigning in wall street's corruption and excesses?

Who is the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC)?

The answer to that question becomes obvious from looking at it's constitution (charter), purpose, membership and mission. Here is it's homepage statement of purpose:

The Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC), a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the private sector, enhances communications and promotes the timely and bidirectional effective exchange of information keeping the nation's critical infrastructure safe, secure and resilient. DSAC advances elements of the FBI and DHS missions' in preventing, deterring, and investigating criminal and terrorism acts, particularly those effecting interstate commerce, while advancing the ability of the U.S. private sector to protect its employees, assets and proprietary information.

http://www.dsac.gov/Pages/index.aspx taken September 9 2013

Analyzing this mission statement one sees that there are a number of potential built in conflicts of interest here. For one thing is the DSAC serving the interests of the country as a whole, or it's member companies and their industries? From the Occupy experience, it seems more likely the later than the former. Once again the premise (bait) is that such an organization is created to protect against "terrorism" but the switch is that it is also there to protect the prerogatives of the private sector.

But it gets curiouser and curiouser as one enquires:

The DSAC Leadership Board is formed by approximately 25 representatives from various organizations. The DSAC Leadership Board (DLB) represents a diverse cross-section of private sector organizations based on industry, geographic region, and other factors. The individual members of the DLB will serve as the subject matter experts for their respective industries.

Again, this seems innocuous. We need representative bodies for all the stakeholders in our country. But, wait, that is the problem. Where is labor? Where are teachers, miners, employees of these various industries? Look at the following list:

Company Name	Company Name
3M	Archer Daniels Midland
American Express	Bank of America
Barclays	Boeing
Bristol-Myers Squibb	Bridgestone Firestone
CIGNA	Citigroup
Coca-Cola	ConocoPhillips
Ernst & Young	FedEx Corp
Dupont	General Electric
Kellogg's	KMPG International
JetBlue	Mastercard
Medco Health Solutions	Merck & Company
NextEra Energy	RBS/Citizens
USAA	Walmart
Walt Disney Company	Time Warner
United Airlines	Src:http://www.dsac.gov/Pages/dlb.aspx taken 9/9/2013

Badly Constituted

No teachers, no activists, no members from organizations like Occupy. On the contrary, Occupy is the natural enemy of a list like this. No members from Unions. Again, this is a list of people who have a personal stake in attacking labor. Bad constitution leads to organizations without democratic features. The democratic feature here being the republican one of membership from all the stakeholders affected by the organizations decisions.

All these are industries, with a "private, separate" agenda seeking their own advantage over other stakeholders. In a similar manner to our trade negotiations we are trusting lawyers who work almost entirely for private companies to also represent their customers, employees, retirees, etc... There is not even an expectation of trust that they will actually in fact represent any of these people. That is where these boards go wrong. They are purely executive organizations run for the "private, separate advantage of their board members. If those board members were to represent the greater good, their stockholders would revolt and their CEO's would fire them.

So without even getting into the personalities and histories of the members of this organization I already know it is badly constituted, is a tyrannical organization (Locke's definition of Tyranny as power for "private, separate advantage"), and is going to engage in mischief. It's badly constituted, and because of that is a tyrannical organization that if it happens to act any different is acting out of it's chartered structure.

I have a lot more to say and had written it all out in draft form when I misplaced the draft. But the core point is simple and I don't need all that to make it. Why would greedy or powerful folks want to defend the letter of a charter over it's intent? Because that is how tyranny works. One can be legally "constitutional" and have a badly constituted organization. And a badly constituted organization is unconstitutional by design. But one will never get a corrupt lawyer or Judge to affirm that without changing the judges and their education on the subject. It has to be changed by changing the constitution of the organization. A government that is constituted as a Republic, but whose organelles are badly constituted is a badly constituted government. The tyranny is enabled by the charter.

Thus in our country efforts to make our government less tyrannical have often been defeated by tyrannical courts taking advantage of bad constitution.