Deceptive

It is interesting to watch the debate around the nomination of Miers for the supreme court. And it is even more interesting that Bush chose to nominate his personal attorney, whom the public knows nearly nothing about. It does fit his pattern of deception, and of his admittedly effective strategies thought out by Karl Rove. Although it is possible, it is very likely that she will turn out to be as much of a disaster as the Iraq war and the so called "war on terror". Why did for instance James Dobson (the guy who see Mr. Squarepants as advocate for homosexuality...) suddenly become a strong supporter of Miers after talking with Rove?

Dobson recently said his endorsement of Miers was founded on "confidential" information he was "privy to" but "not at liberty to talk about," according to the political weblog Ankle Biting Pundits. [source]

Discontinued

These rants are mostly concerning the abysmal state of US culture and policies, and I have discontinued them for the time being. The main reason is that reality speaks very loudly for itself these days - no additional comments seem necessary.

The other is that with the current administration, and current domestic and foreign US policies, there are too many absurdities to keep up with. It is sometimes impossible to know where to start - which I believe is part of a conscious strategy by the conservatives and neo-liberals. The recipe seems to be to throw out an enormous amount of bizarre statements and policies, repeat them without stop, deny any criticism, and create a bewildering and impenetrable whirlwind that others cannot keep up with.

It will of course collapse eventually, possibly along with the economic/military/cultural power and influence of the US, but in the meantime - the wealthy benefit and the rest suffer, including ecosystems and future generations.

Election Fraud II

Below is an article from Orland Weekly that summarizes some of the irregularities (to use an euphemism) during the 2004 US election.

Whether the assumptions of what is behind the irregularities are correct or not, it may seem truly astonishing that mainstream US media does not investigate the story. But the silence may unfortunately be expected... They were silent about the obvious lies of the Bush administration leading up to the Iraq war and about the likely outcome (long and costly occupation and civil unrest/war), even though international media brought these issues up daily. It is not in the interest of corporate media to rock the boat. Their approach is to appear to do journalism, while systematically ignoring many of the truly important issues.

WAS IT HACKED?

By Alan Waldman
Published 11/18/04

Despite mainstream media attempts to kill the story, talk radio and the Internet are abuzz with suggestions that John Kerry was elected president on Nov. 2 – but Republican election officials made it difficult for millions of Democrats to vote while employees of four secretive, GOP-bankrolled corporations rigged electronic voting machines and then hacked central tabulating computers to steal the election for George W. Bush.

The Bush administration's "fix" of the 2000 election debacle (the Help America Vote Act) made crooked elections considerably easier, by foisting paperless electronic voting on states before the bugs had been worked out or meaningful safeguards could be installed.

Crying foul this time around isn't just the province of whiny Democrats. Consider that The Wall Street Journal recently revealed that "Verified Voting, a group formed by a Stanford University professor to assess electronic voting, has collected 31,000 reports of election fraud and other problems."

University of Pennsylvania researcher Dr. Steven Freeman, in his November 2004 paper "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," says that the odds that the discrepancies between predicted [exit poll] results and actual vote counts in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania could have been due to chance or random error are 250 million to 1. "Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a premature conclusion," writes Freeman, "but the election's unexplained exit poll discrepancies make it an unavoidable hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of the media, academia, polling agencies, and the public to investigate." Unlike Europe, where citizens count the ballots, in the United States employees of a highly secretive Republican-leaning company, ES&S, managed every aspect of the 2004 election. That included everything from registering voters, printing ballots and programming voting machines to tabulating votes (often with armed guards keeping the media and members of the public who wished to witness the count at bay) and reporting the results, for 60 million voters in 47 states, according to Christopher Bollyn, writing in American Free Press. Most other votes were counted by three other firms that are snugly in bed with the GOP.

This election is not the first suspicious venture into electronic voting. In Georgia, in November 2002, Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes led by 11 percent and Democratic Sen. Max Cleland was in front by 5 percent just before the election – the first ever conducted entirely on touch-screen electronic machines, and counted entirely by company employees, rather than public officials – but mysterious election-day swings of 16 percent and 12 percent defeated both of these popular incumbents. In Minnesota, Democrat Walter Mondale (replacing beloved Sen. Paul Wellstone, who died in a plane crash), lost in an amazing last-moment 11 percent vote swing recorded on electronic machines. Then, in 2003, what's known as "black box voting" helped Arnold Schwarzenegger – who had deeply offended female, Latino and Jewish voters – defeat a popular Latino Democrat who substantially led in polls a week before the election.

A RAT IS SMELLED

Realizing that the 2004 election results are suspect, many prominent people and groups have begun to demand action. Recently, six important Congressmen, including three on the House Judiciary Committee, asked the U.S. Comptroller General to investigate the efficacy of new electronic voting devices.

Black Box Voting – the nonprofit group which spearheaded much of the pre-election testing (and subsequent criticism) of electronic machines that found them hackable in 90 seconds – is filing the largest Freedom of Information Act inquiry in U.S. history. The organization's Bev Harris claims, "Fraud took place in the 2004 election through electronic voting machines."

Florida Democratic congressional candidate Jeff Fisher charged that he has and will show the FBI evidence that Florida results were hacked; he also claims to have knowledge of who hacked it – in 2004 and in the 2002 Democratic primary (so Jeb Bush would not have to run against the popular Janet Reno). Fisher also believes that most Democratic candidates nationwide were harmed by GOP hacking and other dirty tactics – particularly in swing states.

The Green and Libertarian Parties, as well as Ralph Nader, are demanding an Ohio recount, because of voting fraud, suppression and disenfranchisement. Recounts are also being sought in New Hampshire, Nevada and Washington.

Although the Internet is full of stories of election fraud, and major media in England, Canada and elsewhere have investigated the story, you'll find almost nothing in the major U.S. media. "I have been told by sources that are fairly high up in the media – particularly TV – that there is now a lockdown on this story," says Harris. "It's officially 'Let's move on' time."

On Nov. 6, Project Censored Award-winning author Thom Hartmann said, "So far, the only national 'mainstream' media outlet to come close to this story was Keith Olbermann, when he noted that it was curious that all the voting machine irregularities so far uncovered seemed to favor Bush. In the meantime, the Washington Post and other media are now going through single-bullet-theory-like contortions to explain how the exit polls had failed."

VOTE STEALING 101

Votes collected by electronic machines (and by optical scan equipment that reads traditional paper ballots) are sent via modem to a central tabulating computer, which counts the votes on Windows software. Therefore, anyone who knows how to operate an Excel spreadsheet and who is given access to the central tabulation machine can, in theory, change election totals.

On a CNBC cable TV program, Black Box Voting exec Harris showed guest host Howard Dean how to alter vote totals within 90 seconds, by entering a two-digit code in a hidden program on Diebold's election software. Harris declared, "This is not a 'bug' or accidental oversight; it is there on purpose."

A quartet of companies control the U.S. vote count. Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia and SAIC are all hard-wired into the Bush campaign and power structure. Diebold chief Walden O'Dell is a top Bush fund-raiser. According to "online anarchist community" Infoshop.org, "At Diebold, the election division is run by Bob Urosevich. Bob's brother, Todd, is a top executive at 'rival' ES&S. The brothers were originally staked by Howard Ahmanson, a member of the Council For National Policy, a right-wing steering group stacked with Bush true believers. Ahmanson is also one of the bagmen behind the extremist Christian Reconstruction Movement, which advocates the theocratic takeover of American democracy." Sequoia is owned by a partner member of the Carlyle Group, which is believed to have dictated foreign policy in both Bush administrations and has employed former President Bush for quite a while.

All early Tuesday indicators predicted a Kerry landslide. Zogby International (which predicted the 2000 outcome more accurately than any national pollster) did exit polling which predicted a 100-electoral vote triumph for Kerry. He saw Kerry winning crucial Ohio by 4 percent.

Princeton professor Sam Wang, whose meta-analysis had shown the election to be close in the week before the election, began coming up with dramatic numbers for Kerry in the day before and day of the election. At noon EST on Monday, Nov. 1, he predicted a Kerry win by a 108-vote margin.

In the Iowa Electronic Markets, where "investors" put their money where their mouths are and wager real moolah on election outcome "contracts," Bush led consistently for months before the election – often by as much as 60 percent to 39 percent. But at 7 p.m. CST on Nov. 2, 76.6 percent of the last hour's traders had gone to Kerry, with only 20.1 percent plunking their bucks down on Bush. They knew something.

As the first election returns came in, broadcasters were shocked to see that seemingly safe Bush states like Virginia, Kentucky and North Carolina were being judged as "too close to call." At 7:28 EST, networks broadcast that Ohio and Florida favored Kerry by 51 percent to 49 percent.

In his research paper, Steven Freeman reports that exit polls showed Kerry had been elected. He was leading in nearly every battleground state, in many cases by sizable margins. But later, in 10 of 11 battleground states, the tallied margins differed from the predicted margins – and in every one the shift favored Bush.

In 10 states where there were verifiable paper trails – or no electronic machines – the final results hardly differed from the initial exit polls. In non-paper-trail states, however, there were significant differences. Florida saw a shift from Kerry up by 1 percent in the exit polls to Bush up by 5 percent at close of voting. In Ohio, Kerry went from up 3 percent to down 3 percent. Exit polls also had Kerry winning the national popular vote by 3 percent.

In close Senate races, changes between the exit poll results and the final tallies cost Democrats anticipated seats in Kentucky (a 13 percent swing to the GOP), Alaska, North Carolina, Florida, Oklahoma, South Dakota and possibly Pennsylvania – as well as enough House seats to retake control of the chamber.

Center for Research on Globalization's Michael Keefer states, "The National Election Pool's own data – as transmitted by CNN on the evening of November 2 and the morning of November 3 – suggest very strongly that the results of the exit polls were themselves fiddled late on November 2 in order to make their numbers conform with the tabulated vote tallies."

How do we know the fix was in? Keefer says the total number of respondents at 9 p.m. was well over 13,000 and at 1:36 a.m. it had risen less than 3 percent – to 13,531 total respondents. Given the small increase in respondents, this 5 percent swing to Bush is mathematically impossible. In Florida, at 8:40 p.m., exit polls showed a near dead heat but the final exit poll update at 1:01 a.m. gave Bush a 4 percent lead. This swing was mathematically impossible, because there were only 16 more respondents in the final tally than in the earlier one.

FLORIDA FIASCO II

Kathy Dopp's eye-opening examination of Florida's county-by-county record of votes cast and people registered by party affiliation (http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm) suggests systematic and widespread election fraud in 47 of the state's 67 counties. This did not occur so much in the touch-screen counties, where public scrutiny would naturally be focused, but in counties where optically screened paper ballots were fed into a central tabulator PC, which is highly vulnerable to hacking. In these optical-scan counties, had GOP registrants voted Republican, Democratic registrants gone for Kerry and everyone registered showed up to vote, Bush would have received 1,337,242 votes. Instead, his reported vote total there was 1,950,213! That discrepancy (612,971) is nearly double Bush's winning margin in the state (380,952).

Colin Shea, writing on Freezer Box.com, double-checked Dopp's figures and confirmed that optical-scan counties gave Bush 16 percent more votes than he should have gotten. "This 16 percent would not be strange if it were spread across counties more or less evenly," Shea explains, but it is not. In 11 different counties, the "actual" Bush tallies were 50-100 percent higher than expected. In one county, where 88 percent of voters are registered Democrats, Bush got nearly two-thirds of the vote – three times more than predicted by his statistical model.

There were thousands of complaints about Florida voting. Broward County electronic voting machines counted up to 32,500 and then started counting backward. This glitch, which existed in the 2002 election but was never fixed, overturned the exit-poll-predicted results of a gambling referendum. In several Florida counties, early-morning voters reported ballot boxes that already had an unusually large quantity of ballots in them. In Florida and five other states, according to Canada's Globe and Mail, "the wrong candidate appeared on their touch-screen machine's checkout screen" after the person had voted.

Republicans have argued that the Florida counties with majority Democratic registration that voted overwhelmingly for Bush were all conservative "Dixiecrat" bastions in northern Florida, and that all the reported totals were accurate. But Olbermann demonstrated that many of these crossover states voted Republican for the first time. He poked another hole in the Dixiecrat theory when he noted that in Democratic counties where Bush scored big, people also supported highly Democratic measures – such as raising the state minimum wage $1 above the federal level.

Moreover, 18 switchover counties were not in the Panhandle or near the Georgia border, but were scattered throughout the state. For instance, Hardee County (between Bradenton and Sebring) registered 63.8 percent Democratic but officially gave Bush 135 percent more votes than Kerry.

WIDESPREAD PROBLEMS

Voters Unite! detailed 303 specific election problems, including 84 complaints of machine malfunctions in 22 states, 24 cases of registration fraud in 14 states, 20 abusive voter challenge situations in 10 states, U.S. voters in 18 states and Israel experiencing absentee ballot difficulties, 10 states with provisional ballot woes, 22 cases of malfeasance in 13 states, 10 charges of voter intimidation in seven states, seven states where votes were suppressed, seven states witnessing outbreaks of animosity at the polls, six states suffering from ballot printing errors and seven instances in four states where votes were changed on-screen. In addition, the Voters Unite! website cites four states with early voting troubles, three states undergoing ballot programming errors, three states demonstrating ballot secrecy violations, bogus ballot fraud in New Mexico and double-voting for Bush in Texas.

Kerry's victory was predicted by previously extremely accurate Harris and Zogby exit polls, by the formerly infallible 50 percent rule (an incumbent with less than 50 percent in the exit polls always loses; Bush had 47 percent – requiring him to capture an improbable 80 percent of the undecideds to win) and by the Incumbent Rule (undecideds break for the challenger, as exit polls showed they did by a large margin this time).

Nor is it credible that the surge in new young voters (who were witnessed standing in lines for hours, on campuses nationwide) miraculously didn't appear in the final totals; that Kerry did worse than Gore against an opponent who lost support; and that exit polls were highly accurate wherever there was a paper trail and grossly underestimated Bush's appeal wherever there was no such guarantee of accurate recounts. Statisticians point out that Bush beat 99 to 1 mathematical odds in winning the election.

Election results are not final until electors vote on Dec. 12. There is still time to find the truth.

[Source]

Media Self-Censorship

In two recent elections, there was evidence of relatively widespread election fraud. In one, the Ukranian, it is receiving a good deal of media attention, in the US and internationally. In the other, the US presidential election, it is mostly (if not completely) ignored.

It is also interesting that in Ukraine, the people took action against the fraud and hundred thousand people were in the streets. In the US, it is quiet.

Election Fraud in the US?
As usual in US election, there is a significant amount of election irregularities (african american voters placed on lists of felons etc).

Even more disturbing is the irregularities involving electronic voting machines.

Exit polls are typically very accurate (they are after all polling people who just voted). And the exit polls showed Kerry as a winner in critical states that were officially won by Bush. The data apparently shows that in precincts with paper ballots, the exit polls were indeed accurate. But in precincts with electronic voting machines, Bush typically received 5% more votes than Kerry.

A research group at UC Berkely have looked more closely at the numbers, and - controlling for all other factors - found that there is less than 0.01% possibility that these discrepancies occured by chance.

Only a few media sources, typically smaller and independent, have brought attention to this issue. Why is it not picked up in mainstream media?

Voting irregularities in three Florida counties that used electronic voting machines may have awarded as many as 130,000 votes to president George Bush in the US presidential election, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley. [source: IT News, Australia]

2004 US Presidential Election Controversy - from Wikipedia

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked, Thom Hartmann

An Election Spoiled Rotten, Greg Palast

Black Box Voting : Voter Gate TV

True Vote MD

Verified Voting

Open Vote Foundation - open source voting machines (full transparency and increased security)

Life-Centered vs. Profit/Ideology-Centered Views

There is much talk about the different global splits we are seeing today: North vs. South, Christian vs. Muslim, Moderates vs. Fundamentalists, Pro-Bush vs. Anti-Bush, etc.

One that goes even deeper, and is not frequently focused on in the media, is the split between a life-centerd vs. a profit/ideology-centered view.

The life-centered view is maybe best expressed by the Cultural Creatives. It weaves together strands from many movements evolved over the last decades: social justice/peace, ecology, holistic health and consiousness. At it's best, it is pragmatic and seeks solutions beyond traditional divisions and ideologies. It focuses on direction rather than perfection.

The profit-centered view is most clearly expressed in neo-liberal globalization (going above government control to establish international rules that benefits corporations and few others). It is a fallacy of narrowmindedness. They do not bring the whole Earth and deep time into their circle of concern.

And the ideology-centered view is expressed anywhere ideas becomes more important than people and life in general. It is a rigid view, maybe most clearly expressed in fundamentalists of any stripe. It is a fallacy of rigid attachment to ideas, not realizing that the terrain is always different from the map.

Brutality

Again, the international and US media seem to report from two different worlds.

In Norwegian media, the situation in Iraq is seen as a civil war between Sunnis and the new power (Shiite-US coalition), where the US is taking one side in the conflict. In US media, they typically still cling to the simplistic idea of insurgents/rebels/terrorists - often not acknowledging the much deeper split within the population and the widespread opposition to the illegal US invation and occupation.

Internationally, there is also a great deal of dismay and disbelief in watching the profound brutality in the US approach. Where there are still very real possibilities for nonviolent/political resolutions, the US choose violence with the result of thousands and tens of thousands dead. In this context, it started with the war itself. The UN had good access to Iraq and they knew that Hussein was and could not be a threat to any other country (as the UN inspectors and international experts repeated in the international media, and was ignored by US officials). And it is continued in the occupation, which is likely to be long lasting (over many years or even decades).

It reflects a profoundly unhealthy attitude in the US government. An attitude of brutality, dehumanization, and power-over, which unfortunately is in many ways systemic in US society and reflected in the population in general. It is a power-centered rather than a life-centered view. It is reflected in the US internal policies (little support to the weakest in society), in US international policies, and in the culture in general.

And it leads to an increased opposition to US dominance, culture and "values". How can it not?

Simplistic

It is often astonishing to watch the low quality of the political commentaries in the media. And it is very predictable.

Bush got elected with less than one quarter of one percent of the votes in Ohio and a slim majority of the popular vote. So now, Democrats are "out of step with America", and maps showing the south as "Jesusland" circulate via email. If the votes were only marginally different and Kerry won, the headlines would say "Americans rejected Bush's war on terrorism", "Republicans out of step with Americans", or something similar. It would be comical if it wasn't for all those who apparently takes it seriously...

The maps below show a more nuanced view of the recent election. A view that does not support the simplistic and one-dimensional approach taken by many reporters and political commentators.



The election results by county. This alone gives a far more nuanced view than the maps showing election results by state.



The election results by county and corrected by population numbers.

Where is the data supporting the frequent statements of "Democrats out of touch with America"? Where did the supposedly solid "bible belt" go? And where is the "clear mandate from the American people" that Bush is fond of referring to?

A similar simplistic approach is often taken toward the "moral values" found to be rated high among voters this time.

For a significant portion of the population, "moral values" are important and influences their choice of candidate. But for some, it means not lying about reasons for going to war, it means not killing hundred thousand innocent people for dubious purposes, it means promoting true international democracy instead of unilateralism, it means balancing the interest of ecology and workers with the narrow interests of corporations, it means speaking up for and taking care of the weakest in society, it means health care and education for all...

There is not one set of "moral values". And there is even more diversity in terms of the strategies people see as aligned with their values. Again, it seems obvious. And again, it is surprisingly often overlooked in the media...

Distortions

We have seen it again and again over the history of human civilization, and it is another example of history repeating itself.

Origins
The historical Jesus was...

• A rebel, dangerous to the established religion and political system of his day
• On the side of the outcast and the underdogs. He spent time with and supported those who did not fit into the social system of the day, those scorned and seen as immoral by the establishment. The poor, the sick, women, prostitutes, those with leprosy. He broke norms and religious law to be with and help these people.
  

Spirit
Of course, many Christians follow in the spirit of Jesus. This is the case in particular for the many progressive Christians around the world who speak up for the outcasts in contemporary society and promote social justice and human rights (see liberation theology as one example).

Distorted
Fundamentalists of all stripes typically distort the spirit of the source. In the case of Christianity, what started as a rebellious movement and living realization, has degenerated into a set of hard rules and a justification for judgment, bigotry and narrow mindedness. It has become a way to justify abuse of power, social inequality, abuse and inhuman treatment of the outcasts, war. The very views that Jesus was opposed to, is now incorporated among those who see themselves as his followers.

Transdual and Blind Duality
There are always translation problems when a transdual view is expressed in words. Words words by their nature split the world, and the transdual views are in addition clothed in the terminology of the day. There is even more of a translation problem when this transdual view is filtered through the dualistic view of the students/followers.

Many sense and have a taste of what is beyond and embark on a sincere path towards a transdual experience of their own. These are the ones for whom the duality is softer. It is there, but there are openings towards the transdual - through a more open and expanded heart/mind.

Others start with an already rigid duality and a more rigidly constricted heart/mind. They have strong attachments (as we all do), but do not acknowledge fully that they are there and of obscurations. In these cases, the teachings are taken more literally (little space for anything else) and used to hold onto the obscurations. This tends to be a fragile, fearful state and produces even more suffering.

Of course, we all have some of each. It can be useful to ask ourselves some questions to soften up and allow awareness into our own areas of constriction. "Where to I hold onto rigid views?". "What in others do I experience aversion towards? How do I relate to those same qualities in myself, and where are they expressed?".

Research

It seems that the current political situation in the US provides fertile ground for research...

Our political views reflect our experience of the world. And it seems difficult for people at the different ends of the US political polarity to understand each other. So what are the real differences, and on what levels do they occur?

We all have the same basic human needs, but choose different strategies to meet them. And the different strategies function at different levels and have different degrees of pervasiveness. Some are deep and guide a multitude of secondary strategies. Other are superficial although guided by the deeper ones. What are the typical deep strategies that democrats and republicans choose? How do they differ? Is there a chink in the armor where a more genuine human connection can occur?

And how do these deep strategies or orientations in turn influence how we experience the world?

Are there typical differences in empathy? In how wide our circle of concern is? In how we experience the world as fragmented/split or a seamless whole? In quality of life? Level of fear? How comfortable we are of different aspects of ourselves and others? How comfortable we are with complexity and uncertainty?

Filling Holes

The Bush approach must obviously fill real needs among many people in the US. What are those needs?

I cannot know for certain, but here are some guesses...

Lack of meaning / sense of purpose
Many in contemporary society experience this lack of meaning and sense of purpose. It is a hallmark of our culture. And it has its roots in alienation - from the Earth, society, each other and ourselves. Bush does offer a sense of meaning and purpose: The US is the leader of the free world, promoting peace and prosperity internationally. Bush and the Bush supporters are aligned with God and the absolute Truth. Bush offer clear and simple solutions to complex and difficult problems. If we experience a deep lack of meaning, a deep hole in our lives, then maybe this is something that can help us fill it up. And maybe we are willing to overlook certain things if we can be filled up this way.

Of course, from the perspective of the neo-conservatives, this is a brilliant and shrewd tactic. On the one hand, we give people exactly what they need: a sense of meaning, purpose and of being aligned with the forces of Good. One the other hand, we can have them support economic and social policies that are not in their own interest. Those who could be our most dangerous opponents are made into our strongest allies.

Connecting

I find it nearly impossible - even with my best intentions - to understand why anyone would support Bush. And I share this with many in the US and internationally. On the other hand, many Bush supporters apparently find it almost impossible to understand those who are opposed to him.

I wish I could understand more. We all have the same basic human needs, although we choose different strategies to meet them, so there must be areas where we can connect, communicate and understand each other (although we would still disagree).

Unfortunately, the communication is far too often characterized by slogans, simplified statements, superficial explanations. We are not used to go below the particular strategies to the needs level: to identify and talk about which deep, human needs we are trying to meet by adopting a particular strategy.

We perceive this as opening up too much, becoming vulnerable - especially in a situation where heated (superficial) exchange is the norm. But if we have a container where we could feel safe, we may be able to do just this. Maybe a few brave souls from both sides to take this on, understand each other on a deep level, and communicate that back to their sides?

Of course, not that many may be interested in listening, but it may still have an effect - especially among those on both sides who are interested in truly connecting on a human level.

Additional Thoughts

European Concern
There are several reasons for the great concern in Europe over Bush being US president for another four years.

One is the generally higher level of knowledge of his policies - and the effects of his policies internationally and within the US.

The other is that they recognize a pattern that is still fresh in their memory. Simple solutions to complex situations, a belief in the superiority of our country, the right to take what we need internationally to provide for our own needs (imperialism), the acceptance of violence and unilateralism to achieve goals, God and absolute Truth on our side. All these are a little too close to what happened in Germany in the 1930s...

Finding Purpose
To continue along the same line of thought... Germany in the 1920s and 30s experienced a great deal of problems (unemployment etc). People were looking for a strong leader with clear and simple solutions, and the will to push them through with little regard to the means. They were willing to initiate wars and let go of civil rights as long as they could feel good about themselves. Feel that they were part of something larger than themselves, aligned with the ultimate truth...

Sounds familiar?

What's Left

In a winner-takes-all system, we not only end up with two parties, but two parties that looks increasingly alike. After the Democrats decided to follow the Republicans in embracing the neo-liberal (corporate) globalization, where is the difference? Well, the difference is in the emphasis on values and meaning. The Republicans offer opium to the people.

More systems patterns:

Global to local p1: Materialism / consumerism > more time spent working / less time with family/friends / moving for work > loss of connection with community and place > loss of connection with family/self > fragmentation of society > reduced sense of meaning / connection / value of own life

Global to local pv2: Neo-liberal/corporate globalization > regulations benefiting corporations, not people > loss of local businesses (fever people in charge of their own business) > loss of local work altogether (outsourcing) > increased alienation and fragmentation > reduced sense of meaning / connection / value of own life

Local to global p1: Reduced sense of meaning > increased consumerism > increased sense of alienation / lack of meaning

Local to global p2: Reduced sense of meaning > increased attachment to blind faith (in religion, country, leaders etc.) > blind faith in leaders > increased corporate globalization > increased sense of alienation / loss of meaning

And of course, all of this is just the new way for the few wealthy to stay in control... In the past, it was done with brute force. This time --- with people buing into it.

Mirror Images

It is not a new realization: we become what we hate. And those we fear and hate are similar to ourselves.

US vs. the World

The US religious (fundamentalist) conservatives perceive Islamic fundamentalists as their main threat/enemy.

The (expected) irony is that US religious conservatives displays many of the same characteristics as their perceived enemy, the Islamic fundamentalists. They see the world in black and white, in absolutes, they have an absolute faith in being "right" and having God on their side. And both see moderates/liberals as weak and even dangerous to their way of life.

And the US moderates/liberals perceive Europeans moderates/liberals as their allies. Both in turn see the fundamentalists, whether Christian or Islamic, as blinded and a threat to their way of life.

Comfort with Ourselves

We are all multitudes. Any and every human characteristic is in ourselves, unfolded or as a potential. When we acknowledge this, we allow ourselves to let more aspects of ourselves into the light - into our awareness. We become more fluid in self-image and actions. There is a deeper sense of comfort with ourselves and the world. We can melt into and incorporate new aspects of ourselves, even those parts that at first don't fit into our current self image.

Discomfort with Ourselves

When we perceive the world in fragments, we split it up in good vs. bad/evil, right vs. wrong, etc. We have strong ideas of how we should be, and cut ourselves off from those aspects that don't fit into this self-image. We then relate to those same qualities in other with aversion, and the strength of the aversion corresponds to the strength of our attachment to the ideal self. We hate what we are, and become what we hate.

Most often, we learn these ideas of ideals through our culture and family. We learn what is good and right, and the ideal image of ourselves. It happens through a myriad of ways, and we deeply internalize it. Of course, nothing is changed in what is really there in us, only that we don't acknowledge it and only see it in others. We split ourselves off from ourselves, others and life.

Fundamentalists of all stripes express this pattern more clearly than most of us.

They perceive themselves as only half human. Only some human qualities are acceptable. Others are denied and seen only in others. And not only seen, but perceived with strong aversion/hatred in others as they are a reminder of what is there in themselves. And the ideologies, further refined, allow them to justify this pattern.

Mirror

Of course, we all do this. It is an integral part of the human experience, terrible and wonderful as it is.

Terrible, in that it leads to dehumanization of the opponent and everything that brings with it. Oppression, violence, deep suffering on both sides.

Wonderful in that the world is a mirror for ourselves. When we see a characteristic in another person, we can take it as an opportunity to explore and become familiar with the characteristic in ourselves. The world becomes a mirror, aiding us to live our lives a more full, rich and fluid human being. And instead of blind aversion, we open up for genuine empathy through recognition.

Inoculation

When we learn the mirror process, we also engage in a process of inoculation. We inoculate ourselves against the blind actions that comes from blind aversions and attractions. It is of course a process, and we will always go deeper.

As we bring more and more qualities into our awareness and self-image, we learn how to relate to these qualities. We familiarize ourselves with them, and learn how to handle them and express them in ways that do not harm ourselves and others. As long as they are in the darkness, not acknowledged, they can come out in violent and dangerous ways. When the trolls are brought into the light, they burst.

As we bring the same qualities into our awareness, we turn blind aversions and attractions into empathy. From experiencing threat when we see them in others, we experience recognition and empathy. We are all in the same boat. We are all human.

Empathy & Views

I watched Lion of the Desert today, a movie from 1979 about the brutal 1911-1931 Italian occupation of Libya.

It is interesting how we allow ourselves to experience empathy with those we sympathize with, and not the others. There is no rational reason for this, but may be a cultural and emotional one.
We are taught by our culture to split the world up in us vs. them, right vs. wrong, good vs. bad/evil, etc. In our perception, we split the inner world as well as the outer.

Some Examples

Most Norwegians experience a great deal of sympathy with ordinary Iraqis, partly since the Norwegian media show their suffering and takes it down to an individual and village level. There was and is predictably a great deal of opposition to the Iraqi war in Norway, and to the US international policies of violence in general. The views allows the empathy to come up, and the empathy supports the views.

In the US, the media typically does not show the immense suffering of the Iraqi people. Instead they focus on the de-personalized "war game" aspect. To the extent it is taken to a personal level, it is all about the soldiers and their families. Again predictably, there is a relatively strong support of the war in the US. To the extent the support is waning, it is more connected to the cost in money and dead/wounded US soldiers. The views block the empathy, and the lack of empathy supports the views.

Tools

Finding ourselves in this situation, where we are trained to open up for empathy with some and not others, what can we do? Fortunately, there are many and very effective tools. Some of these are Nonviolent Communication (seeing the valid/real needs behind the strategies), Buddhist mind training (expanding compassion to all beings as we all have the same basic needs and desires), and activities such as Bowing to our Adversaries.

These work surprisingly well, and the effect is lasting if we keep it alive. As we continue keeping it alive, we deepen our empathy and our ability to open for it in more situations.

But we do need the motivation to seek change. And this motivation comes from realizing the immense suffering we create for ourselves and others when we operate from a split view. One where there is a near absolute separation between them and us, where we allow ourselves to see only some as human and not others.

Empathy

Without empathy, there is little room to change our perspective.

We cannot experience in ourselves what we see in others. We cannot taste how others may experience their situation. We loose fluidity. We loose our ability to mature as human beings.

Empathy comes from allowing ourselves to stay stay with our own experiences. To hold them, allow them to unfold. And express them as appropriate.

When we do not allow ourselves to stay with our experiences, we cut ourselves off from our connection with others, humanity, ourselves, and our own potential for maturing as a human being...

We are stuck in rigidity. We live in fear for facing what we cut ourselves off from. We live in fear for being exposed. We stay with the narrow and comfortable. We may adopt ideologies that justify our rigidity.

George Bush, unfortunately, may be an example of the latter. See this essay taking a Jungian perspective on his way of being.

[Bush in Black and White - by Donald Williams]

Paradox

In most of the world, the underdogs and those allied with the underdogs support the left, and those with economic power support the right. This makes sense as the left wants to distribute the wealth and provide for those in need, while the right tends to support those who already benefit from the system.

It is then quite incomprehensible for most Europeans, and for many here in the US, why low-income and most middle-class people would even consider supporting the republican policies.

Policies
The republican economic and social policies are consistently tailored to benefit those already benefiting from the system.

• Tax cuts for the wealthy few percent.
• Continuous wars where soldiers are overwhelmingly recruited from low-income segments of the population. And where they are killed or maimed physically and/or psychologically for life in operations that benefit the corporations more than anyone else.
  
• Cuts and/or privatization of essential social services such as health care, social security, education and public transportation. Of course, privatized higher education allows for an incentive for young low-income people to choose the military (a way out).
  
• Anti-union, and little or no protection for workers (can be fired any time for any reason).

Long Term Strategies
This shift is quite an achievement for the republican strategists. It speaks to their deep understanding of the needs of these people, and their skill in developing strategies that bring them on their side.

They have been able to get the very segments of the population who have the least to gain and the most to loose by their policies to actively support them. It does also mean that they are on shaky ground in terms of their broad base.

Their key strategy involves appearing to meet the psychological needs of the underdogs in US society....

• Focusing on "moral" issues, which makes people feel "right" and allied with the "good", to the exclusion of economic and social issues which has a far greater impact on people's lives.
• Presenting their front figures as macho and strong. Another psychological need among the underdogs.
• Presenting their front figures as "of the people" and understanding regular folks. This provides a sense of recognition and belonging. (And they do understand regular folks - to the point where they can skillfully manipulate their views and behavior.)
• Presenting their opponents as weak and elitist.

Another strategy is to consistently keep people misinformed, as the recent PIPA poll demonstrates.

Pressing Issues: What About Polling?

Kerry backers often charge that Bush supporters are not "reality-based" when it comes to the Iraq war. A new survey suggests that this may actually be true. How much are the media to blame? [...]

The poll for the non-partisan Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) reveals that a vast majority of President Bush's backers continue to believe, contrary to evidence, that Saddam Hussein had strong links to al-Qaeda and possessed WMDs or a major program for making them. [...]

Equally interesting, the new survey finds that if the Bush supporters knew (or accepted) the truth, some of them might feel quite differently about the war. Asked whether we should have gone to war if Iraq was not making WMD or providing strong support to al-Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said no. [...]

* On WMDs: Even after the final report of chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD or a major program for developing them.

And 57% also believe, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

* On the al-Qaeda link: 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has actually been found.

Plus, 55% believe, again incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. One in five believe Iraq was directly involved with the 9/11 attacks. Large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

"One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs," Steven Kull, director of PIPA, asserts in a report, "is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Indeed, 82% of Bush supporters perceive the administration as saying that Iraq had WMD or a major WMD program. Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration claims Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaeda.

"To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions," he explains, "likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq."

If true, this is pretty much a full-court suppress.
Just 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the United States having gone to war with Iraq. Fifty-one percent incorrectly assume Bush favors U.S. participation in the Kyoto treaty. Fifty-three percent believe he supports the International Criminal Court, despite his attack on that body in the recent debates.

"The roots of the Bush supporters' resistance to information," according to Kull, "very likely lie in the traumatic experience of 9/11 and equally in the near pitch-perfect leadership that President Bush showed in its immediate wake.

"This appears to have created a powerful bond between Bush and his supporters, and an idealized image of the President that makes it difficult for his supporters to imagine that he could have made incorrect judgments before the war, that world public opinion could be critical of his policies or that the President could hold foreign policy positions that are at odds with his supporters."

[Full article in Editor & Publisher]

Self-Organizing System

Why do the poll results show such a close presidential race? Well, one answer is that it is a self-organizing system.

Each of the two political parties have an equally fine-tuned feedback system. They perform in-depth and continuous analysis of how the messages are received in target groups, and refine and modify their messages accordingly.

As both parties do this, they tend to split the votes about equally between themselves. It does not take much to predict that we will become increasingly familiar with this pattern in the future, as the feedback process is further refined.

Electoral Reform

Although statistically improbable, it is possible that there is another meltdown following the election tomorrow. One where there is a close race in multiple states, the electoral votes differ from the national popular vote, and one where voting fraud is significant enough to be followed by multiple court cases.

In some ways, this would have some possible desirable effects. It would highlight the need for electoral reform in the US, on many levels: From the need for a true representative democracy (away from the divisive and polarizing winner-takes-all/two-party system) and instant runnoff voting to use of citizen councils and other innovations in democracy.

As with most significant changes, it will most likely happen on a local level first. And, it will face major opposition from those who benefit from the current system.

A Global Divide (and not the one you think)

This fellow Norwegian points out what may be the most significant current global cultural divide. And it is not between Christians and Muslims, or any other simple-minded division based on surface features.

Rather, it goes between those supporting the Bush administration's "war on terror" and those who see it as a profoundly flawed strategy (one that only fuels resentment and violence). As a case in point, there are higher numbers opposing this war on terror in predominantly Christian countries than in some Muslim countries.

Western Europe united against Bush

No other country in the world is so keen as mine to see George Bush lose the coming presidential election. And where do I live? In Indonesia? In an Islamic country? No. I live in Oslo, Norway. [...]

In September, Globe Scan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) published the results of their Global Public Opinion.

Nearly 34,000 people in 35 countries on five continents were asked about their views on US foreign policy. The main outcome was that the majority in 32 of the 35 countries surveyed preferred senator John Kerry to George Bush. Only Nigeria, the Philippines and Poland had populations which preferred to see Bush re-elected.

But if we take a closer look at the results, some really interesting patterns emerge. In Norway, as much as 74% of the population favours Kerry. Only 7% support the incumbent president. No other population surveyed displays such a wide margin between Kerry and Bush. Norwegians are even more in favour of Kerry than the French (Kerry leads by 64% to 5%) and more anti-Bush than the Germans (74% to 10%). [...]

More interesting is that the people in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country with some 220 million citizens, are more positive towards Bush than any of the 10 European countries surveyed.

Thirty-four per cent of Indonesians prefer the incumbent US president. If we are to believe the poll, this represents some 70 million Bush-supporting Muslim people in Indonesia - many more than in the 10 European countries combined. [...]

What do you think the answer was when PIPA asked: "On balance, has the foreign policy of President George Bush made you feel better or worse about the United States?" Well, only 3% of Norwegians answered better, 74% said worse. The majority of Norwegians might have a "correct" feeling, of course; but none the less, no other country displays such a negative view of the current US-led War on Terror. Feelings are not much more positive in the rest of Europe, though. The Poles show the least animosity of all Europeans with 15% answering "better" and 41% "worse". [...]

Third, a PIPA poll, published in October, shows that the American people do not view the world so differently from the rest of us.

Actually, a clear majority of the Americans "showed strong support for multilateralism". Seventy-four per cent oppose the US taking Israel's side with regard to the conflict in Palestine - they want their country to be neutral. Why then the current Israel-friendly policies of the US government? One answer from PIPA's conclusion:

"The study found American leaders misperceive the public position on these issues, especially when it comes to multilateral initiatives ... most Americans mistakenly believe that Congress as a whole and their own representatives vote consistently with their preferences."

So, is contemporary world politics based on an enormous misunderstanding?

At least, all these polls seem to confirm that people from different cultures do not differ too much on the world's most important questions. There is no clash of civilizations, as Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington have propagated for more than 10 years. The great schism of today is not between cultures, religions or civilisations.

Rather, the huge differences can be spotted inside our own cultures and religions. The difference is between individuals who like Bush and the present War on Terror - and they are more likely to be Muslim Indonesians than Christian Europeans - and individuals who do not. We humans agree because of what we as independent individuals think inside, not because of what skin colour we have on the outside.

I am not implying that we, therefore, face less trouble in the future. Rather the opposite - our own neighbour might be a bigger threat to our common global civilisation than the average Joe or Abd Allah of a different religion on the other side of the ocean. We need to fight our inner demons, not the myth of a threat from alien civilisations.

Essay

Election and Perceptions of the US

It is often said that the international public are differentiating the actions by the US government from the US people. And this is for the most part true.

We know that many in the US see through the deception and do not support the policies of the US government.

But if a majority of the US population this time elects Bush? How will the perception change then? It will be difficult to discount the large numbers of people in the US actively supporting a US foreign policy aimed at continuing dominance. A policy where the goals sanctify any means. One that is funded on self-righteousness, blatant lies, unilateralism and violence.

Hundred Thousand

A study published in the Lancet (respected medical journal) reports that one hundred thousand civilians are now dead as a consequence of the US invasion if Iraq. Was it worth it? The immense human suffering... All for the sake of empire. For the sake of inducing fear and submission. For the sake of continued economic, cultural and military dominance... And publicly justified by a series of blatant lies. Lies that were known to be lies by everyone, and publicly named as lies in the non-US media around the world.

How can people justify it for themselves? The politicians sending young women and men out to kill or get killed. For what? The corporations supporting it as they increase the profit for their shareholders. Those in the military believing they are doing it for "freedom". Those in the US supporting it, sitting on a coach in their living room watching TV reports that does not reflect the immense human suffering...

Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'

Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim. [...]

A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion. [...]

Before the invasion, most people died as a result of heart attack, stroke and chronic illness, the report says, whereas after the invasion, "violence was the primary cause of death".

Violent deaths were mainly attributed to coalition forces - and most individuals reportedly killed were women and children. [...]

"Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."

BBC

Systems Connections

As mentioned several times below, deep systems change is needed. And there are existing and self-perpetuating systems patterns behind many of our major challenges today. When we realize the patterns and connections, we have a better chance of unraveling these patterns and enhance others.

Worldview
One of the core challenges is a fragmented and mechanistic worldview. When we operate from an assumption of separation, we tend to harm the social and ecological network we are dependent on. We do not see how we create our own conditions through the effects of our own actions on the larger whole. And we have created a social and economic system from this view. One where cost is externalized (corporations create problems paid for in human lives, suffering and taxpayer's money etc), that is dependent on continuous growth (an impossibility on a limited planet), and the long-term and far-reaching consequences of our actions are not sufficiently taken into account.

Corporate Globalization
Over the last century, corporations increasingly determine international and national policies. Secret and un-democratic assemblies create international policies that are largely or exclusively to the benefit of corporations, and harm workers, society and ecosystems.

Corporations, Media and Politics
Corporate conglomerates own the large majority of the mass media (especially in the US). Similarly, politicians are dependent on the support of corporations to be elected. The interest of corporations, politicians and media are thus closely aligned.

The media, followed by the majority of politicians, predictably sets an agenda for the public discourse that leaves out the serious issues. Serious questions of the current power structure is left out. One example is the near absence of any critique of the neo-liberal globalization agenda.

Insecurity and Fear
Any system where a few benefits and the many does not, will play on people's insecurity and fear. Today's consumer culture feeds on peoples insecurity about themselves. When we feel that we are not "good enough", through advertisement and movies promoting unrealistic ideals, we consume more. The US government similarly plays on people's fears to get through policies that few people, if they realized what the consequences meant, would support. And the media do their part in keeping people's attention in areas that do not threaten the operations of this system.

Costs on a Human Scale

Some costs of Bush's policies, brought down on a human scale...

The war in Iraq has costed each US taxpayer $2250 so far
The 2004 $477 billion deficit, split on each each US taxpayer, comes to $4900
The $7.426 trillion national debt, distributed on each US taxpayer, comes to $74,000 (true, the Bush administration is not responsible for the whole national debt, but they do not improve the situation).

Btw: The cost of the Iraq war will come to about $220 billion this winter. There is still some room left to reach the $500 billion independently estimated before the war (see "True Values" entry for September 22, 2003 further below). But it is also a bit higher than the $50 billion the Bush administration estimated - if that is the righ term - prior to the war...

Democracy

There are significant anti-democracy tendencies in the US, on many levels...

Internationally
The US, at least verbally, promote democracy internationally as long as it is within countries. A true global, international democracy, as the UN could be the beginning of, is obviously not in the interest of the US. On the contrary, the US government makes strong efforts to undermine the UN in a multitude of ways (not paying their dues, ignoring resolutions and international agreements, unilateral actions, etc).

Within the US

• The US has a winner-takes-it-all system that polarizes, is inefficient and creates very limited choices. There are only two parties, which - from an international perspective - are very close to each other. Large realms of the political spectrum is ignored in the political life of the US.
• Money plays a large part of the political process, to the point where politicians - on almost every level - is dependent on corporate backing to be elected.
• The voting process is flawed and vulnerable to abuse in many ways, as Florida is just one example of.
• Large segments of the population is barred from voting due to a past conviction.
• Media does not provide sufficient feedback to the population for them to make informed choices. On the contrary, essential issues are ignored and others skewed.
• There are remarkable anti-democracy attitudes, even among many who consider themselves educated and progressive. One example is the strong/emotional disapproval of people voting for Nader (ignoring far more important factors, such as the 50% of the population that does not vote, the 1/3 of registered democratic voters that did not vote, Gore insisting on campaigning in states he knew he would loose, voting fraud, the many voting for Nader who would otherwise not have voted or would have voted republican [1/3 of Nader's votes came from those who otherwise would vote republican], etc.) In a democracy, each person is free to choose who they vote for, and voting - independent on who they vote for - is something to applaud. It seems a difficult consept to grasp for many in this country.

Impressions

Some of the impressions people internationally receive of the US, mainly based on the US media itself (and often accurately reflecting the attitude of the US government and large segments of the US population)...

In the US, it is perceived as unpatriotic to speak one's mind if it opposes the government...

In the US, they allow assault weapons, but control what people read from the libraries...

In the US, there are dozens of choices of toilet paper, but only two political parties...

In the US, Christians promote heartless views...

In the US, freedom is protected by shrinking civil liberties...

In the US, a foreign people is liberated through the killing of tens of thousands of their citizens...

In the US, they call it a democracy although corporations control politicians and media...

In the US, they spend hundreds of billions on the military, while a fraction could give US citizens universal health-care, improve the education, feed the hungry...

In the US, both presidential candidates support increasing a military budget that already is as large as that of all other countries combined...

In the US, one relatively minor issue (terrorism) is allowed to take front stage to the exclusion of far more serious issues...

In the US, the election system has serious flaws and little effort is made to correct it (as we again see in Florida)...

In the US, people systematically support policies that harm themselves...

Didn't Know I Was Unamerican (video)

Polarization

The US is remarkably polarized, which leads to a public debate that is equally remarkably immature/unsophisticated. Two of the many reasons...

Winner-takes-it-all => Two-party system
This marginally democratic system fuels polarization. In a parlamentary system, a wide range of views and approaches are represented, and representatives learn to work together. Just about any citizen can vote for, and in most cases, see someone elected, whose views they share and believe in. Not so in the US, where many (the majority?) feel they do not have a candidate to vote for who accurately represent their views. It leads to a polarized debate and situation.

Corporate influences
Corporations control most of the media and politicians, and have an interest in a system that in effect is not democratic but have only the appearance of a democracy. It is in their interest to set the agenda for the public discourse (as they do), focus on issues of less importance, and trivialize or leave out of the discourse the deeply important topics. Polarization is in their interest as it fires up emotions, which can then be targeted on the "safe" (for them) issues (such as who of two presidential candidates - who both happens to support increased military spending and corporate globalization - gets elected).

Immaturity...

US mass culture (as portrayed in the media) and large segments of the US population, is often described as stuck in adolescence. In looking at the psychology behind these patterns, it seems that much of it may be related to a lack of comfort with oneself. When we are not comfortable with ourselves, our own humanity, it tends to be expressed in unwise behavior. Realizing this, it opens for compassion and possibly a more efficient strategy to change.

Some of the signs....

Youth
Youth is seen as an ideal, and there is a lack of appreciation for wisdom gained through a long life.
+ The beneficial aspect is an emphasis on health and activity, even late in life
- The less beneficial aspect is a de-emphasis on the importance of life wisdom
* A sign of lack of comfort with the natural life processes, of alienation and adherence to ideas that do not conform to reality. When we are comfortable with the life processes, we are more comfortable with the natural biolgical aging.

Attention Span
Short attention spans and less patience with experiences that take a longer time and mature slowly (and more deeply): reading a book or living in one place for a long time and becoming intimate with the place and people.
+ It allows for curiosity and exploration
- It tends to prevent deeper exploration of one area
* A sign of lack of comfort with life as it is. When we are comfortable with life as it is, in all its many manifestations, we can stay with the situation and hold it (and allow it to expand us).

Oversimplification
One-dimensional view of the world. Tends to emphasize black-and-white views, and "quick fixes" such as wars to "prevent" terrorism.
+ Leads to action
- Leads to strategies that do not take into account deeper causes and thus tend to be flawed

Lack of empathy
There is typically not a strong experience of our common humanity and of seeing oneself in the other.
+ Difficult to see any desirable effects
- Tendency towards dismissing the validity in other's experience of the world (based on their history), and lack of concern of ones impact on others.
* A sign of lack of comfort with oneself. When we see in ourselves what we see in others, we see our common humanity and open up for compassion.

Superficiality
Political and other decisions are often made based on superficial reasons or blind ideology, not on substance or research.
+ ?
- Strategies are often chosen that do not meet people's needs (e.g. poor people support political candidates that serve corporations and weaken the position of the poor)

Masculinity
Unhealthy/immature expressions of "masculinity" are seen as ideals.
+ ?
- It causes behavior that leads to deteriorating relationships, does not allow people to feel comfortable in themselves as they are, and prevents maturation.
* This is a sign of lack of comfort with oneself, especially the feminine qualities. When we give ourselves permission to freely explore with both masculine and feminine qualities in ourselves we become familiar with them, express them, and allow them to mature and freely integrate.

Rigidity
Modifying one's views is seen as wishy-washy
+ ?
- Pushes people into fixed patterns and rigidity, and does not allow for changed views/approaches when the situation calls for it (due to different situation, new information/experiences).
* Another sign of lack of comfort with oneself. When we allow ourselves to fluidly experience and express what comes up, there is no need for holding onto abstract ideas/ideologies or rigidity.

Denial
There is a deep denial of many of the problems we face, internationally and in the US: Unraveling ecosystems, increasing gap between rich and poor (leading to social instability), peak oil (the end of the petroleum age), lack of a truly democratic system in the US (two-party system, flawed election process), and the dangers of corporate globalization, corporate media and corporate sponsored politicians.
+ ? (makes people feel happy in the short run, I guess)
- Very dangerous in the long run...
* This is also a sign of lack of comfort with oneself, a lack of fluidity. When we are comfortable with ourselves, all our many aspects, then we also learn to be comfortable with new things/insights as they come up. We allow ourselves to take them into account, express them and allow them to inform our choices and actions.

Shadow II

In an odd way, the intentions of Bush (as judged from his actions) and those behind 911 are aligned. The expressed and excplicit goal for those behind 911 is to create a rift between the Islamic and western worlds. Bush is furthering this through his own policies.

The only effective way to diffuse terrorism (it can of course never be eliminated), is to (a) bring those behind it to court through the international justice system (no wars needed for that), and (b) diffuse the causes of terrorism: poverty and injustice. (both promoted through the US foreign policies over the last several decades).

Terrorist networks are distributed and non-localized. Wars are geographically focused and limited. It goes without saying that wars cannot and will not reduce terrorism but only fuels it through increased resentment towards the US.

Having seen the irrational reactions of the US people and politicians following 911, it may well be that another terrorist operation will be timed to influence the presidential election. Those behind 911 cannot hope for a president more aligned with their own intentions than Bush. And they know how the US population - in their odd irrationality - will support the sitting president following such an incident.

[Guardian - Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands]

Military Spending

The way we spend our time and money is good indicator of what our priorities are.

Federal Budget

Currently, about half of the US federal budget goes to the military. Of this, half goes to current military spending and half to service loans for past military spending (often conveniently left out of statistics and public discussions on this topic).

Global Spending

Looking at the international military spending, we see that the US military budget is about as large as that of all other countries combined.

In a global context, this is clearly excessive. Domestically, it is devastating.

The US seems to have no lack of money for war, but very little for taking care of the basic human needs of its own population.

Priorities

The most astonishing aspect of this is that the US population appears to happily support this discrepancy. The excessive US military spending is arguably the most important aspect of any budget issue, yet rarely comes up as a topic. In fact, both of the current presidential candidates support increasing the military budget!

Empire

It all does make some sense in the odd logic of the empire. The US empire, following the pattern of empires in the past, survives on global military, economic and cultural dominance. The wealth of the empire is largely channeled into perpetuating this dominance.

And, again following the patterns of empires of the past, it will extend its own resources to and beyond its limits, and the empire will crumble. Which, ironically, will benefit the people of the US in the long run as more resources will be made available to the simple basic needs of the people (healthcare, education etc).

For now, they are caught up in and blinded by the empire archetype (a dark aspect of the hero and/or king archetypes), to their own and other's detriment.


---------------------

Numbers

• The US military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's.


• The US military budget is more than 8 times larger than the Chinese budget,
  the second largest spender.


• The US military budget is more than 29 times as large as the combined spending
  of the seven “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea,
  Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.4 billion.


• It is more than the combined spending of the next twenty three nations.


• The United States and its close allies account for some two thirds to three-quarters
  of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically
  NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)


• The seven potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spend
  $116.2 billion, 27.6% of the U.S. military budget.

[source: global issues]

Shadow

It is clear that for the Western world, Islam is the new favored projection object for the Shadow. Whatever in ourselves that is dark, unknown and frightening, and previously projected on the favorite scapegoat of the time (witches, communists, jews, japanese, etc.), is now projected on Islam and Muslims.

The Bush government is one of the major proponents of this pattern, and they play happily into the hands of those behind 911 - who most of all would like to see this split between the western world and the Islamic world...

And others follow. Not the least significant portions of the press.

There is an interesting and disconcerning historical parallel here: Many of the current descriptions of Islam and Muslims (as seen in some mainstream press) resembles closely the typical (and mainstream) descriptions of Jews in the lead-up to WW2... Descriptions born out of fear, blind projections, lack of knowledge...

-----------------------------

About the Shadow

The Shadow is a term coined by GC Jung. It describes those qualities and characteristics of ourselves that we do not want to consiously identify with. The parts that do not fit into our consious image of ourself.

Qualities end up in the Shadow when they do not fit in with our cultural and personal expectations of how we "should" be - of what is "good" and "appropriate".

We tend to relate to these qualities, when they come up in ohters and ourself, with aversion. And this aversion can take many forms - contempt, disgust, anger, shame, guilt etc.

This aversion interact with and fuels the initial ideals, and we tend to develop elaborate and - on the surface - plausible justifications around the complex.

Which again can justify dehumanization of those we see expressing these qualities...

Of course, the Shadow qualities contain gold as soon as we recognize them as part of ourselves, and integrate them in our consious perception of ourselves. They contain significant energy, which - when consious - can be channeled in very productive ways. They can also help us deepen our humanity and compassion for ourselves and others.

Systematic II

It is interesting to see how many in the US express the view that the prisoner abuse in Iraq was "unamerican" and not in the US character. It is another expression of a black-and-white view of the world of which Bush currently is the most visible proponent.

They forget that the US is a nation founded on genocide. And what about slavery, the interment of Japanese during WW2, the toppling of democratically elected governments (Chile in 1973), and the current abuse in US prisons?

The character of any person and any group is immensely complex.

It contains all characteristics - as a potential or unfolded.

Maturity is to recognize that they are all there - in ourselves as well as others.

Systems and Change?

In spite of surface appearance, and the energy many put into supporting one against the other, there are few substancial differences between Bush and Kerry. It is more than likely that the main Bush policies will be continued with Kerry. He did after all support the Patriot Act, the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and the current excessive levels of military spending.

Behind these symptoms, there are deep systems problems.

The main medium level one is the close alignment between the interest of corporations, the media and US policies. Deeper down we have a dualistic percpetion of the world that causes severe problems in a world that is seamless.

Of the Democratic presidential candidates, these systems levels were adressed mainly by Kucinich and to some extent by Dean. Kerry is far more invested in preserving status quo.

In this situation, there may - unfortunately - be significant advantages to re-electing Bush.

Bush's lack of sophistication makes the real motivations behind the policies more apparent. It brings awareness to these longstanding policies, their destructive effects, and fuels international resistance and alternatives.

Kerry's more civilized approach will make destructive policies more palatable. They will tend to go under the radar screen again...

Systematic

It is again surprising to see the angle of the media coverage, and this time of the prison abuse in Iraq.

The media acts as if it is shocking and new information, while (a) it has been known and reported since the beginning of the occupation, (b) systematic dehumanization of the opponents inevitably leads to violence and abuse, and (c) similar abuse is systematic in US prisons in general.


Known

The abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US military and guards have been reported since the beginning of the occupation. I addition, military personnel from European countries have repeatedly commented on the excessive violence used by the US military.

Red Cross told US last year about abuse of prisoners

The International Committee of the Red Cross said yesterday it had last year repeatedly asked US prison authorities in Iraq to address serious and systematic ill-treatment of detainees, casting doubt on claims by the US administration that it only became aware of abuses in the Abu Ghraib prison in January when a US soldier came forward with photographic evidence.

A leaked confidential ICRC report on prisoner conditions in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq between March and November 2003 describes harsh treatment of detainees "in some cases tantamount to torture" that constituted serious violations of the Geneva conventions requiring the humane treatment of prisoners of war and civilian detainees.

Such treatment "went beyond exceptional cases and might be considered as a practice tolerated" by coalition forces, the report said.

[...] The report, based on ICRC interviews with prisoners, included abuses now revealed in published photographs, for instance, "acts of humiliation such as being made to stand naked. . . with women's underwear over the head for prolonged periods, while being laughed at by guards, including female guards, and sometimes photographed in this position".

These and other methods of physical and psychological coercion "were used by the military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and extract information", the report said.

[source - Financial Times, London]


Abuse in US-run prisons systematic: ICRC

The International Committee of the Red Cross claims the abuse it found in Iraq's US-run prisons was systematic and amounted to "torture".

Furthermore, the organisation says it first raised concerns with the US about the abuse of Iraqis more than a year ago.

[...] "It is clear that our findings do not allow to conclude that what we were dealing with here in the case of Abu Ghraib (a notorious detention centre near Baghdad) was isolated acts of individual members of the coalition forces,"Mr Kraehenbuehl told journalists.

"What we have described amounts to a pattern, a broad system," he said.

The Wall Street Journal said the report, which was submitted to the US government in February, detailed mistreatment at prisons other than at Abu Ghraib, which shot to prominence last week after pictures showing US soldiers allegedly abusing Iraqi prisoners were published in US media.

[...] "Findings that are contained in this particular report were previously discussed at different levels of the coalition forces at different moments between March and November of 2003," the ICRC official said.

[source - Sidney Morning Herald]


Dehumanization

The US government rhetoric (adopted by US media) is designed for dehumanization of the opponent. "You are with us or against us", "axis of evil", branding legitimate resistance fighters "terrorists", and so on. A series of actions further supports the dehumanization. One of many examples is the lack of officials numbers of Iraqis killed since the war started (numbering tens of thousands), giving the clear message that their lives are less important than that of westerners. This type of dehumanization inevitable leads to violence, abuse, and human rights violations.

Fiendebildet kan ha ført til mishandling

George W. Bush' fremstilling av fienden i Irak som ond, som en del av ondskapens akse, er en viktig forutsetning for mishandlingen av fanger som vi nå ser, mener psykolog Nora Sveaass.

[...] Det må ha vært en prosess forut for at disse soldatene ble med på mishandlingen av de irakske fangene. Utøverne av volden må ha blitt fortrolig med tanken om at de sto overfor en fiende som ikke har krav på respekt og verdighet, en fiende som er avhumanisert, sier sjefpsykolog Nora Sveaass ved nasjonalt kunnskapssenter om vold og traumatisk stress.

[...] Det er mye mer et uttrykk for at samtidig som de har vært utsatt for et voldsomt press, så har de også vært utsatt for en veldig sterk propaganda for å rettferdiggjøre krigen, sier hun. - I den politiske argumentasjonen og ellers er irakerne blitt fremstilt som bærere av ondskap, som må bekjempes.

[source - Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation]


Human Rights Violations in US Prisons

Mistreatment of Prisoners Is Called Routine in U.S.

Physical and sexual abuse of prisoners, similar to what has been uncovered in Iraq, takes place in American prisons with little public knowledge or concern, according to corrections officials, inmates and human rights advocates.

In Pennsylvania and some other states, inmates are routinely stripped in front of other inmates before being moved to a new prison or a new unit within their prison. In Arizona, male inmates at the Maricopa County jail in Phoenix are made to wear women's pink underwear as a form of humiliation.

At Virginia's Wallens Ridge maximum security prison, new inmates have reported being forced to wear black hoods, in theory to keep them from spitting on guards, and said they were often beaten and cursed at by guards and made to crawl.

The corrections experts say that some of the worst abuses have occurred in Texas, whose prisons were under a federal consent decree during much of the time President Bush was governor because of crowding and violence by guards against inmates. Judge William Wayne Justice of Federal District Court imposed the decree after finding that guards were allowing inmate gang leaders to buy and sell other inmates as slaves for sex.

[...]

Nationwide, during the last quarter century, over 40 state prison systems were under some form of court order, for brutality, crowding, poor food or lack of medical care, said Marc Mauer, assistant director of the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group in Washington that calls for alternatives to incarceration.

In a 1999 opinion, Judge Justice wrote of the situation in Texas, "Many inmates credibly testified to the existence of violence, rape and extortion in the prison system and about their own suffering from such abysmal conditions."

[source - NY Times]

More
Amnesty International - USA Abuses
Human Rights Watch - USA
Human Rights Watch - Prisons
Prison Activist - Links

-------------------

Immunity and Privatization

And a follow-up on how the US is using a range of strategies to avoid accountability:


Iraq troops to get immunity
(Filed: 23/05/2004)

US and British soldiers in Iraq will retain immunity from prosecution after the handover of power in the country, according to newspaper reports.

[...] At the United Nations, the United States and Britain are drafting a new resolution to provide international backing for the interim government.

[...] A guarantee that those troops would not be liable to prosecution in Iraqi courts has been a key part in negotiations, reports claim.

[source - Telegraph, UK]


Privatised wars 'need new laws'

The rules are blurred in Iraq in ways never seen before. It might be called the first privatised war of modern times.

[...] The Red Cross is also worried about similar blurring right across the conflict because of the growth of private contractors.

[...] "Our concern is that there is a void of regulation; a void in terms of rules of engagement that may become a real danger once you put some of these people with a gun in the field.".

The Red Cross fears that private soldiers who breach international conventions might not be accountable, so it plans to get governments to hold companies to account.

[source - BBC]