Mic 50 charlottesville

Jeffrey St. Clair Roaming Charges: General of Deception. Richard Moser Workers are Walking Out. Jacob G. Dean Baker Rich Jerks in Space. Ali Khan The Afghanization of Pakistan.

John Stanton Adventures in American Education. Sister Karen M. Struggling to hold on to their homes, or losing them. Struggling to make their rent payment, or stretch their food budget.

Struggling to buy medicine or pay medical bills. Struggling to pay off student loans five, ten, fifteen years after they've graduated from college. Struggling to care for aging parents. Yet the tax money from those struggling people, and from those who would like to see government help them in their struggles, is being squandered on extravagant dreams of empire. Our "defense" budget is indefensible. Polls show that our budget doesn't reflect people's real priorities, and I'm certain it doesn't reflect the priorities of the people of Charlottesville.

Bringing our government to the point where it reflects citizens' priorities rather than those of the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about is David Swanson's intent. He deserves our support. The GOP talks about shrinking government, but they support this kind of big government nonsense, just like you see with Bill Marshall.

They are flaming hypocrites. Its fair to say that the dollars that go into military spending means that those are dollars not going into other sectors of our economy.

If its a job we feel the government needs to do, especially on the long term, then government should be doing it. You don't shrink government by handing the job over to a private entity. In this case, its even worse with the DoD, because unlike infrastructure building, those who can do the jobs were already trained and paid for by the tax payer, and now you limit competition for those jobs.

Those jobs also cluster in certain areas, whereas infrastructure jobs spread out. Businesses really shouldn't be in the business of doing business for government. But with the rest of the population sucked dry of any gainful employment, who are they going to sell to? Isn't it funny that those who preach about the government being too big and the need to get government out of our lives create the very environment to make that happen?

I appreciate the tease, Dave, and must confess that my most ardent admirers are measured in the ones. That said, your referral to your own undocumented material is hardly any credible answer to the questions I posed, above. Ignoring the numbers you cite, I take from it that we should have a kind of, "Gee-whiz, look what we COULD have done with all that money!

As to the cost of defense and our escapades on foreign soil, no one has yet proffered any credible theory of the outcomes had we NOT done so. You have cited but not documented some substantial numbers, but the numbers themselves are not really the point.

More to the point are your assertions, such as this:. We might have to disempower gazillionaires before we can enact any sensible policies, including the one I'm about to propose, but it can itself be done without raising a dime in revenue.

This means that the President, who has broad, albeit unconstitutional, powers to move funding around from one program to another could do this himself. Or Congress could. The above passage suggests, literally, that you are in favor of raising taxes on gazillionaires, "for lots of reasons including. But I am sure you really don't like political corruption. What you mean is that taking money from the rich will get rid of corruption. And I suppose we should draw from this that concentrating the wealth somewhere else will somehow NOT contribute to corruption at its new location.

Or, maybe you mean that "spreading the wealth" among ordinary folks like me, and taking it away from people like Donald Trump, is what will cure corruption; at least as it might arise from having too much money in one place. Presumably, intellectual corruption would still be protected, because some people count on that to make a living, you know. But what the heck, Dave, let's get down to brass tacks, here. Exactly how much money is too much money?

Does that number work for you? You often write about what "we" could do, when it comes to national policy and priorities. So who is counted among the "we" who determine when my treasure should be procured for redistribution? Point being, that when your material is stripped clean of the the cited studies and numbers none of which themselves are documented all we have left is what we might do, what we could do, what can be done, and so on.

All figments of an imagination. And when you say, "we" I'm not at all sure who you are talking about; you, certainly - but who else?

And for all those things you believe could or can be done, you have offered nothing about HOW, exactly, to do so. On the contrary, I think there is plenty of historical evidence of what happens when we spend on things other than giant DoD contractors building drones. How about the national highway system? Yeah Ike built it for supposed military purposes but the money was spent right here in America on things all Americans can use and hiring lots of American workers.

One big difference between now and then though, is that Americans did expect to pay taxes to provide all these things. Swanson, in your first comment you appear to be confusing the city council with the school board. Two separate entities. Whatever oath the city council takes has no bearing on the school board. The school board has nothing to do with fixing potholes.

What I don't understand is why didn't you use an analogy of anti-semitism and Nazi Germany? Why not compare the school board member to a Nazi? You've compared him to a rapist and someone who supports slavery. What logical reason do you have to not compare him to a Nazi? Or Pol Pot? I believe Mr Swanson is basing some of his opinions on a study from the 90's that was revised in ?. It basically said 1 billion diverted from defense to other areas would produce better employment results. Of course diverting to education was the winner by far hummm and diverting the money to tax cuts was the worst scenerio.

One thing that stands out I believe in his opinion is that higher paying would be created by diverting to other areas. If memory serves me correctly higher paying jobs were created by putting money into defense because scientists and engineers are in higher demand. If I have time I will look for the study and post. There was also one done by CBO that negates this study. OT: When you say, "on the contrary," I am not sure what I have said that is contrary to the historical evidence.

Perhaps it is my statement that Dave's notions are figments of the imagination. And, I agree with you - they are perfect examples of economic drivers, both as to their construction and as to their enduring social and economic benefit. Military purposes, indeed. And I'm all about similar projects, right now. Two of them come to mind: The Natural Gas Act pending before congress would defray the cost of converting oil burning truck fleets to natural gas, a commodity which we have in abundance under our own soil.

Among the anticipated impacts of this legislation is increased employment, a reduction of imported oil, a reduction of the national debt, an environmental benefit and reduced transportation expense.

The other project, not yet expressed as a piece of legislation, is a national high speed rail system which I personally envision as something that would follow, where technically feasible, some of the Interstate routes. This would make construction faster and less costly. Passengers on this system would arrive at final destinations in the same or less time then flying, cross country trips excepted.

Millions would be employed, imports on energy reduced, travel would be safer, and the environmental impact would be less than alternative means of travel.

But all of this is a far cry from Dave's rhetoric about choosing between peace and war, taking money from "gazillionaires," and putting the brakes on corruption. We might reasonably argue that it will take a few gazillionaires to get these projects done.

He presents all the wide-eyed sense of wonder of a youngster who has just figured out that milk doesn't come from the store -it comes from a cow! It should be profoundly evident, without Dave's prescience to guide us, that money spent in one place can't be spent in another. The revelation that we COULD stop building drones and use the money for windmills or national parks, instead, hardly qualifies as the work of a giant intellect.

His excitement and conviction might be pardonable if they were offered as an academic study of the economic and social consequences of the national agenda. But instead, they take the form of oblique reference to presumed authoritative sources, which are exploited to prop up his own political and moral agenda which don't stand the test of intellectual scrutiny themselves.

He writes: "They war and peace don't mix any better than freedom and slavery. Oh yes, I CAN favor peace and go to war - as indeed, many millions have done, so as to secure the peace. You may disagree with this idea, but it is, at least, morally and intellectually defensible.

It certainly stands on more stable ground than saying I can't mix them because Dave says so. Again, I ask, who is WE? Who is going to "disempower" the rich? And HOW? This has all the appeal of the radical Muslim ideas about destroying our society -and we all know the consequences of that, don't we? Funny thing - Dave has no numbers, no historical references on how to go about it. At the close of the same link, he concludes: "A major effort would be needed to convert military factories and workers to green energy and other industries.

Net job gains reflect a lot of job losses and redirected careers. But that conversion is part of this process and will involve job creation itself. If additional funding is needed, then, you know what, the hell with it, go ahead and tax a few multi-billionaires. It won't hurt them. By his own logic, none of this makes any sense. If you disempower the multi-billionaires take their money how, then, will you tax them?

And that's why I challenge all readers of this little exchange to look closely at what Dave actually tells us. My opinion is that he contributes heavily to discussion, but tells us little that we don't already know. And he offers nothing in the way of a substantive, practical alternative. To jeeze: I really don't care what study Dave is talking about.

I will stipulate that they all say exactly what he reports, even if they don't. But the clear evidence that money might be better spent elsewhere should come as no surprise to anyone, has produced no practical road map for solutions and hardly is a basis for disempowering people. My opinion is that Dave's use of the data is intellectually corrupt.

I or anyone can certainly cite whatever evidence I want to support a view that a situation should be different than it is. This country has a problem with obesity, and I have the data to prove it! And here, all this time we could have been spending money on promoting exercise and healthy diet - oh, woe is me!

What do we do about it? Well, first of all, "we" have to disempower people with too much money. Might it be possible that a school board member, being asked about something that is essentially a political question, he chose the most reasonable answer: the school system's job isn't to promote any particular political stance?

In fact, it iss not clear what the inclusion of Mr. Michie's statement adds to the article. To protest war is generally perceived as a protest of those waging war--even if the protest is something more specific. As a school board member, Mr. Michie's job is not to protest the government, even if our tax dollars are ill-spent.

As a private citizen, it is his right to support, protest, agree, or disagree with whomever, and however he wants. But, he's not quoted as a private citizen. I am all for downsizing the military at this juncture but may be willing to upsize it if an enemy emerges to attack us or an ally.

I am all for smaller government and ending waste at the pentagon but I have read enough of world history to know that evil exists and that we need to be ready for it because it is obvious that people like you will simply bend over and take it and say "thank you sir may I have another". This, J, is the way that Dave operates, evidently. And, as seems to be typical as well, he stumbles. Here is what he wrote about Ned's remark:.

What that phrase means, literally, is that Ned's comment was "ordinary. I think I "get it" about Ned's discomfort with endorsement of the events associated with the International Day of Peace, and I admire him for being honest about his feelings. His anxiety about the nature of the events should not be confused with his personal preference of peace and non-violence.

Glad I could help and I agree with you. The "rich are evil" and "give me" attitudes are growing unchecked and being fed by quite a few groups. The sad part is some are funded by the government. So, JS, how is that working out for you? Can you cite me one example where war begat peace? Unless, of course, you are thinking of the kind of peace that comes from death to a whole population. I think it goes without saying that war begets more war, and we have volumes of historical documentation to that fact, including the Holy Bible!!

So the question before us is really, can peace beget peace? Unfortunately, our nation's history has been defined as chapters between wars; wars have been the bookends separating eras and how each generation has come to define itself.

What a sad commentary on the USAmerican experience. I am reminded of a certain Art History professor long ago who showed us slides of artifacts from both the Mycenaeans and the Minoans. The Mycenaeans' artifacts were mostly weaponry while the Minoans were mostly utilitarian objects and art for art's sake. The historical conclusion was that the Mycenaeans were a warlike people while the Minoans were a peace-loving people.

I have to wonder what word future civilizations will use to describe us as they unearth the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction that we have spent our time and treasure creating, and perhaps ultimately burying ourselves with. All that aside, the immediate question at hand that Swanson seems to be asking and that hopefully the MIC50 conference will address is, how much is enough?

Is half our operational budget enough for our defense? Would that do it? Would we then be safe? I don't know about others, but I would prefer my share of the common defense dollars be spent protecting the roof over my head from foreclosure, or protecting my body from disease, or protecting my food supply, air and water from poisons. If the "common defense" that we all are guaranteed and have all paid for does not address the most basic human protections, then what in the world do we need with it in the first place?

I guess it boils down to who or what the greatest threat is. So why don't we all take a walk around our towns and ask ourselves if the boarded-up city blocks of homes and stores are the result of mideast terrorist activity or the acts of any foreign power. Observe the lines at unemployment offices, food banks and health clinics and let us ask ourselves if those result from any foreign threat.

Likewise, the children with asthma and other afflictions attributed to environmental degradation. So the question in the end is: how much of the money allocated to the military must be moved to protecting basic human needs in order to truly protect our population? I anticipate a lively discussion of this question at MIC50 and hope all speaking here will participate!

And a homeless, jobless, diseased, uneducated, poor and hungry population is indeed weak! Barbara: I am indebted to you for asking some questions which I can actually answer with a bit more certainty than the kind of hypothetical nonsense which appears to inflame your passions.

My first war that I remember, anyway was with a bully in my neighborhood who made it his business to make my life miserable. He tied me to a stake and lit fires around me. He whipped me, he humiliated me. And in order for me to secure the peace, I had to perform some rituals to his satisfaction, which were in the nature of servitude and worship.

But one day, an older youngster saw my distress and physically intervened on my behalf. After that, I was truly at peace, made my walks to and from school in safety and was otherwise secure. My second war was years later, when a fellow in my dorm would periodically make an appearance to punch me, kick me, throw me around, trash my room, break or take my possessions.

His territory of operation expanded so that I was subsequently attacked at various places on campus. But one day, when it was just he and I in an empty lobby of an academic building, he moved in for the "kill," or so it seemed to me. But this time I defended myself and disabled him in such a way that no further assaults were attempted ever again. And again, I had my peace.

Later, the two of us actually became good friends. More broadly, as to whether times of peace are the bookends confining times of war, or the other way around, I honestly don't know. I don't know that the question is even relevant. But I believe that the such peace and prosperity as is enjoyed by Europeans today is owed in part to the suppression by violence of Hitler's Germany; I suspect the South Koreans prosper and live in relative peace because the North and the Chinese were driven back by violence, and we no longer have legalized slavery here because the Union defeated the Confederacy in a war.

More topically, there is some possibility that Muammar Gaddafi's evident defeat under the force of arms may lead to society which is at peace with itself and with others. But your question, "Can you cite me one example where war begat peace?

But since you have cited Scripture as support for your contention that war begets war, let's give the "devil his due," here:. Can you cite me, Barbara, one example where peace begat peace?

Of course, I, too, presume the answer, which is that you cannot. Given that war seems to be a frequent and long standing human activity, whether on a personal or on a national scale, we of course cannot demonstrate the peace begets peace proposition.

Therefore, we find ourselves, I think, in an intellectual, moral or philosophical discussion which appears to advance neither the agenda of peace nor of war. But one thing on which we probably CAN agree is that humanity has been engaged in war and violence of all kinds for a long time, and shows few signs of giving up on it any time soon. So it might be a tenable argument to suggest that war is something we are going to have.

Which leaves us with the question of what we should do about it; which is a much more practical challenge then arguing over a preference for peace. Given the improbable occurrence of everyone, everywhere, laying down their arms all at the same time, if any society hopes to secure for itself some measure of peace, then it would appear that a good strategy is to make the cost of war too much for the enemy to tolerate -or even, to survive.

Which brings us to the "how much is enough" question. I suppose the answer, ultimately, is not so much a percentage as it is a target outcome: that is, "whatever it takes" to get what you want. Meanwhile, of course, we face other issues you mentioned shelter, food, health, etc. My opinion is that the impending conference will do little to actually move us toward any substantive new understanding or enlightenment on any of these matters.

And Dave's essay and web site, while forceful in language, are terribly undernourished -even disingenuous- when it comes to critical thinking and original thought.

I am guessing that the conference will simply be more of the same. I confess to some morbid curiosity about how "we" will "disempower" the rich, for the success of Dave's agenda appears to require it.

I will suggest that the lively exchange of ideas on this comment forum may be much more valuable than whatever program is presented at the conference.

I am grateful to you, Barbara, for your challenge and for your convictions. The United states is the one country on earth where food is plentiful, medicine and medical treatment is available and everybody can find somewhere to go to get out of the rain.

Just because it isn't the home with the white picket fence doesn't mean you are not better off than every other country on the planet. Hey BM; I mean Bill: you say "I am all for downsizing the military at this juncture but may be willing to upsize it if an enemy emerges to attack us or an ally.

How about predatory insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies who have a license to price healthcare out of the reach of millions? So you have "read enough of world history to know that evil exists," have you? Have you read enough to know that often evil exists within? Have you heard of inside jobs? Tell me true, Bill, if you knew for a fact that the US Treasury had been robbed by people like a sitting VP or Sec of the Treasury, or that elections had fraudulently been decided by a sitting Supreme Court, would it be obvious to people like me 'that people like you will simply bend over and take it and say "thank you sir may I have another"?

Barbara: your assault on Bill, whom you evidently characterize as a form of human effluent, is in the finest warrior tradition. Take names, kick butt, ask questions later. You present to me as the most exquisite example of the kind of thinking and action you loathe so much in others: the "shameless banksters," the "predatory insurance companies," the cronies and deciders.

Nice touch. And then the questions, issued in a marvelous and hypnotic staccato. These are questions to which you, evidently, appear to have the final answers, the ultimate truth; whereas poor Bill is cast adrift, awaiting your enlightenment. And you ask Bill that "if you knew for a fact. A miracle! The "sitting" court includes 4 members who have been on the bench less than 6 years. I am assuming the fraudulent election you mention refers to the court's decision about the vote count in Florida, which decision put "Dubbya" back in office.

But of course, that was over 6 years ago, before the "sitting" court sat. Or maybe there was ANOTHER election, since then, in which all currently sitting justices fraudulently decided the outcome of an election. Kedes, Dean H. Human Herpes virus associated with malignancy, including Kaposi's Sarcoma. Kendall, Melissa M. Bacterial cell signaling, host-pathogen interactions, intestinal pathogens. Park, Kwon-Sik Mechanisms of organ development and homeostasis and tumor development.

Pemberton, Lucy F. Ravichandran, Kodi S. Apoptotic cell clearance mechanisms in health and disease. Rekosh, David M. Human Immunodeficiency; Virus Gene Expression.