Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
Spreading Democracy and The Spreading Democracy
In the increasingly polarizing world we live in today, our choices become more critical and meaningful. Rather than taking things at face value, people are making more crucial distinctions.
When it comes to terrorism, if some of our recent decisions weren't so costly in terms of lives and human suffering, they might be comical. We have to be thankful, don't we, that after the recent bombings in London , the Brits didn't send more troops to Iraq in retaliation?
The Administration clings to the idea that “They hate us” and “They're jealous of our freedoms.”
Perhaps it's more the freedom we have to go into debt buying an automobile that uses their gasoline that makes them jealous. The freedom to buy food and make healthy choices would be an incredible luxury for them. More later.
Our response to terrorism is to “spread democracy.” It's becoming increasingly clear, however, that we can't really know if the battle would be raging there with us or without us, until they—Iraq—are without us/U.S.
On the home front, Congress reacted to the London bombings and tightened security in the U.S. by extending the Patriot Act.
Have you noticed the similarities between two supporters of the Patriot Act? The President's advisor, Karl Rove, and San Diego Congressmen Randy “Duke” Cunningham, a congressional leader on national security issues, according to his Web site. It also says he sits on the Defense subcommittee that “provides funding for our national defense and armed services.”
He is “Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence on House Select Committee on Intelligence.” Got that? Cunningham is accused of giving or getting sweetheart deals with a company that is in the business of military intelligence, and he is being investigated by the FBI, among others.
He admits to no wrong-doing, only the perception of it—and, of course, “bad judgment.” Over and over, it appears. Not enough, though, to make him feel unqualified to make decisions for his Congressional district for another year and a half.
While being clever about how it happened, Rove admits he mentioned to a reporter that the wife of Ambassador Wilson was a CIA agent. The intelligence sector is enraged that this is not being treated like the felony that it is. It compromises everyone associated with the exposed agent.
Exposing a CIA agent, as Rove did, obviously compromises national security. If a Congressman who holds the purse strings has a close, uncertain or undefined relationship with a company dealing with military intelligence, as Cunningham has, couldn't that also compromise national security? Maybe.
The only clear, undeniable fact about the allegations regarding Rove and Cunningham, is that there is suspicion and that both are key figures entrusted with our national security that has possibly been compromised.
It's good that it's only alleged, because normally when national security is compromised in time of war the people involved are shot. It's good that we have a better system. There are modern mechanisms in place to protect us/U.S.—the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.
In an apparent attempt to make terrorists less jealous of our freedoms, the House voted to extend the Patriot Act, expanding law enforcement's power to pare back the Bill of Rights for four more years.
Under the Patriot Act, however, we don't have to have more than suspicions that national security has been compromised. We don't allow those under suspicion the opportunity to continue doing so until the courts prove it.
Those suspects can be imprisoned without being charged, while they are being investigated. They cannot hire lawyers to defend themselves. They can be imprisoned indefinitely.
If this were not true, would we have a prison camp in Guantanamo Cuba? A legitimate question is why these two suspects aren't being considered for prison in Guantanamo until this is sorted out.
The real quandary for the U.S. House, in Cunningham's case, is whether being in prison without being charged would qualify as an ethics violation.
Surely two men of ethics who support the Patriot Act would understand if they were asked to set an example. We do know that they are not simply intellectual supporters in principle unwilling to walk-their-talk in real life, right?
There are vacancies in Gitmo and a few more inmates won't increase costs much. Shouldn't we consider this, in the name of national security?
I have to think, though, that if Congress were really interested in security, why not follow the lead of London police instead of relying on the Patriot Act? In London they increased the number of police on duty. Wouldn't it be more helpful to our law enforcement to increase their numbers by bringing back all the reservists in Iraq who are policemen?
That way they might not have to take shortcuts with the Bill of Rights. The “governator” has a flair for the dramatic, why not call out the National Guard. Call them out to California, that is, and bring them home.
But enough about the Administration's ways of Spreading Democracy. There is another movement Spreading Democracy that we look at this issue which flies in the face of what many consider “inevitable” globalization.
What we know about international trade and globalization is that it isn't always the best and only choice. This is most dramatically demonstrated when it comes to food.
It's becoming apparent to more and more people that the food delivered to us by the food industry in this country isn't always the healthiest choice. Many people are discovering that making more healthy food choices and exercising food democracy means choosing fresher, local options. Local and organic apples are just naturally fresher than apples all the way from New Zealand, for instance. A typical supermarket contains 30,000 items, and half are produced by 10 multinational companies. Needless to say, they aren't all local nor the freshest sources.
Farmer's markets, food
co-ops, natural food stores, and community supported agriculture (CSAs) offer alternatives to mass-produced food that is shipped far from where it is grown—a system that is more polluting, if only from the perspective of transporting food long distances.We have a vote and opportunity to choose an alternative that strengthens the local economy, is more supportive of the environment, and is simply better for our health. There is more inside this issue about how meaningful and critical our food choice are to the health of all of us.
Join us August 12 in a screening of a great video on this titled The Future of Food . It's an eye-opening look at genetically-modified foods, the FDA, as well as hopeful and healthful alternatives provided by local farmers and retailers who will be present that night.
Have a great month,
Steve Hays
TOP OF PAGEHOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
