435 Campaign: 2019

Sunday, December 29, 2019

Nov. 24, 2019 National "Can we change? Day" (160th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s publication of “The Origin of Species”)

Exactly one year ago my blog post suggested Nov. 24 could be “World Money Day”. Humanity needs such a day to examine our assumptions about money and its powerful capacity to maximize human freedom and security on our increasingly troubled planet.

We know that money does not make the world go around. That’s done by natural forces. Money is only a human concept (perhaps the source of all evil when greed becomes more valued than human needs or the environment) and like most things it has evolved. Originally it was a mean of exchanging goods and services. Not it’s a measure of value that we put on things regardless of their importance.

For a humorous account of its evolution watch the first 4 minutes of the recent Netflix movie “The Laundromat” starring Meryl Streep. It exposes money laundering and its ‘secrets’ linked to global economic and political corruption. “Secret #1” is “The meek are all ‘screwed”. If you are an individual unable to afford an offshore account (or one of the three US states where they legally exist) that legally values ‘privacy’ above ‘liberty and justice for all’ (and national security) you are one of the “meek”. Welcome to the crowd.

The Bible suggests ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’. Evidence suggest we’ve largely inherited both unprecedented wealth and comforts as well as increasing global chaos and potential for disaster.   And the meek helped create both. Scientists, engineers, laborers, administrators, wise investors, and a relatively large legal system ensured the first. A wealthy few and a majority of US policy makers (whom we have largely ignored) legally rigged the national and global economic system to their own greedy advantage, while ignoring or accelerating the global chaos. Their advantage and the chaos continue to grow. Meanwhile, the rest of us are so busy with other things (both meaningful and trivial) that we ignored this rigging. We trusted our law makers to protect our best interests. They didn’t.

I dare you to make a list of unsustainable trends that persist with virtually no chance of us stopping anyone of them without a serious crash happening first.   Laws could be passed to stop or prevent such crashes, but political party loyalty appears to be more powerful than sustainable public interests. Advances in technology have only accelerated the globalization of money, environmental problems, health threats, a new arms race, the proliferation of WMD, mistrust in government, and the population of hateful/violent extremists.

Back to Darwin. Most people without a science degree believe that the fundamental product of evolution is that ‘only the strong survive’. This is a profound misrepresentation of the fundamentals of Darwin’s theory. It’s likely that those wealthy enough to establish an offshore account - and stash their millions into it- believe that ‘only the rich survive’. Or, at least have the most fun, freedom, and security before passing their mega wealth onto their offspring in hopes of enhancing their survival chances. If these monstrously wealthy individuals really understood the acceleration of the wide range of threats to all humanity (including their own offspring) they might focus less on stashing additional wealth into the $32 trillion (2014 estimate) already stashed there. Stashed by them, oligarchs, kleptocrats, drug cartels, and violent extremist groups, all protected by privacy laws.

In evolutionary terms physical strength or economic wealth will ultimately be useless for anyone’s health or survival. In reality we are all irreversibly dependent on one another for the health and essential maintenance of the multiple layers of vital systems and structures in our bodies, governments, and environment. Systems and structures we all rely on every minute of every day for our ultimate survival.

In almost any likely future our dependence on each other and smartly engineered technologies will be essential to responding to or recovering from any catastrophic event. Understanding this, it makes economic sense to adequately invest now in preventive measures as well as adequate preparation measures to empower our resilience.

Given the pace of technological change and absence of any effective governance systems at the national or global level now, our local and state governments will likely be overwhelmed and unable to cope with most of the coming threats (pandemics, coronal mass ejections, debt sparked economic collapse, bioterrorism, AI, WMD proliferation, loss of our antibiotic arsenal, mass species extinctions, global warming, refugee flows, asteroids…) some of which are existential threats and some that are inevitable.

Our government rarely does what makes sense. It responds, if at all, to squeaky wheels. Investments in prevention appear as un-American. And ethics appears as something taught in places of worship and colleges but not government or business schools.

Most damaging may be our comparatively sick culture that we as a nation has adapted to over the last few decades. Our lethal obesity rate, suicide rate, debt, declining longevity, mass shootings, opioid deaths, and loneliness epidemic are some of the more obvious symptoms. Uncivil political discourse, mistrust in institutions (political, economic, religious, educational…) and the belief that either disarmament or a stronger military will keep us safe, misses the fundamental truths.

We were supposed to hold certain truths to be self-evident. We have frequently pledged before our flag, “liberty and justice for all”. But we largely expect things to get better without investing time, money, intellect, and the American spirit” into building a more perfect union or applying the Golden Rule.

The fundamental survival principle that Charles Darwin offered humanity in ‘The Origin of Species” is the survival enhancing protecting of genetic diversity - and its prime benefit of adapting to changing conditions. We put too much emphasis on monocropping our diversity and adapting our natural environments to support ‘our kind’ and our comforts to the extent of risking our future.   Our sciences and engineering capacity yielded unprecedent power to change things for the better - or for the worse -- depending on our basic values and intentions. Meanwhile, the world’s major religions offer us the most fundamental principle for cooperation and justice – the Golden Rule, another powerful (and I believe genetically coded) survival tool.

Unfortunately, our individual minds and bodies desire to defend flawed concepts, seek comfort and pleasure while ignoring the fundamental needs of others as well as the essential environmental processes that all of life depends on. This mental tendency continues to divide us by nationality, ethnicity, sexual preference, religious beliefs, political ideology, and economic standing.

What is required is the understanding that if we don’t change, we will not survive the coming chaos. Rapid change is essential to preventing inevitable chaos (see unsustainable trends list), and best preparing for the chaos we cannot prevent.

Rapid change will require a well informed and well-organized citizenry who understand that voting is essentially useless if we stand back between elections and allow well paid lawyers and lobbyists to continue rigging the legal system that ‘we the people’ are fundamentally responsible for. Both political parties have allowed this rigging and appear gutless to stop it. That leaves it up to us (from every political party), to change the system, or continue getting screwed.

We need a holistic approach to the enormous list of problems now before us. None can be prioritized except making rapid and sufficient investments in the preventive measures the world agreed to at the UN for the year 2030. Lacking trust or enthusiasm in the UN is understandable.   But the fact remains, that our global interdependence demands we invest in achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals before 2030. Globally protecting human rights instead of continuing to defend the flawed concept of national sovereignty can we dampen the chaotic foreign forces walls won’t stop. Tapping the corrupt global economic system that allows trillions in profits to be stashed in offshore accounts is the place to start.

A movement of progressive movements could achieve a global ban on private ‘investment’ havens’ and then freeze and seize some of trillions stashed in them. More than enough money there for creating a sustainable heaven on earth for all our planets inhabitants and their offspring.

Things change. Can we? Can we evolve?

The coming Race war?

The coming Race War… or war to save the human race: It’s our choice. And it needs to be made very soon!

[This blog was inspired by today's front-page Washington Post story leading to two full pages of history and concern regarding the growing threat of a race war.] “Hunting Black men to start a ‘race war’” https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/local/race-war-murder-hate-crime

We have within our genes the capacity for genocide as well as the capacity for compassion, justice and the Golden Rule. Our mind can engineer either outcome. It’s vital for our minds to grasp the fundamental fact that the same technologies used to engineer a genocide can also enable us to create heaven on earth. It is the concepts we hold dear in our mind that ultimately inspire our heart to love or hate.

Biology is literally the science of the study of life. Studying biology can empower either aspiration. Studying the mechanics of biology alone can result in genocidal bioweapons or biosecurity threats that lead to the ‘war that ends all wars’…by eradicating our species.   A deep dive into the origins of life (from either a science or biblical perspective) however, can also yield the fundamental principles essential to the perpetuation of our species.


What are those fundamental principles? Abraham Lincoln convinced me that ‘framing’ principles in the context of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that are offered to us in the first paragraph of our Declaration of Independence, is our species greatest hope.   Not our Constitution. To him the “principles” within “Our Declaration of Independence” are essential. Our nation’s Declaration is our “apple of gold”… “and our Constitution” is “the picture of silver framed around it”.

FP #1. Genetics do not determine our destiny.   Recent studies of epigenetics destroy the long held scientific understanding that the genes we are born with, we are stuck with. In fact, various stressors outside our cellular DNA can alter how genes are expressed in both our bodies and our brains.

FP #2. Genetic variability is our species greatest ‘strength”.    When Darwin coined the term “survival of the fittest” many people understood this ‘law of nature’ to mean ‘survival of the strongest’. As a former wrestler I assure you that any strength you rely on can and will be used against you.   One’s capacity to adapt to changes is and will remain the greatest strength. Genetic variability is profoundly enhanced by the exchange and recombination of genes through sex.   Hybrids can result in variations of life that can withstand catastrophic changes in the environment (nature, economic, social…).

FP #3. Earth has an expiration date. White supremacists and other genetic ‘purist’ motivated extremists fail to comprehend our need for biological diversity within and beyond our species if life as we know it, is to ultimately survive Earth’s fate. Earth and all of its precious life WILL be vaporized in a few billion years when the Sun ages. Or we could all be vaporized next week by a planet killing asteroid or Gama ray burst originating ten thousand light years away when it finally reaches our tiny planet and obliterates any DNA/RNA based life forms.

FP #4. The inability of human “moral virtue to govern the world”. Given the unlimited variations in human bodies, languages, and beliefs; our capacity to create new tools and concepts; and our mental ability to believe ANYTHING -- and then kill or die for that cherished but flawed belief -- disastrous tensions/passions can be expected. And humanity must engineer an effective means (systems and structures) for governing them. This should be obvious. Thomas Paine expressed it most succinctly in his pamphlet “Common Sense”. The need for a “form of government from a principle in nature” to ultimately maximize human “freedom and security”.

FP #5 ‘United…We stand’ a chance of surviving human tensions and inevitable natural events. Given the evolution of weapons that we continue to engineer for maximum human destruction -- divided, we will likely destroy ourselves before nature does. Or, deplete our natural resources before we can learn and incorporate all of nature’s wisdom it has generated since the beginning.   There is a biological reason for “the Golden Rule” underlying of every major religion. Any species lacking the will or the capacity to defend its kind, procreate, and defend its own would have likely perished long ago. Survival is a fundamental principle of all life and fairness (justice for all) helps insure it.

As we end this decade and 2020 begins, we must quickly learn that there are ‘self-evident truths’ that fake news and deep fakes will never spoil.   Nearly two decades ago the “Global War against Terrorism” was launched. It continues in a low-profile version today in over 90 nations. There are more ‘extremists today and they are not going away from fear of military force. They only go deeper into hiding and tactics we will not be able to defend against. Our collective failure to invest in prevention instead of preemption, assassination, kinetic violence, and containment is fulfilling Osama Bin Laden’s original two goals – breaking us economically and dividing us politically. We didn’t need any help with either but we do need to change how we respond to ‘terror’.

‘We the people’, social media, big data intelligence, robotics, and the most powerful and wealthy nations, corporations, or tech giants in the world -- must remember that technology and economic theories are only tools.   We ultimately decide how they will be used and must understand the consequences of abusing them. Unless we recognize and act on this humanity may yet lose the right to survive and the opportunity to thrive.

The one thing we can do this decade to ensure we make it to, and well beyond 2030, is fund and achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. These are the closest thing we will get to the ‘Golden Rule”, enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and codification of our Declaration of Independence.

The human race is worth fighting for. Compassion and cooperation in achieving ‘liberty and justice for all”… our best weapons we will ever have to win this war.

Saturday, November 9, 2019

November 9, 2019: The 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

November 9, 2019: The 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Contemplating this historical event, I’ve read some informed opinions regarding it’s significance. One rational view I’ve heard started with a question. Did we really win the Cold War? He answered, ‘not really’ and went on to document why. Essentially, it was not. Not if 'the fall' it was viewed as a turning point for a better world to come given the human aspiration for freedom.

Here's my own twisted perspective. It was certainly evidence of an aspiration for freedom. Unfortunately, most of us in ‘free’ nations, squandered that jolt of reality. And after that we failed in our roll in building that better world of ‘liberty and justice for all’. I'll assert that our primary reason was in believing democracy was the key to maximize humanities freedom and security. That democracy was more important than 'justice for all" and the protection of human rights.

The recent historical outbreak in democracies of populism and protest should have quashed any such belief. Anyone studying and fully grasping the flaws in this human created principle we call ‘democracy’, would certainly recognize that the benefits of ‘democracy’ are far from any inevitable positive outcome without a transformational change in governing systems.

Over the ages many minds far wiser and smarter than most of ours have warned against such optimism of yielding power to the ignorant masses. It appears most of our ‘modern’ minds remain opposed (or ignorant) of the consistently reasoned wisdom of old. Popularity does not fix problems. Neither does optimism. Abiding by fundamental principles can. We should adopt those offered in our Declaration of Independence and codify them. They were known by those who drafted our U.S. Constitution. Then largely ignored (I’m guessing) for economic and populace reasons. They (our founding fathers) should have walked their talk.

Today I read a book review on “Paradise Lost”. A best seller about 400 years ago. The review suggested it contained the answer to most of the important questions humans have wanted asked. I was stymied by finding out it was poetry, in blank verse no less, and not easy to understand. So I read the cribbed notes version. And the first four line intro hit home. Essentially, the origins of all human suffering is because Adam and Eve didn’t listen. They ate from the “fruit of the forbidden tree”.

According to the crib version Paradise Lost is as much about hierarchy as obedience. And the “spatial hierarchy” of “the universe” puts “Heaven above, Hell below, and Earth in the middle” forming a “social hierarchy of angels, humans, animals and devils.” “To obey God is to respect this hierarchy.” And, “humankind’s disobedience is a corruption of God’s hierarchy.”

When thinking about the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” I can’t help but believe that the protection of human life and the environment (God’s creation) would be respectful to “God’s hierarchy.” Yet, it seems ‘self-evident’ that most voters of every religious denomination, most policy makers from every political party, and most leaders from every nation, persistently fail to abide by this hierarchy. And then we the governed, who elected them, wonder why things aren’t going so well. Or, that nearly every aspect of our comfortable civilized lives is simply unsustainable. Economic debt, global warming, extinction of species, income inequality, the evolution of weapons and war, and the persistently acceptance of corruption as part of both our economic (capitalism) and political (financed) systems. Systems that were rigged by the wealthy under our democratic masses noses because we were too comfortable to care.

In summary the majority of voters have simply allowed this corruption of God’s hierarchy. We were/are free to believe that democracy will cure this corruption. But as long as a majority of US voters (or humanity) remain ignorant of the survival value of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” we will be as free as Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. And just as foolishly never be free of the consequences of using our freedom irresponsibly.

I’ve yet to grasp the conclusion offered by the crib notes author - that Milton (the poem’s author) wanted to show that the fall of humankind was part of God’s greater plan, and that God’s plan is justified. https://www.sparknotes.com/poetry/paradiselost/

But I do arrogantly suggest an alternative future (and value system) is possible. One that enables humanity to find the Paradise we lost. Science has provided us with the tools needed to create heaven on earth. Never has humanity had the comforts now afforded by such powerful and increasingly affordable technologies. Yet comfort is not what our creator (God or evolution) made us for. We were made for greatness. And unless we globally honor the Golden Rule and use our politics, science, technology, and economy to abide by the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” we will never engineer the capacity to survive beyond our earthly paradise. To physically reach the heavens, before the inevitable expansion of our Sun incinerates all God’s creation and wisdom multiple prophets have offered.

Our first step in a different direction would be to invest sufficiently in achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Goals that target the underlying causes of so much suffering, injustice, violence, and multiple environmental degradations. Anyone connecting the dots will see the web of life and the need for global justice. Failing this we can only expect further chaos and human suffering. Perhaps the end of human life on earth.

Note to Trump and his supporters on the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Walls do not keep us free or secure.

Note to voters. Unless we change our current Constitution to codify the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” just voting for your favorite candidate simply won’t matter to your children or grandchildren. Given the evolution of technology’s exponential growth (fueling the evolution of weapons and war) time is not on our side.

I’ll end with one short poem I love with written by Dr. Benjamin E. Mays. The late Eliza Cummings read it his first day of Congress. And it was read recently at his eulogy.

I have only just a minute,

Only sixty seconds in it.

Forced upon me, can’t refuse it.

Didn’t seek it, didn’t choose it.

But it’s up to me

to use it.

I must suffer if I lose it.

Give account if I abuse it.

Just a tiny little minute,

but eternity is in it.

Monday, October 28, 2019

Power to the People used to promote democracy. It can now become a lethal threat to governments.

Some individuals still believe that a sustainable global society with “freedom and justice for all’ is attainable with an integrated global economy underpinned by the rule of law. And this is our only way to sustainably maximize all of humanities freedom and security.

Some are now suggesting that the arc of history may soon turn back onto a democratic pathway where a majority of humanity champions ‘liberty and justice for all’, and call for a new and accountable global political system that puts the protection of human rights that former generations championed and acknowledged with Universal Declaration of Human Rights, superior to the rights of nations, which is now supreme to anything else. While this future is not likely -- it is possible. And it may now be in its birthing stage in the protests sparking up around the world. Could this be a backlash to the nationalism, anti-globalism, and populist politics that the world has been spiraling down into for more than three decades?

Two Washington Post articles (one Sunday and one today) may be evidence it is.

Global protests share themes of economic anger and political hopelessness

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/25/global-wave-protests-share-themes-economic-anger-political-hopelessness/

From Hong Kong to Chile, 2019 is the year of the street protester. But why?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/from-hong-kong-to-chile-2019-is-the-year-of-the-street-protester-but-why/2019/10/27/9f79f4c6-f667-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html

And, governments should pay very close attention to demands these people are making. Why?

Because governments should rightfully fear “People Power”! It is no longer just a democratic slogan. With technology in the hands of disgruntled citizen it’s increasingly a physical threat. A serious threat that those in control of a corrupt, repressive, or dysfunctional government should rightfully fear. They would be better off providing and paying attention to the ballot box.

But the people need to be aware that ‘democracy’ alone is often the cause of problems. It can rightfully be blamed for bringing us nationalism, populism, and even anti-globalism. For democracy to work in a progressive direction (global governance prioritizing the protection of human rights and the environment) an educated populace is required. Relatively comfortable citizens who cast ballots based on logic and long-term self-interest…instead of emotions and short term interests which is the past and current norm, is simply unworkable.

What is workable is the fact that every technology is now weaponizable by individual people as well as their governments. The global outbreaks of people power in mass protests are not new. But the exponential growth, affordability, and power of technology is. And, this year’s outbreak of unrest is a result of its relatively non-violent use, so far. Combined with the growing mass discontent that anti-globalism, populism, and nationalism can never solve, or prevent, a new politics of ‘liberty and justice for all’ may await. Or, Armageddon, if governments continue to ignore the fundamental needs of all their people.

Hong Kong has had 20 consecutive weeks of mass protests with violence escalating. Middle East demonstrations in Lebanon, Algeria, Sudan, Egypt and Iraq have also been bloody. In Latin America, large protests in Ecuador, Argentina and Honduras were followed by riots in Chile where economic conditions have recently been good, and people have now been killed. Eastern Europe’s, Romania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Serbia and Georgia have also seen mass protests. And Russia’s Vladimir Putin is now coping with the largest street protests in Russia since 2012. And there’s others.

Why now? Global poverty is declining! But with it, economic comforts of the middle class and optimism about the future are also in decline.

Bottom line: Governments are failing their primary function of protecting human freedom and security. Street protestors see them as unacceptably corrupt, repressive, and/or dysfunctional. And, most important, unresponsive. Discontented youth have been empowered and emboldened by their savvy use of social media platforms. It’s a small jump and affordable jump to weaponize anything from computers, to drones, to chemicals in our garden sheds.

Technology has empowered motivated youth to mobilize mass action in angry response to small issues. Issues which quickly connected to a mass of discontent on other issues that had remained unexpressed.

Government’s are taking notice of the epidemic of protests but any government that responds with abusive force would be making a huge mistake.

The evolution of technology, which can always be weaponizable, combined with its ubiquitousness, increasing affordability, and anonymity…means that governments are no longer immune to the use of force by its angered and motivated citizens.

Computer hacking, drones, and IEDs (improvised explosive devices) are prohibitively hard and expensive to defend against. The US continues to learn this the hard way.

Somehow our Christian nation never got the memo to follow the Golden Rule.

Tuesday, October 22, 2019

Capitalism is a tool. Fundamental principle: Any tool can be abused.

Dear Editor (10-21-19)
Nicolas Loris (Washington Times “Big Idea” column titled “Breathe free: Capitalism helps protect the environment”) ignores a fundamental principle regarding Capitalism. He is right in condemning the belief that capitalism is inherently evil in asserting “That’s like saying we should eliminate teachers to improve education.”
Education is like capitalism. Both are tools that can improve our civilization’s health and sustainability. And, like any tool, it can be abused. Graduates of American universities are polar opposites of graduates of Pakistani madrassas.
Who (or what) is benefited by it -- or destroyed by it - is determined by the hearts, minds, and intentions of the users.
Thus capitalist greed for quarterly profits instead of the intention to improve the health of people and/or the environment is nothing short of murder. Americans die for lack of access to essential medical services while greedy capitalist use offshore accounts to avoid taxes or use their massive wealth to further rig an economic system to benefits themselves instead people or the environment.
There’s over $32 trillion dollars locked in such private offshore accounts stashed there kleptocrats, oligarchs, drug cartels, terrorists, and wealthy capitalists avoiding taxes.
What’s needed is an education and capitalist system that values people’s lives, our communities, and the environment instead of selfish wealth that benefits the whims and comfort of only the greedy.

Monday, October 21, 2019

US abandons Kurds...again! Principles vs Fundamental Principles

A reported US military principle supposedly holds that ‘elected leaders have a right to be wrong’. And that ‘the military’s role is to execute orders’.    This principle is rightfully being tested by Trump’s rapid withdraw of US military support for the Kurds who were our best ally in fighting ISIS extremists in Syria and Iraq.

Retired General Joseph Votel, who stepped down this year as head of US Central Command, and other former top officers have issued sharp warnings in the days since the withdraw that left Kurdish forces exposed to Turkey’s better-armed military offensive and created another flood of refugees. Votel recently coauthored an article in the Atlantic saying this “abandonment threatens to undo five years’ worth of fighting against ISIS and will severely damage American credibility and reliability.”

Retired Admiral William McRaven, who headed U.S. Special Operations Command, wrote in a recent opinion piece that the US is not powerful because of its military or economic might. It’s because our “ideals of universal freedom and equality have been backed up by our belief that we were champions of justice, the protectors of the less fortunate.” He implied, that our President has betrayed that.

At what point do people in power and those who directly protect President Trump decide that his threat to both our Constitution and our national security is unsustainable? The loss of our Constitution or our nation’s security may not be an existential threat to our union or the rest of humanity, but such threats do exist.

At what point will those with the force of law (their pledge to defend the Constitution) or the law of force (the 2^nd Amendment) take action to remove the profoundly destabilizing force of a reactionary and morally rudderless leader?

Even without Trump’s dangerously delusional decision making our political system’s fundamental reliance on public voting is a dangerous problem we need to resolve. Not because too few vote. Or inevitable election tampering.   But because too many voters cast their ballot based on gut preference for a candidate or a single issue of self-interest instead of a researched and well-informed mindset of essential values, vital issues or a clear understanding of fundamental principles.

This catastrophic flaw in our ‘Democratic system’ has entrapped both political parties into perpetuating multiple but irreversibly related unsustainable policies (deficit spending, increasing income inequality, global warming, species extinctions, immigration injustices, war on drugs, rising health care costs, subsidies on fossil fuel and large scale agriculture, an unjust criminal ‘justice’ system, legal political corruption, unrestrained campaign financing, social media, election reform, divided dysfunctional government…).

At what point will our political systems and structures fail as a result of our culturally adopted principles of “peace through strength”, “market forces will solve the problem”, “freedom without accountability”, or “prayer will save us” – and give way to our finally codifying the fundamental principles that our nation was founded on. Those “Truths’ that “We hold to be Self Evident” that “all” people are “created equal (according to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”) and “that they are endowed…with certain unalienable Rights” and “that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”?    Or, in summary, “Liberty and justice for all”.

There is a saying in the CIA that ‘there isn’t a problem that can’t be solved with a well place explosive’. Let’s hope that it’s Trump’s fear of the ‘deep state’ or his moral decision that motivates him to abide by his pledge to protect the U.S. Constitution. It should be increasingly obvious to him and his supporters that it is in everyone’s best interest to use the legal powers engineered into our Constitution by our founders instead of the violent powers they also offered us in the Amendments to it Constitution.

Just for the historical record, Trump was not the only U.S. President to abandon the Kurds. President Woodrow Wilson had championed self-determination of the non-Turkish inhabitants of the defeated Ottoman Empire after World War I. The leader of the Kurdish delegation arrived at the 1919 Paris peace talks with Wilson’s words in the pages of his Quran hoping his long-oppressed people would be granted their own state. But Wilson signed off on the new borders that France and Britain pushed. That divided the Kurds between Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria.

In the 1970s, the US encouraged Iraqi Kurds to rebel against Saddam Hussein who was the primary rival of our strong ally, the Shah of Iran. A year later the Shah and Saddam struck a deal and the US cut off support for the Kurds. Thousands were slaughtered by the Iraqi military.

After Desert Storm in 1991 President H.W. Bush hinted of U.S. support for an uprising against Saddam. Iraqi Kurds and Shiites did rise up, but American support never came, and they were gassed and gunned down by the tens of thousands while the world looked the other way.

Notice the pattern?   There remains a fundamental flaw of the primary (not fundamental) principle of international law. The United Nations only ‘legal’ capacity is protecting the rights of nations, not human rights within each nation’s borders.

The fundamental principle of government according to Thomas Paine’s “Common-Sense” pamphlet, is the protection of human freedom and security. This continues to be ignored today by most governments in the world, including the US. And it will not end well for anyone (even the US) given the evolution of weapons and war.

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Kurds in Syria betrayed by the world. Not just Trump.

Kurds in Syria have been betrayed by Trump and all US policy makers…from both political parties for decades. The Kurds should have their own land...or at least be protected by some kind of police force dedicated to protecting human rights instead of national sovereignty.

Anyone closely following the situation in norther Syria must have strained their necks with head spinning and gone blind with eye rolling. Warnings of blowback by experienced foreign policy and military leaders is consistent with uniformed US military service members who fought along side the Kurds in dismantling the last acre of the ISIS geographic califate and guarding ISIS prisoners. Many of these US troops are sickened by Trump’s decision and initial approval of Turkey’s incursion which has given aid to four of our greatest adversaries (Russia, Iran, Syria, and the thousands of remaining ISIS fighters). And, damaged relations with some of our closest allies (Israel and many NATO countries not to mention the Kurds and others in N. Syria fighting ISIS remnants).

But the larger context is missed by most. Syria’s problems have always existed but the country fell into chaos after Assad refused to assist Syrian farmers driven off their farms after 3 years of draught . They migrated into the capital hoping for relief…then suffered from the Syrian government’s lack of response to their needs. It was Assad’s forces violently crushed their protests that sparking the civil war. The war that ISIS took advantage of…which we responded to by assisting the Kurd’s on the battlefield.

There are several fundamental principles that have been violated that are continuing to contribute to the growing chaos.

#1. The protection of human rights continues to be tertiary to the protection of national sovereignty and US short term interests. Turkey’s right to invade Syrian territory fearing (with no actual proof) that the Kurds in Norther Syria were supporting the PKK which is labeled a terrorist organization, but in their own view a liberation movement in respond to a brutal Turkish government.

In reality, the largest population of people in N. Syria is not the Kurds. It is mostly Arabs. Kurds are the second largest group with smaller factions of Christians and Turks. There is distinctions made by Turkish air and artillery bombardments.

#2. The lack of any global police force to protect any innocent people in Northern Syria will results in even more refugees destabilizing the region and even nations beyond the region. Trump’s tweets “We’re not a police force" in Northern Syria. His tweet reflects the reality that we live in an increasingly chaotic and crime ridden world where war, invasions, WMD proliferation, genocide, assassinations, mass murder, lethal sanctions, human trafficking, and widespread corruption are as endless as the wars we are now involved in.

#3. Crimes committed by any sides in this conflict will likely not be prosecuted in courts… and only drive future conflicts, grievances, retaliations and fear based unjust lethal actions. It appears flawed “realistic principles” will continue to be the guide to US foreign policy if the email today from The Center for New American Security is any indication of future military actions. The email included a link to its November/December 2019 print edition of Foreign Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-10-15/nonintervention-delusion . CNAS CEO Richard Fontaine essay there “addresses the most frequently expressed concerns about U.S. military interventions and concludes that, nevertheless, the use of military force will remain a key component of U.S. foreign policy.” "That, in turn," Fontaine writes, "requires applying the right lessons from recent decades." Drawing from the recent history of U.S. military involvement and acknowledging the enduring concerns about forceful intervention, Fontaine argues, "Policymakers should accept that the use of military force will remain an essential tool of U.S. strategy." Identifying five common arguments raised by opponents of U.S. military intervention, Fontaine concludes that realistic principles should characterize America's approach to the use of military force. Rather than wholly reject the use of military force as a foreign policy tool. He argues, policymakers should embrace guidelines for U.S. military interventions that prioritize clear objectives for the use of force, shared presidential and congressional support, the commitment of U.S. allies, and the reasonable expectation that the benefits of intervention would outweigh the costs. Zero mention of justice or the protection of innocent people as the highest priority. In other words. War as usual…accepting collateral damage when necessary. No ‘rule of law’. Just the law of force, with some improved care not to kill civilians.

Fontaine argues that accepting the possibility of a long-term military commitment should form a crucial part of the U.S. approach to the use of force. To this end, he writes, "No grand strategy can be built on the presumption that military intervention is mostly an erroneous activity of yesteryear, rather than an enduring feature of U.S. foreign policy." In other words, more ‘endless war’ while the evolution of weapons continues to work against us. Amid all the pledges to dial back intervention and end forever wars, he adds, “Far more subtlety is needed when it comes to considering if, when, and how the United States should use force abroad.” In other words, ‘no force of law’ or rule of law.

Imagine how safe US cities and streets would be if there were no police, and not enforcement capacity to protect innocent lives. No system to hold law breakers accountable? Would traffic lights, speed limits, and directional signs be useful in keeping the public safe? That’s the world we have today.

How well would global aviation systems work if there were no FFA holding airlines accountable for crashes? Could we rely on the honesty of the corporate airline inspectors to give us honest results of the cause of each crash? Police and accountability of both citizens and the police are essential elements in any safe, reliable, and sustainable form government.

According to Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense Pamphlet” protecting “the freedom and security” of the people is the only legitimate purpose of government. With no government in place…we can expect neither freedom nor security in any reliable fashion.

Sunday, October 13, 2019

'Game Changer' movie! OMG! Must watch for your own health and the planets.

My wife and I just watched a new movie called “Game Changer”. OMG! It will change the behavior of most men if they watch it (hint…it talks about improving erections). This combined with the multiple other benefits to health, fitness, job performance, combat readiness, wise economic investing, protection of endangered species, and combating global warming... it’s a movie everyone should watch.

https://gamechangersmovie.com/

And, this movie is one of the best examples of how our culture has led us to believe (and our political system to legislate) false hoods based on alternative (but rational sounding) principles that are entirely inconsistent with fundamental principles (the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God).

Any competent scientist or engineer should appreciate our need to engineer a new system of national and global governance if we really want to prevent wasting time and resources reaction to catastrophic disasters. Codifying fundamental principles into US foreign and domestic policy is essential to preventing of most of the problems we face.

Thursday, October 10, 2019

World Mental Health Day Oct 10, 2019.

Is the world getting crazier, or is that just a mental malfunction?

We keep doing the same things over and over again…Trump and us…expecting a different result.

Change is coming…but it won’t be an improvement until we use our minds for solving problems instead of defending faulty principles.

https://wfmh.global/world-mental-health-day/

How healthy can we be if we are well adjusted to a profoundly sick society?

How can we be mentally healthy if our mind has the capacity to believe anything?

And not do what we know we should.

Or get distracted from important things by trivial things?

Here’s a hypothesis.

Our mind evolved as a problem-solving tool allowing us to find food, a mate, shelter, and develop tools for making our lives easier and initially safer. But most of those primal needs/desires are mostly taken care of now and our minds somehow started protecting ideas/concepts/beliefs that are ultimately harmful to our body and spirit. And eventually lethal to our minds capacity to remember what’s really important and use what we know to solve important and increasingly urgent problems.

Too many people will now kill and/or die to protect a belief, idea, or concept. We will go broke, weak, or ill from investing our limited time and money in things that only hurt us in the long run, as well as those we love, our nation, and even nature that we ultimately depend on for survival.

Our minds are now challenged by fake news and eventually deep fakes. We debate issues passionately believing everything we think. And, hating those that disagree with us.

Making matters worse, we have forgotten that there are "Truths" that "we hold" to be "Self-evident”… that all people are created equal and endowed with certain rights.

The dysfunction in our government and our democracy is going to get worse before it gets better. Why?
Because we are more likely to suffer things that are sufferable…until motivated to change by significant pain and suffering, than to make them right before suffering.

The CIA has a saying “There’s no problem that can’t be solved with a well placed explosive.”

We would be so much wiser to solve problems using our minds guided by our hearts (the Golden Rule) instead of our wallet, comforts, or foolish ideologies.

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

AEI report offers new (to them) means of defeating terrorism.

https://www.criticalthreats.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Beyond-Counterterrorism.pdf

AEI resident fellow Katherine Zimmerman’s latest publication, Beyond Counterterrorism, offers a new strategy for countering the Salafi-jihadi movement. Perhaps they should consider supporting and achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

Counterterrorism may have "stopped another 9/11 attack on the US homeland, but it has not stopped al Qaeda and the Islamic State from growing much stronger than they were in 2001."

The US has effectively "targeted al Qaeda’s and the Islamic State’s terrorist networks and with partner military operations denied them control over large territories and populations. Yet al Qaeda and the Islamic State, as part of the Salafi-jihadi movement, have more territory, more fighters, and more capabilities than ever before."

"Winning the forever war" has always required the adoption of a new strategy to weaken the Salafi-jihadi ideology. And, not just reduce the terrorist threat.

Zimmerman argues what has been known for decades by others. She suggest that the US must reframe its approach to counter the Salafi-jihadi movement. She states working with partners, the US must seek to sever Jihadist ties with local communities by offering communities a viable alternative to the Salafi-jihadi movement. Dah!

Ms. Zimmerman and AEI now believe this is what’s needed to “weaken and ultimately isolate the movement.” The terrorist vanguard has effectively “penetrated local governance and institutions in some communities by strengthened their ties to local communities and expanded significantly across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia believing its relationships with Sunni Muslim communities are its source of strength.

These relationships and influence within local communities enable the Salafi-jihadi movement to achieve its strategic objectives of transforming the Muslim world through imposing its form of governance… building “relationships through delivering basic goods or services, including defending the community.” Wow. They just figured this out?

“Al Qaeda fixed sewers and delivered water and fuel in Yemen. Its courts in Somalia and Mali offer the fair resolution of local disputes. Its operatives dispatched to Syria to organize against the Assad regime. The Salafi-jihadi vanguard then uses its local ties to communities to start shaping them in its image and to strengthen itself by securing resources and sanctuary and building a position from which to eventually overthrow Muslim governments.”

They do “not require that the community share its ideological conviction but seeks to expand its adherents over time.”

War “conditions have weakened communities and made them vulnerable to the Salafi-jihadi vanguard’s predatory efforts”. AEI scholars now be believe that “The requirement is not to resolve all local conflicts or strengthen governance globally but to target the approach where the Salafi-jihadi vanguard is operating”.

AEI thinkers are failing to understand that terrorist migrate to any community lacking effective governance, justice, and basic services. These thinkers to get it right when they state that providing “communities a viable alternative to the vanguard empowers the community to reject them.”

AEI thinkers assert “The US should attack the means by which the vanguard has built its relationships with communities, which will weaken the movement and relegate it again to the fringes of society.” This only makes sense if it means improving the living conditions of the communities before al Qaeda comes.

This certainly sounds a lot like “development” work that progressives have been pushing for decades. It was officially recommended in the 1980 bi partisan Presidential Commission on World Hunger as a way to reduce the future appeal of terrorism.

https://www.criticalthreats.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Beyond-Counterterrorism.pdf

Perhaps AEI will now be more interested in (and even support) the idea of achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals as a way of really preventing the spread of terrorism instead assuming it can be beat militarily.

Thursday, October 3, 2019

National Sovereignty over human rights will prove disasterous.

In marking the 95th birthday of former President Jimmy Carter most praises of his leadership failed to emphasis his wisdom in putting the protection of human rights globally at the top of US foreign policy priorities.

His 1980 bipartisan Presidential Commission on World Hunger was unanimous in predicting the increased lethal and costly global problems that would threaten our national security if we failed to eliminate the worst aspects of global hunger and poverty by the year 2000. We failed, and the threats just keep coming. Even the US military and intelligence agencies agree that global warming exacerbates many of the elements it considers in defending our freedom and security.

With all the attention the UN, progressives, and wise conservatives are giving Climate Change it does appear that the UN is more devoted to “Saving the planet, not the people: The U.N. places climate above all” as a September 2019 Washington Times editorial asserts.

But most Americans (liberal and conservative) fail to understand (or remember) that the UN was created purposefully with a limited capacity to put the protection of national sovereignty above all else. It remains a confederation of states with no power of enforcement.

When the US federation of states originally gained the power of enforcement if erred in putting the sovereignty of states rights over human rights which resulted in a bloody civil war that killed more American than all the wars our nation has fought in since then…combined. The past codification of that profoundly flawed principle continues to haunt our nation today in spite of its national correction.

Modern International law's incapacity to enforce any human rights is perpetuating multiple threats.
It’s unfortunate that the mainstream media offers zero mention of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that the nations and hundreds of organizations of the world have agreed upon. It remains the only comprehensive approach to nearly every threat that humans, the environment, and nations face today.

Each of these goals deserve the greatest sustained attention from every government, corporation, political party, media source, and UN agency until they are achieved on or before the 2030 deadline.

Only by putting the protection of human rights and the environment above the rights of nations will we be able to protect our cherished freedoms and our own national security.

The SDGs are effectively the only comprehensive approach that can addresses the root causes of nearly every injustice that fuels the threats we face. The only other option is to take the chance of creating a global bill of rights and give the UN the capacity to enforce it.

Otherwise, as General Mattes suggested, "we need to buy more bullets". And anyone with at least one functional brain cell knows that bullets won't stop pandemics, cyber-bioweapons-drone attacks, extreme weather conditions, species extinctions...and ultimate our own existence as a civilized species.

Friday, September 27, 2019

Sept. 26, UN International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons

Wasted time! Wasted energy! Never going to happen without an enforceable world government. And even then, it would be unwise if one nation resisted (see effort to rid Iraq, N. Korea, Libya, India, and Pakistan of nuclear weapons) or for galactic reasons (see second paragraph). And even if they were eliminated, humanity would be no more secure from other forms of WMD that are cheaper, easier to make and deliver, and just as deadly to human beings. Our capacity for genetic engineering and eventually the evolution of AI puts the survival of humanity at an even greater risk of global mass murder.

In “the long view” no single planet species will survive. While nuclear weapons are certainly a threat to millions, they could also be useful in saving billions of people -- from planet killing asteroids, to global warming, to the extremely remote possibility of an alien invasion that building border walls can’t stop.

The best we can hope for, and work for, and afford - without a war is to create a world where the desire to use nuclear weapons (or any form of WMD) by a government is dramatically reduced, and the capacity for any individual or extremist group to make or buy one is prohibitively risky and expensive.

The only possibility that I’m aware of the make this happen is the 2nd coming of Jesus after Armageddon or the 17 Sustainable Development Goals by the year 2030.

Banning nuclear weapons will be as successful as Alcohol prohibition or Prostitution.

********

Nuclear weapons are not being eliminated any time soon: Sisters mark Sept. 26, UN International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons by Chris Herlinger

Published on Global Sisters Report (https://www.globalsistersreport.org) Sep 23, 2019. Modified on 9/26/2019: https://www.globalsistersreport.org/news/world/nuclear-weapons-are-not-being-eliminated-any-time-soon

New York — It is something of a yearly ritual.

The United Nations' annual International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons [2] falls on Sept. 26 and comes as world leaders and members of the world body convene for the annual September meeting of the U.N.'s General Assembly.

It's a nod to an important issue and one that always prompts calls for urgent action.

"The only sure way to eliminate the threat posed by nuclear weapons is to eliminate the weapons themselves," U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said in a U.N. backgrounder [2] on the topic.

But in a world caught up in the noise of other issues — trade, political squabbles, the constant blur of social media — and with the United Nations itself conceding that its members are frustrated by the slow pace of nuclear disarmament, does the issue of nuclear disbarment have any traction?

Sr. Stacy Hanrahan, who represents the ‎Congregation of Notre Dame at the United Nations and consistently follows and champions the issue, believes it does. But it requires a long view, she says.

At 72 and eyeing retirement from her U.N. duties later this year, Hanrahan carries with her memories of growing up during the Cold War and of the public outcry over nuclear weapons during the early years of the Reagan administration nearly four decades ago.

"I'm part of that cohort," she said following a Sept. 11 event at the Church Center for the United Nations Center sponsored by the Maryknoll Sisters focused on developing a culture of peace.

Hanrahan said she believes others are now taking up the issue and sees more young people attending U.N. briefings on nuclear disbarment.

"They are interested, and that impresses me," she said.

Of particular note is the connection more people make between disarmament and wider environmental issues, especially climate change, she said.

The links between nuclear weapons and climate change may not be obvious at first, she added. But if you dig deeper, it is possible to find the connections, which include the harm to the Earth of producing nuclear weapons and that the funds allocated for such weaponry could be used to protect the environment.

"I don't think we're grasping how harmful these weapons are even without using them — the money involved, resources that could be spent protecting the Earth," Hanrahan said.

One international campaign, Move the Nuclear Weapons Money [4], notes: "One trillion dollars is being spent to modernize the nuclear arsenals of nine countries over the next 10 years." This money, it argues, "could instead be used to help end poverty, protect the climate, build global peace and achieve the sustainable development goals."

The Ploughshares Fund, a peace advocacy group, names [5] the nine countries: United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea, noting they have a total of 13,860 weapons between them. While that number has been reduced since the height of the Cold War, it still represents a threat, the organization argues.

"When you are fleeing a forest fire it is not just direction but speed that matters," it says.

Sisters whose advocacy focus at the United Nations includes the environment are similarly concerned.

"There are so many dimensions to the nuclear issue," Sr. Helen Saldanha, a member of the Missionary Sisters Servants of the Holy Spirit [6] and an executive co-director of VIVAT International [7], a U.N.-based advocacy group, told GSR after the Sept. 11 event.

One of those dimensions is the toll the development of weapons, the need for plutonium and other hazardous minerals, takes on the Earth itself.

"Nuclear weapons create an environmental destruction," she said.

Saldanha said there is a need for a "culture of peace" that respects the environment, and anti-nuclear advocacy's "strength is not there yet. But it could be" with increased grassroots efforts.

Judy Coode, who directs the Pax Christi International Catholic Nonviolence Initiative [8] and who spoke at the Sept. 11 event, said the "actual use of the weapons would be catastrophic" but noted, too, that the cumulative effect of "financial and intellectual resources to develop these weapons is a sin."

"What it fosters — the fear, the anxiety — has been a waste, and we need to recognize that," she said.

In its backgrounder [2] about the Sept. 26 commemoration, the United Nations noted the international frustration over the slow pace of nuclear disarmament is partly due to increased worries "about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of even a single nuclear weapon, let alone a regional or global nuclear war."

At a meeting earlier this year at the United Nations, Véronique Christory, the senior arms control adviser of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said in recent years, "debates about nuclear weapons have shifted beyond narrow 'security' interests to focus on the evidence of their foreseeable impacts. This shift in approach is to be welcomed."

She noted that in the seven decades following the use of nuclear weapons in Japan at the end of World War II, "Japanese Red Cross hospitals have continued each year to treat many thousands of survivors who still suffer and die from cancers and other diseases directly linked to exposure to nuclear radiation in 1945."

As a result, Christory said at a May 8 gathering, "we have an even clearer understanding of the unspeakable suffering and devastation that a nuclear weapon detonation would cause. We know that even a 'limited' nuclear exchange would have catastrophic and long-lasting consequences for human health, the environment, the climate, food production and socioeconomic development."

There are other worries, as the United Nations backgrounder on the Sept. 26 event notes.

In addition to the nearly 14,000 nuclear weapons in the world, countries possessing such weapons "have well-funded, long-term plans to modernize their nuclear arsenals. More than half of the world's population still lives in countries that either have such weapons or are members of nuclear alliances."

There are no nuclear disarmament negotiations underway, and the "international arms-control framework that contributed to international security since the Cold War [and] acted as a brake on the use of nuclear weapons and advanced nuclear disarmament has come under increasing strain."

Though 122 countries at the U.N. in 2017 voted [11] to outlaw nuclear weapons, the nations that have nuclear weapons and their allies did not. And last month, the withdrawal of the United States [12] from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty "spelled its end," the U.N. said. That treaty was the vehicle through which "the United States and the Russian Federation had previously committed to eliminating an entire class of nuclear missiles."

Hanrahan acknowledges that with those kinds of setbacks, it is easy to grow frustrated.

"There aren't a lot of encouraging signs," she said. "The times are unsteady."

A recent Princeton University study confirmed these worries, concluding that more than 90 million people would perish in a nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia. The project by Princeton's Program on Science and Global Security, which includes a video simulation [13], was "motivated by the need to highlight the potentially catastrophic consequences of current U.S. and Russian nuclear war plans," the program said. The study comes as a U.S. intelligence report concluded [14] that an explosion last month in northern Russian coastal waters stemmed from an attempt to recover a nuclear-powered missile.

However, Hanrahan said, there is still an overall feeling that nuclear deterrence will work, that the fear of "mutual assured destruction" will prevent humans from using the weapons and nations can control the systems designed to keep a nuclear war or exchange at bay.

"Will the weapons protect us? I don't think so. It won't protect us from climate change," she said.

And efforts to modernize nuclear weapons — to make them faster, smaller — may ultimately make it easier to use them.

"Those aren't encouraging signs," Hanrahan said, adding that the use of even one weapon would lead to famine, death and severe environmental changes.

The current era of nationalism and turning away from multilateral solutions is also troubling, she said.

"Is there any good faith here?" she said. "Nationalism denies the fact that many of our challenges are international."

Hanrahan said she believes the problem will not be solved at the policy tables "unless those tables open up and those at the table changes" — for example, the participation of more women.

"We need to talk about peace and how to move it. It's a strong spiritual problem, and I think we're at a point where we can converse about the need to change the [governing] ideology — that our protection, our security, does not involve nuclear weapons."

Echoing U.N. Secretary-General Guterres, Hanrahan said the only way to prevent a nuclear war, even a "limited one," is ultimately to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

"If the desire were there, we could. But the 'denial thing' is so important," she said of the inability of humanity to deal squarely with the nuclear threat.

Christory of the International Committee of the Red Cross acknowledged the dynamic of denial remains difficult to overcome, saying, "The message often doesn't get through."

The U.N, General Assembly meets at the world body's headquarters in New York in 2017. The U.N.'s annual International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons falls on Sept. 26 and comes as world leaders and members of the world body convene for the annual September meeting of the General Assembly. (U.N. photo)

In the end, she said in an interview the week before the Sept. 26 commemoration, the best argument against the use of nuclear weapons is still the humanitarian impact they would have if used — what she called "the unspeakable suffering" they would cause. That is at the core of the ICRC's campaign [23] against nuclear weapons.*

Hanrahan said she hopes the 75th anniversary in 2020 of the use of atomic bombs by the United States against Japan in 1945 will prompt sober reflection and renewed action.*

"It's time [for disarmament]. We have to. I believe there are people who don't want to go this way, who want to be sane," she said. Maybe, just maybe, "we'll evolve. But if we don't, we won't be here to talk about it."

*These paragraphs were updated to correct an attribution.

Chris Herlinger is GSR international correspondent. His email address is cherlinger@ncronline.org.