The question is who amongst us that we personally know if asked would say, yes, without any qualification, I want to have wars?

For now, then, and just for discussion, forgetting all else (including the “other” side) and starting therefore from square one and with the assumption (or fact) that we create our world, this question is asked – So why is it a country (Us) that is only about 4% of the world’s population has dropped more bombs than the 96% rest of the world combined?

If we really would prefer to not have wars and to use that nearly unfathomable amount of money so directed to be redirected to our having an even better quality of living and with all its added enjoyment, please know there is a way.

First a good question might be how did we get to this point where more than half of all the money we spend is spent on this now modern-day completely unnecessary and historically unfounded philosophy of perpetual war for so-called perpetual peace?

How is this philosophy allowed to be perpetuated and is there something that can be done, what about “there is a way, really” and is there hope presently either in fact or at least on the horizon?

Reflections on the GOP (Grand Old Party – the Republicans) presidential primaries indicates that there is hope, that we may be getting close to the end of this stated and described insanity.

One nominee, who is the first place winner so far, wants America’s military to be so powerful that no one will ever challenge us. Now as scary as that is and in particular as reminiscent of others in history, it is unambiguously insane as there is no such reality in that, as there is simply no such thing.

Any entity, for example a country, that wants, (as previously blogged) “to be the bully on the block,” would then by that very nature (and by human nature) always be under attack.

Meanwhile the thought here is that this man is absolutely and absolutely only, a very lost very rich man whose personal wealth ranks in only the .0012% of our population and is truly ignorant of a more true life. (Please let’s discuss).

Now, and back to the primaries, the second place winner so far, supports what is largely exactly the opposite. He wants to draw down America’s military from its currently having somewhere between five hundred and eleven hundred bases in over one hundred and fifty countries.
(Earlier blog stated the US has over 300 bases however more recent research shows the much larger numbers):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564
http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2011/01/24/military-mystery-how-many-bases-does-the-us-have-anyway/

The point here is not to suggest or say definitively that one man or one man’s views are necessarily worth your vote as being better than the other’s. We can each decide on our own and certainly there are other candidates.

But the point is that now with such diverse views in the political discussion and therefore the elephant in the room is being noticed and other even better founded views can now more readily enter the discussion, we are then it seems here anyhow, perhaps getting closer to that better quality of life (worldwide) and its enjoyment..?

What do you think?

Okay simple mathematics here – over the approximately last three years the net worth of our (so-called?) representatives GREW and by twenty-five percent while the net worth average of the people they “represent” LOST as much as twenty percent!?!!

Consider this please from Lawrence Lessig, I believe, “I was troubled,” he says, “by the fact that the political elite gets to play by a different set of rules than the rest of us. In the process of researching this (his) book, I came to the conclusion that political party and political philosophy matter a lot less than we think. Washington is a company town, and politics is a business. People wonder why we don’t get more change in Washington, and the reason is that the permanent political class is very comfortable. Business is good.”

The thought here, and after much consideration is this – As many have stated, should Congress be term limited? Interesting how Congress after the four terms of Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, term limited the president, so now what about themselves..?

What do you think?

After more than a half century of financial aid to Israel, year after year after year and to what present day is an all things considered estimate of well over eight million dollars a day (day after day after day and without end) from the US to Israel, Israel still remains as a military state and is still unsecured.

The United States, in its support of Israel, has stood out in the United Nations from nearly always supporting Israel even when many others haven’t, all the way to not voting yes on the recent UN vote granting Palestine its recognition as a country (state) and nearly everything in between.

Yet Israel still remains an unsecured military state.

We even work with Israel on not only promoting “Democracy” at Israel’s location in the Middle East but also work with Israel on a Joint Defense Program.

This joint defense program also comes with the US support at over a billion dollars (well over another more than a half million dollars a day, day after day) over the last four years.

Yet Israel is still a military state and still unsecured.

So again, with insanity being defined as doing the same thing over and over (yes and over and over and over again) and expecting a different result, is it then more accurate to say that we are in reality not so much an ally to Israel but a co-dependent participant in insanity?

Not only does Israel not, or no longer, need such (significant amounts of) money from the US and not only does what appears to be no less than a growing plurality of Israelis no longer want such financial support from the US, but the US, we ourselves, can no longer afford to give it.

With what amounts to, based on an equivalency of a dollar every second being over 475,000 years in debt regarding the United States and with well-formed arguments that the US and Israel would both be better off without the continued failed policy presently of such financial giving and lending, why does it then continue?

Is it the minority of citizens here that are Congressman and Senators, who instead of leading (and on Israel’s side as well) in what is best for Israel and the United States, they behold themselves to the counter-productive two hundred and thirty political action committees lobbying for this money (to Israel) in seeking only what they believe is the path of least resistance to being reelected?

Is there something/anything we, individually or perhaps collectively, can do perhaps like petitioning our Congressmen, or do we really in the end, simply just ourselves take a path of least resistance and simply not care?

What do you think?

Ah but who are “the people?” This appears to be the big deal topic of protest by the “occupy” movement. Is “the people” the 1%ers or is it the 99%ers? Well of course “the people” is the one hundred percent of us, you know, all the people. However maybe the one-percenters are perhaps simply a group that has over time cared more..?

As difficult as it may be to navigate the course of “representation,” the pathway(s) does exist. Even with the easy access of a web site, when was the last time one of us wrote our congressman or voted in a local election?

Back to insanity

Continuing to employ the single-fauceted approach of “defense,” we spend over $500,000,000,000 each year to “fund” the Department of Defense. The approach is to have armed forces that are bigger, better (trained, equipped and supplied) than any other in the whole world on our shared planet. And with over 300 military bases in over 150 of the world’s countries, we continue to fall in line with a joint chief-of-staffs, as recent as the turn of this century remark, that he (he!) wants America to be “the bully on the block.”

Even without arguing the sanity of this approach and assuming the DOD (previously called the Department of War) has a real and rational goal of wanting to provide “defense,” wouldn’t then a more complete and comprehensive approach make sense?
Certainly the “war to end all wars” didn’t, neither did the ‘great war” and neither will the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan, the war on terror, the war on drugs or the war on fill-in-the-blank; war, war, war and at nearly a billion and a half dollars…a day, every single day.

Shouldn’t a “comprehensive defense” sanely, rationally and ah duh intellectually, include (at least include) also serious and well-focused, well directed and well-funded peace initiatives?

Don’t sports teams employ offense and defense (you know reactionary and pro-active)? Isn’t it better to teach a hungry person “how to fish” other than simply giving them fish? (you know sustainability) So why is it then that our insanity continues? Why isn’t there a US Department of Peace – even with the long history of a desire for it from the original creation of our country to the present day where there are resolutions in Congress for a Department of Peace?

Do you, do we, really want to spend money more wisely (and with 21st century scientific proof presenting pathways to world peace now proving the heretofore unthought-of possibility) or not? Couldn’t we take as little as $499 from the approximate $3,333 each working adult pays for the present approach to defense and support a Department of Peace?

So $2,834 for war defense and $499 for peace defense..? Probably “we” do.

So why is it “we” don’t? Is it simply that the 1%ers care more about their agenda whereas we, the 99%ers, at the end of the day, really don’t care about ours?

Ah but I think we do…so what do we do?

What do you think?

Our movie, web site and peace initiative is purposefully non-political party supporting or disparaging but more patriotically and universally founded for open discussion.

However, for the purpose of having an applicable success and perhaps a clarified action planning, a question may be in order presently.

From George Washington to Dwight Eisenhower our country has always been warned about military influence. In spite of a complete history of Americans, both politically positioned and as simple citizens, desiring “a department of peace on equal footing with the war department” (now called the department of defense), the situation where economic profiteering that favors “guns” being employed to impose greater force continues to be the mainstay.

Certainly there is proof positive, unfortunately, that both Democratic and Republican politicians have continued to support (although to be fair not quite equally) this “old school” modality.

Okay, currently House Resolution 808 has been introduced to Congress and it calls for a US Department of Peace (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-808). There are no less than seventy co-sponsors and with sixty-nine being Democrats and one being Republican the question asked is, “is there a difference between one “side” and the other?”

What do you think?

Fear – The federal government classifies (and bans) all species of cannabis sativa as being the same. Huh?

With only briefly getting into the free will, free choice, land of the free argument of whether a federal government should authoritatively ban possession of the marijuana variety of hemp (accounting for – and get this – over 700,000 arrests annually, resulting in thousands of citizens being jailed in federal, state and county prisons and at a taxpayers cost of $1B annually) let’s consider the extremes that “fear” presents.

First, why the law banning possession of marijuana? Does this mean the federal government 1- has such authority? And 2- does this mean the government has no faith such that its citizens need a “big brother” to guide them in their daily and recreational activities? Does this mean the government has no faith in the institutions of up bringing and education, both public and private?

Just what does this mean?

Why not a loving, cooperative and faith in, based foundation for acting and enacting? One where the US might be more “free” in returning marijuana to its natural (non-illegal) status and like so much of everything else, tax its sales. Thereby America becomes more free and has more “growth” for revenue generation (as opposed to more personal income taxing) thus supporting also the reduction of the national debt.

But okay here’s the extremes and stupidity that “fear” brings.

Hemp and marijuana are different varieties of the same species of the cannabis sativa plant.

Industrial hemp was an American staple from colonial times and continued as a significant industry up until the 1940’s. More than thirty countries grow hemp (and without their citizens becoming “Refer Madness” afflicted) including Canada with nearly 27,000 acres devoted to hemp production, as an industrial commodity with its uses from fiber to oilseed producing overall thousands of products ranging from
clothing to auto parts.

However a Congressman recently wrote, that he supports the DEA argument that commercial cultivation would increase the likelihood of covert production of the marijuana variety and send the wrong message to the American public, and the ban on all cannabis sativa remains.

So should we ban growing flowers? After all commercial flower growing might well disguise poppy growing.!? And just what is this “wrong message?”

Is it that a new or resurgent industry and perhaps a cooperative, faith in the American people and intelligent based, thinking, would create another product for the US, create thousands of needed jobs and provide significant “revenue growth?”

Or is it just some more fear based negativity?

What do you think?

What’s your position on The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act?