Thursday, April 30, 2015

ordinary peace at odds in extraordinary times.

When conditions for the majority of the average citizens of a supposedly orderly society become painfully unjust, the paradigm of what is ordinarily acceptable public behavior shifts such that it calls into question the application of concepts of order, and highlights the refractory nature of activism as it is caught between between perspectives of conduct, and the definition of what is "ordinary" in any case; and here, in other words, we find ourselves perplexed by civility v civil disobedience and what must be considered a rightful and ordinary response to extraordinary conditions as opposed to ordinary situations.
     It also becomes a special quandary for individuals whose "profession" ordinarily sets them apart from the citizenry. Police officers, for example, sometimes find themselves in this predicament, while soldiers are fairly programmed to shed the passivity of the civilian altogether. In the case of this "peace officer", what shall he or she do if because of personal preference or ethical leanings they sympathize with protestors they must control at all cost? They are employed to scrutinize in the least in this case and must refrain from natural involvement and even perhaps humane impulses for the sake of augmenting their own aggressive means of persuasion or ultimately the use of lethal force on behalf of property and the happy routine of business and employed or otherwise by-standing others.  It cannot be a happy resolve in which the officer resides. As much as they are required to keep their emotions in check they still must answer to their own sense humanity at the end of each work day. 
     A soldier on the other hand likely finds him- or herself isolated for days, months, years of extraordinary circumstances such that to return to civilian life after combat for too many is lengthy and painful yet always surreal for them. Regardless the duration or frequency, for both the soldier and the officer, this is a morally shattering event that calls into question finally whether humans can indeed call themselves social beings, but rather, the species appears to be rife with lone, parasitic, rogue entities. Such are the greater organizations called corporations that claim to be "persons". The question for the officers and soldiers now becomes: which "persons" do they purport to represent versus who do they really protect. Every one of these hired "protecters" must eventually ask themselves this question. An officer maces a peaceful protester, a soldier kills a civilian... and yet too many are lulled into believing that such is the cost of democracy, that "free enterprise" benefits a society, that to obstruct traffic is only definable as unruly and unlawful, when by comparison to the rampant aggregation of wealth and power is more truly uncivil and even anti-American given our false promises amongst the community of nations.
     Whose order and routine must not be interfered with? Or rather how do we determine a provisional protocol for such upending events as popular protest in the streets whether in commercial or residential zones?
     The above paragraphs are not to suggest that officers of the law are wrongfully motivated to protect property. Nor should they be unfairly blamed for the weighty influence of wealth that has been strangling the economy.  Being employed by the state they naturally inherit the first blows of a growingly unhappy public domain.
     In recent months, this eventuality sadly has revealed that racism continues to contaminate the state of our union. We are not unified, and worse, those of color are especially violated and lately murdered for the sake of an order prescribed by non other than predominately white business leaders. I find this incomprehensible, inexcusable, and most of all immoral and criminal no matter how we define ordinary or the conduct of the police force versus the citizens. Perhaps this is less about defining the parameters of professional protocol and more about the spectrum human nature. Are we still infused with an animal lust to control our surroundings, or are we rationally motivated to maintain an overall prosperity. When poverty becomes ordinary, it must be recognized that something fundamental must be shifted if not discontinued.

Monday, April 13, 2015

"So what if you get an education, you will still wind up working for the [man]"
http://m.hrw.org/news/2015/04/13/israel-settlement-agriculture-harms-palestinian-children-0

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Critical responsibility for whom

What, so my questions regarding 9/11 cause doubt about my judgement, but a whistleblower's documentation regarding the CDC's ignoring data doesn't call into question their veracity. There's where responsibility is really an issue for me: individual's who don't use their power wisely continue to have sway! while those who have nothing but integrity to gain get smeared via the mainstream media. sad state of affairs. Vaccination is based on a belief system.
So here's my belief then: the AMA and CDC are to the pharmaceutical industry as the MSM and government are to all of Corporate stakeholders' interests.

Our contemporary version of alchemy

I'm not ashamed to take a precautionary stance here on a topic so close to my personal and family health much less the preservation of our species. I continue to believe in diversity, and a sensitivity to natural bodily and ecological cycles.
We technologized, civilized people are so bought into applications as prevention: drugs, supplements, chemicals, preservatives, anti-biotics, anti-histamines, pesticides, herbicides, genetically modified organisms, vaccinations, ie, inserting little fixes to bodies and things, when we should be trying to preserve the natural uncontaminated state of the sources (the environment) for sustenance and health. I blame our contemporary version of alchemy and the so-called "captured" scientific institutional authorities for our modern environmental and health issues.  There just isn't enough precaution in any of our institutions frankly. We're too impatient. We want prosperous results and solutions now. And so we attempt to hasten & aggregate everything (like crop yields) and everyone around us (such as herd immunity), get us all synched and on the same page ... when really we will never match the evolutionary pace of microorganisms. Our internal biomes are too bound up with each other. As for populations of the species only by great diversity will humankind survive....
just a few thoughts to ponder when confronted with the possibility that vaccines might actually taint our overall potential for maintaining health especially when there is such a cocktail of chemicals involved. There is no such thing as an isolated event in the human body. Inducing an antigen is not the only result of vaccination. So, yes, more research is absolutely necessary! And, as an aside, my shares are not necessarily endorsements...
peace and health to you and your children!

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Embedded in our newsfeed is a call for action on behalf of the commonality of all species, that life itself is a dignified, and privileged condition

Humor me for a moment as I attempt, if we were so inclined to debate the meaning of the "common good ", to construct a pathway to this ethical chimera by comparing two propositions that lie dormant in all of the following issues (which come up in the FB newsfeeds): urban development; front yard gardening; agricultural runoff; genetically modifying organisms to withstand the use of herbicides; the detrimental effects of antimicrobials, pesticides and herbicides in the food chain, climate change, scientific consensus, the corporate/government "revolving door", campaign finance and the most recent Citizens United v the FEC US Supreme Court ruling.

I derive the following conundrum:
a) sacrificing the environment, and other species for the sake of sustaining a given group of human beings 
versus 
b) sacrificing targeted employment and likely the livelihood of a great number of professionals and laborers with vested interest in the corporations that poison the environment, with an overwhelming resolve of saving the environment upon which all life on earth depends.

Some questions then come to mind: can sacrifice at any level be justified without also losing our sense of humanity? Or are other species less entitled to dignity?  What of that commonality?  In other words, how can there be any commonality amongst a greatly diverse domain of individual human communities --- unless we include all other forms of life?!

Further, I wonder whether Is it not possible that an as yet undetermined number of humans on one day of critical mass might recognize that this very fundamental choice is much more than just the basis for defining the "common good" and thereby, independently --- without necessary conjunction via the internet --- mobilize to "save" themselves by saving earth from the poisoning of air, soil and water?!?! This is a terrifying prospect for the so-called developed nations, and it is likely already on the minds of industrial leaders and government officials... and why they will continue to seek every means of control and surveillance!