By Lara Trace Hentz
Are we a country of people or are we a people living in a military complex?
Does the government tell us the truth or do they tell us what they think we can handle or what they believe we need to hear?
It’s obvious we spend more on military in America than any other sector.
Who are we really? or rather what are we? And is it true the government and military is the biggest employer in America?
Does anyone know?
Way too few people rule, govern and decide these things. Way too little good reporting comes from BIG MEDIA.
Like in Flint, Michigan, those leaders who cut corners have killed Flint children’s health and IQ yet somehow that was deemed an acceptable decision?
And apparently more WATER disaster headlines are on the way. (ie. Ohio and Navajoland)
Welcome to Flint, Michigan. This impoverished, mostly African-American city has indeed been run like a private corporation ever since Gov. Rick Snyder appointed an “emergency manager” to seize control of Flint’s heavily-indebted local government. Snyder’s coup d’ etat usurped the people’s democratic voice and enthroned an autocratic CEO who’s answerable only to Snyder. Read Jim Hightower here
In the western U.S., water contamination has been a way of life for many tribes. The advocacy group Clean Up The Mines! describes the situation in Navajo country, which is far worse than in Flint, Michigan.
— Trinity Wall Street (@TrinityWallSt) January 26, 2016
and this whopper of a misleading headline:
The US Army is shrinking by 23,000 soldiers under the Pentagon’s 2016 budget proposal (**down to 475,000 soldiers)
The service’s $147 billion proposed budget is about $2 billion less than the $149 billion the Army received in last year’s budget.
It reduces the active force from about 490,000 to **475,000 soldiers and puts a priority on existing weapons systems such as the AH-64 Apache and CH-47 Chinook helicopters, Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, Stryker wheeled vehicle upgrades and Guided Multi Launch Rocket Systems.
…The Army will buy 372 Warfighter Information Network – Tactical systems, a sharp reduction from last year’s purchase of 619 systems. But the budget invests $866.1 million in the program, compared to last year’s funding level of $806.6 million.
Read more here
No mention of the USA being the biggest weapons dealer in the world?
Enough military bases to sink the world? here’s my post from 2011
The war of words and adoptees: #AdoptionDiscussions
This is in response to the “call for replies” to an article in The Atlantic. This type of “false equality” in terms of discussion leaves out certain basic premises that cannot be so easily overlooked.
There are some huge glaring problems inherent to the discussion on adoption as you are positing it. Primary among them is the mythology dating only from the 1950s that adoption is about family creation. The history of adoption is one of social engineering, deracination, extirpation, dispossession, displacement, and disinheritance. In this light, to speak of the adoptee as having “issues” is to gloss over what is truly being manifested: A healthy resistance against an alien and alienating society that has seen fit to destroy not only the adoptee, but her family and community as well. Because the audience of The Atlantic is made up of those in the adoptive class, reading between the lines of this story gives us a different take that might go as follows: “You, the adopting parents, are not responsible for the failure of your children.”
This comment from Daniel on the Laura Dennis blog post Should Adoption be Illegal is of particular importance:
I would hasten to point out that the “logical fallacy” is found in this post. By simply replacing the word “adoption” with “slavery” you can see how hollow this rings; who would argue that there was any validity in slavery? Well, the anti-abolitionists for one, who cited, as here, those slaves who were “happy” on the plantation, etc. And there are currently many who still think this way.
But this is minor. More problematic is ignoring the actual history of adoption, which stems from indentured servitude. Adoption is, as an institution, based and premised on the servitude of human beings. There is no escaping this historical fact, which is still brought forward when we say “put up for adoption”—as the children of the Orphan Trains were “put up” on blocks, exactly similar to the slaves during the heyday of that other heinous institution.
So much of the two institutions resonate and echo with each other, from the “renaming” to the pricetag to the advertising based on race, gender, and health of the “available” goods. I fear you completely miss the point in the comparison, and further miss the point of why someone might call for the abolition of adoption (as I do): This is a utopian ideal which, once adhered to, will actually lead to reform. As opposed to the decades of useless debate about reform that leave us nowhere. This is a philosophical, moral, and ethically reasoned argument, as was abolition (which also had its “reformist” detractors). To call it fringe is very insulting. To insinuate that anyone wants children to live horrible lives in the name of some ideology is really a filthy thing to put forward.
Finally, to distance those who are as you offensively refer to them as “extreme” from the debate on adoption is to do the work of those in power who have done the exact same thing; this is the work of the “house slaves”, I’m sorry to say. And so the metaphor works on all levels. I’m quite astounded to see so many gathering up the wood; seems like there are witches to burn.
American Indian SLAVERY? Yup. I did a paper First Contact and presented it at the Native American Journalists Conference in Florida in 2000. That was what – 16 years ago? Few knew or were talking about Indians as slaves – I gave several press interviews to media. Finally …someone else is taking an interest…
Between 1670 and 1715, more Indians were exported into slavery through Charles Town than Africans were imported. https://t.co/j6mKxSK6cU
— http:LaraTraceHentz (@Trace15) January 25, 2016
Out of suffering have emerged the strongest souls; the most massive characters are seared with scars. – Kahlil Gibran
— http:LaraTraceHentz (@Trace15) February 4, 2016
Dear “Jane:” I’d like to start this by saying I understand your feelings are hurt. I imagine that encountering the online family preservation community was like a slap in the face.
I’m pretty sure that’s because you’ve been told all your life what a blessed and booful and beneficent thing adoption is… for people like you. And I doubt you’ve questioned that very much. I’m writing this to tell you it is time to start questioning that, if only for your future adoptee’s sake, because your future adoptee will be the product of pain and loss. Click the headline to read this brilliant post by Adopto-snark… (and read all the comments!)
Stephen Hawking warns that We Must Leave Earth
Renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking has stated a warning to humankind: in light of all of the potential events that could spell the extinction of the human species, we must find a way to migrate into space. Citing numerous potential extinction events that could occur over the next few thousand years, both environmental and man-made, Hawking believes that it is too risky to have mankind’s fate depend solely on the health of a single planet.
“I believe that the long-term future of the human race must be in space,” Hawking recently said, on the internet forum Big Think. “It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn’t have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet. Let’s hope we can avoid dropping the basket until we have spread the load.”
Hawking singles out the potential for a nuclear holocaust as a leading danger to the continued existence of humanity, and uses the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example of how close we may have come to wiping ourselves out. He says that “the frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future. We shall need great care and judgment to negotiate them all successfully.”
- Image Credit:
- Physicist Stephen Hawking in Zero Gravity by Jim Campbell/Aero-News Network [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
— http:LaraTraceHentz (@Trace15) January 19, 2016
I agree with Hawking we need a chance to move off planet. Why? Nukes are way too plentiful and way too dangerous. Our military is way too big. Way too many wackos. The next disaster might be an OOPS, I pressed the wrong button moment.