Ebenezer Christian and the Three Christmas Spirits, Chapter 6

     At this writing, Christmas is less than two weeks away. In 2002, a few weeks after Christmas, I wrote this novella as a reaction against the way Christmas has become a racket. Many of the worst offenders are professing Christians who have bought into the Christmas racket and are contributing to the world's problems by participating in that racket.

     We need to reconnect with the world, and we need to rethink Christmas.

     Over the coming days, I intend to post each of the fourteen chapters and addendum to Ebenezer Christian and the Three Christmas Spirits. The following is Chapter Six.  For the Table of Contents to Ebenezer Christian and the Three Christmas Spirits, click HERE.

Chapter Six

Santa Claus Gets Fired

     The parry with Cooper Grady had cost Ebenezer Christian some valuable time, and he hastily beat a path for the dressing room. Rapidly climbing into his Santa suit, he ran into the shopping area, and then slowed to a fast walk so as not to appear undignified.

     As he sat on Santa's throne, Ebenezer Christian had the gnawing feeling that he'd overlooked something important. He quickly took a mental inventory of his garments. Good. Nothing was missing. Still, he was bothered by that annoying "something.” What was it?

     Quite a crowd had gathered during the few minutes prior to his afternoon shift. There were more than forty children, plus parents, plus passersby who had stopped just long enough to see how "realistic" the Stewart's Department Store Santa really was. About 150 people must have gathered at that spot, at that time, just to see him.

     The first child of the afternoon sat on his lap. She was a frail little tyke, perhaps three years old. Her mother had had to do a little coaxing to get her obviously frightened child to sit on "Santa's" lap. Ebenezer Christian beamed at her as cheerfully as he knew how. Since he was still a little annoyed at the thought that he'd forgotten something, he wasn't able to beam as brightly as usual.   Ebenezer Christian gently chucked and said, "Well, you're a pretty young lady. What is your name?"

     As the little girl was trying to muster the courage to answer, some numbers rushed through Ebenezer Christian's head. He'd had four twenty-dollar bills and two fives in his wallet at the time of his encounter with the Salvation Army volunteer. When he paid for his lunch, he had three twenties and two fives in his wallet. That could mean only one thing: He had given the Salvation Army volunteer a twenty-dollar bill instead of a five. Worse yet, he had originally intended to give her only a quarter!

     There in the middle of Stewart's Department Store, in the presence of forty small children and more than a hundred other onlookers, Ebenezer Christian heard himself shout two words that forever ended his career as a department store Santa. The first word was, "Oh-hh," and there was nothing especially wrong with that; but the next word had four letters and had something to do with a daily bodily function.

     It was one of those moments of crisis when the senses are acute in the extremes. To Ebenezer Christian, everything seemed to happen in slow motion. Even as the air rushed from his lungs, and his lips began to form the first syllable, he mind screamed that he was going to say something he'd regret. The words slowly rumbled across the store and echoed from the walls and back to his ears, but, even as he said them, he was powerless to stop them.

     The frail child on his lap immediately started crying and reaching for her mother, who immediately snatched him from the lap of that "sick man.” The uproar from the rest of the crowd, who, only a second earlier, had nurtured the expectation of a "Hallmark moment," was similarly disapproving—most of the crowd, anyway. Some college students wearing torn jeans, sporting brightly-died, spiked hair and jewelry that pierced their faces were far more approving in their response. They laughed, pronounced it "cool," and promised each other that they'd tell everyone else about it.

     Mr. Capra, the store manager arrived breathlessly and rushed poor Ebenezer Christian from the scene. Profusely apologizing to onlookers, the distraught merchant kept repeating something about Santa "not feeling well," and that he'd feel better soon.

     Poor Ebenezer Christian was fairly dragged to the stock room (where his street clothes were hung on a coat rack with care, not expecting that "Santa" soon would be there;) thereupon the store manager and two youthful lackeys quickly stripped Ebenezer Christian of his clothes and his dignity. They shoved his street clothes into his arms and unceremoniously pushed him out the back door and into an alley.

     The alley was as filthy and cluttered as any alley he'd seen. At first, it appeared deserted, though it looked as though the nightfall would find it populated with large rats, feral cats, and perhaps winos.

     As Ebenezer Christian gathered his wits, clothing still bundled in his arms, he suddenly noticed that he wasn't alone. A ragged, unkempt man was sitting beside a trash can, leisurely partaking of the grape. The two men noticed each other at the same time. The wino did a double-take at Ebenezer Christian's unconventional attire, uncertainly peered at him through his alcoholic haze, and then turned to study the label on his bottle. He wasn't sure he wanted to buy that brand again.

     Ebenezer Christian hurriedly dressed and went home.

With Few Exceptions, Most Great Men are Bad Men

     (Most of the following article is excerpted from volume one of a three-volume history I’m writing. The name of the book is And West is West: De-mythologizing the Boxer Rebellion and the China Relief Expedition. This article contains additional material to suit the purpose of the article.)

     With few exceptions, most great men are bad men. To say so is to contradict a myth that historians perpetuate, but casual observation reveals the truth of this statement. Greatness among national leaders is usually judged by the scope and size of wars the leaders launch, the powers that leaders amass unto themselves at the expense of others, the number of human beings they slaughter or subjugate, and the size of the geographical areas they conquer.

     War is the ultimate exercise of power. It’s the ability to get large numbers of people to leave the comforts of family, home, and private pursuits and travel to distant places for the purpose of killing their fellow man, and be killed by their fellow man, to the benefit of no one but a comparative handful of people who bear none of the risks or hardships. War is the only form of homicide that leads historians to crown the perpetrators with glory or ignominy, depending on whether the perpetrator succeeds or fails in the attempt to bend others to his will. Those marked as the villains of history are the ones who fail.

Eighteenth-century China as One Example

     History delicately tells us that, in 1735, immediately after Chien Lung became emperor, his armies “suppressed,” or “put down” the Miao Rebellion. The Miao are recorded as rebels rather than patriots because they lost. The Miao were an ethnic minority who fought back against Han encroachment. The Chinese means of suppression involved destroying 1,200 forts and killing 18,000 Miaos. The causes of the revolt were left unaddressed and led to renewed fighting six decades later….

     Historians are equally fond of saying that empires “rise” and “expand,” or that they “fall.” They use these words every bit as glibly as you or I would use when speaking of a cake in the oven. The rise, expansion, and fall of empires are much messier and more serious affairs than cakes in the oven.

     …In terms that recognize the humanity of the people involved, Manchu rule was forced on unwilling subjects in East Turkistan (renamed Xingjian Province and henceforth redefined as historical and inseparable parts of China.) Dzungaria (a Mongol region), and other smaller regions also came under Han rule. The human cost for Dzungaria was the death, by war or smallpox, of 80% of the population, as well as the extinction of the Dzungars as an ethnic group.

     Chien Lung’s armies thwarted the Mongol attempt to take over Tibet. Driving the Mongols out of Tibet, Chien Lung installed the Dalai Lama as puppet ruler of Tibet.

     Nepal fell under Manchu hegemony, though not under Chinese sovereignty, and became a tributary of China. Meanwhile, at the eastern end of the Empire, China maintained control over Korea, another of China’s tributaries.

     Historians are not the only people who display the moral failing of excusing successful acts of villainy. Most of us—scholar or otherwise—overlook the human cost of great accomplishments and notice only the evidence of our eyes. Just as the Great Wall of China was constructed at the cost of thousands of Chinese workers who died building it, the Four Treasuries Project had its human cost. Chien Lung’s massive project had two major aims: to preserve great works from the past and to suppress works containing ideas that may have undermined support for his rule. The works that were not chosen for preservation were summarized, banned, or burned. Even the books chosen for preservation were subject to censorship via modifying or deleting passages. The banned or burned books included political opposition or writings about defense or frontier problems. In all, some 150,000 copies of 31,000 titles were burned or banned.

     More current writings deemed objectionable resulted in the writers themselves being modified or deleted. In 53 cases, the least unfortunate writers were the ones who were executed before their bodies were mutilated. As for the most unfortunate writers, executioners took their time killing them by means of an exotic Chinese torture called lingchi (凌迟): “death by a thousand cuts.”

(“Great” European Rulers Were Just As Bad If Not Worse.)

     During the Middle Ages, one third of all popes and European kings were murderers. The Crusades were mainly quests for power and wealth. The popes were as guilty as the nobility.

Of the five English monarchs who ruled from 1509 through 1603, all but one ordered the death of a close family member in the interest of personal power. The sole exception was seventeen-year-old Lady Jane Grey, who reigned for only nine days and was beheaded on the orders of her first cousin Queen Mary I. Mary, in turn, was executed on the orders of her first cousin once removed, Queen Elizabeth I. Since Elizabeth I died without issue, the Tudor line of succession enjoyed by that dysfunctional family was passed to another branch of the family, and so on.

     The dysfunctionality didn’t end with the Tudor line. Future generations refined it. Instead of crowned heads of Europe lopping off other crowned heads, they used proxies in the form of frequent wars. Most European royalty from Britain to Russia were blood relatives, a fact which casts a different light on the never-ending series wars to which Europeans seemed addicted.

     A case in point was the First World War, the last major war over which kings presided over opposing states one another. King George V of England and Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany were first cousins—grandsons of Queen Victoria. Constantine I of Greece and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia were George and Wilhelm’s first cousins by marriage. George V and Nicholas II so closely resembled each other, that, when they posed together for a photograph in 1913, it was impossible to tell their faces apart.

     The European tendency toward homicide was so well known that, during the late nineteenth century, the American Hiram Maxim was advised, “If you want to get rich, come up with a more efficient means for Europeans to kill each other.” He got rich by inventing the Maxim gun, the most efficient killing machine of its day.

     These remarks about the criminality of European rulers don’t by any means excuse Emperor Chien Lung. Rather, they serve to demonstrate the degree to which most great movers and shakers of history, as I’ve said, are bad men.

     The point I’ve just stated and illustrated serves to spotlight yet another principle, which is one of the purposes of this book. In war and diplomacy, both sides claim to be right; and often both sides claim to enjoy the favor of heaven. Abraham Lincoln—another great man who committed great evils—wrote, “Men are not flattered by being shown that there has been a difference of purpose between the Almighty and them.” Both sides can’t be right, Lincoln pointed out, but both sides can be wrong. Just as Lincoln saw the War Between the States as the Almighty’s judgment against both sides, we may see the Boxer Uprising in the same light.

(What about Today?)

     You’ve just read about the evils of great men and women in various parts of the world from the Medieval Period up to the end of the First World War. You’re probably less surprised than I was while I was doing the research for these passages.

     My biggest surprise was the contrast between, on one hand, Emperor Chien Lung; and, on the other hand, Prince Duan and the Empress Dowager Tze Hsi. Historians generally demonize Prince Duan and Tze Hsi; yet, for all their faults, I found them far more sympathetic characters than Chien Lung. History doesn’t castigate them for their selfish ambition; it castigates them for unwise decisions they made in the defense of their country against foreign aggression.

     People find it easy enough to believe stories of past leaders’ evils and even criminal psychopathic behavior. Most people, however, find it impossible to believe that political leaders today could be criminal psychopaths. Ask yourself two questions: “At what point in time did criminal psychopaths disappear from political life?” and, “What event, if any, caused the disappearance of criminal psychopaths from political life?”

     Here are a few more thoughts for you. Three people—Bush, Cheney, and Rice—lied to the public over 90 times (about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction) in order to start a war that took the lives of over 70,000 Americans and 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians. Chief arms inspector Scott Ritter tells us that all of Iraq’s WMDs were destroyed by 1999. (link) Bush tells us that his administration’s belief in WMDs was all a mistake and that we’re supposed to sympathize with his embarrassment over the whole thing. Nonetheless, he was never embarrassed enough to pull out of Iraq, and neither was Obama, who, during the 2008 presidential election, had promised to do so.

     Plans to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan were in place months before the events of September 11, 2001.

     WMDs and 9/11 were the excuse for starting the bloodiest war in American history and one of the bloodiest in the history of the world. (The War Between the States resulted in the deaths of 600,000 people, mostly American servicemen. The present, illegal wars against the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya—have I left out a country?—have claimed the lives of over 1,000,000 people, mostly innocent civilians.)

     If neither Iraq nor Afghanistan provided the excuse for the slaughter, who did? Can it be that criminal psychopaths have not really disappeared from political life? (link) Whether the perpetrators are criminal psychopaths or just garden-variety gangsters, American judges and prosecutors have a responsibility to issue arrest warrants against the murderers of our fellow Americans; and an international war crimes tribunal has a responsibility to bind them over trial as war criminals.

Are Major Polluters Bribing Environmental Watchdog Groups?

     I recently received an email and, no, it wasn’t a hoax. It was a thoroughly detailed and thoroughly documented writing that proved beyond doubt that oil companies and other such corporations routinely donate large sums of money to well-known environmental watchdog groups. These groups include Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.

     If you’re a liberal, you may take this to mean that major polluters are bribing environmental watchdog groups to look the other way. If you’re a conservative, it could mean that environmental extremists have been extorting millions of dollars from honest businessmen.

     If the title of your doctoral dissertation in Business Administration was Monitoring Corporate Social Responsibility, it’s likely to mean neither. As it is, that really was the title of my doctoral dissertation.

     Those of us who are working to restore the American government to the American people have enemies besides the obvious enemies that threaten our way of life.

     We must jealously guard our credibility. We must also guard against time wasters. Getting into a lather because we’ve misread a situation undermines our credibility and causes us to spend time on non-issues instead of issues of real import.

     Corporate social responsibility (CSR) isn’t simply a matter of doing good works at the expense of profits and otherwise being a good person. Thinking that you’ll stay out of trouble just by being a good person is a recipe for a CSR disaster. You can be blindsided by anything that happens anywhere along your supply chain, and you can’t watch everything at once.

     We’re accustomed to the schema that corporations and watchdog groups are natural enemies. Depending on your perspective, corporate managers will try to get away with anything they can (such evil corporations as Monsanto come to mind) or watchdog groups are “gotcha brigades” just looking for honest businessmen to slip. In most cases, neither schema is accurate.

     Most watchdog groups want corporations to behave responsibly, and most corporate managers want to avoid being labeled as irresponsible. It’s in the interest of both sides to see to it that the corporation isn’t seen as socially irresponsible.

     As I’ve indicated, supply chains have become so long and complicated—many of them experiencing some changes from one batch to another—that it’s not possible for one CEO or one vice president in charge of CSR to watch every link in the chain at once. There are many ways for a company to monitor CSR, including several uses of information technology (IT) for monitoring CSR. Astute CEO’s make use of as many ways as they deem necessary.

     There is, however, no substitute for eyes on the ground; and there’s no substitute for an early warning system. Effective watchdog groups serve both purposes.

     Put yourself in the CEO’s place. Your company’s reputation and sales depends on the accuracy of reports that cross your desk. Suppose those reports were all you had to indicate that a supplier in the Andes Mountains was acting responsibly toward the rainforest and rainforest natives. Would those reports be enough to put your mind at ease? The late Peter Drucker, whose books (such as The Effective Executive) revolutionized business management, wrote, “An effective executive will go out and look.”

     That’s what watchdog groups do. For most corporations with long and complex supply chains, staying on good terms with watchdog groups is the most cost-effective way to go out and look.

     If it can be shown that environmental watchdog groups are giving major polluters a clean bill of health in exchange for hefty donations, then we’d have an issue. In fact, if the major polluters in question happen to be Chevron or BP, we’d have prima facie evidence of a corrupt bargain.
(Shown at right:: "Steven Donziger, shown above in Ecuador in 2003, was accused of doctoring evidence in the pollution suit."  Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703395904576025912265522124.html

Our Valley of Decision

     In a separate article, I wrote that businesses, society, and the environment are mutually dependent. I argued from that that the most sustainable model for businesses as well as for society and environmentalists is one that recognizes this fact and seeks a dovetailing of interests.

     That’s the way things work for most businesses anyway. As long ago as 1776, Adam Smith wrote that, when businessmen and politicians converse, corporate social responsibility is the furthest thing from their minds.

     Our history books tell us that from 1869 until 1877, William Magear (“Boss”) Tweed and his cronies stole an estimated $200 million from the city of New York. In today’s dollars, that would be around $2.7 billion.

     Just think of how much they could have stolen if they’d been in control of something larger than a city—say, the United States Treasury. Hmm. Just how did they do it?

     Well, pretty much the same way that Dubya Bush did it, and Mr. Obama is doing it now. Bush, Cheney, Emanuel, and Obama didn’t invent such embezzlement schemes as bid-free contracts, or regulatory waivers that favor friends and shut out competition, nor did they invent economic blackmail. They did, however, perfect them and come up with a few ideas of their own.

     By comparison, Boss Tweed was practicing a life of austerity and self denial. The Bush-Obama Administration has stolen more than $14 trillion from America’s taxpayers, and there’s no end in sight.

     They get away with it because we let them. Oh, worse than that; we rewarded them after they had done it, thereby encouraging them to steal ever larger sums of money and further violate our liberties.

     In the year 2000, Bush stole the presidential election and employed fraud to launch—not just one, but two—wars that have been highly profitable for himself and his cronies. Some 1.5 million innocent Iraqi civilians were killed as a result, but what’s a couple of million Iraqis compared to trillions of dollars in stolen assets?

     Under the laws of every jurisdiction in the United States, it’s a capital crime to commit a felony that results in a death. Fraud is a felony in every jurisdiction in America, and thousands of Americans died as a result of that fraud.

     According to noted court attorney Vincent Bugliosi (http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/ ), any district attorney whose jurisdiction had been the home of a serviceman killed in Iraq can bring capital murder charges against George W. Bush.  In Texas, Bush’s home state, governors are especially fond of the death penalty.

     It would have been poetic justice for Bush and Cheney to suffer a lethal injection by means of a flu shot made by Baxter. http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2010/08/vaccine-deaths-and-injuries-skyrocket.html    Instead, the American people re-elected Bush President. 

     Bush and his cronies rewarded American gullibility by getting greedier and more brazen. In just one day in late 2008, they stole $1.2 trillion, with no accountability as to where the money went.

     As you will recall, it was informally called the Bankster Bailout Bill. The banksters had made home loans to people who they knew could not repay the loans, then they took their homes away from them, then the fraudsters cried poverty. Not one homeowner was saved by the Bankster Embezzlement Bill.

     Obama was elected on the promise of Hope and Change. What he delivered was a seamless transition. The only way you can tell the difference between Obama’s policies and Bush’s before him was by the date that the crimes were committed.

     I’ve recently learned that Obama’s embezzlement has gotten even greedier and more brazen than I could have previously imagined. Let me give you a preview:

     With no legal authority to do so, Obama has ordered standards that no coal-fired electrical plant in America could possibly meet. In the same act, he has given General Electric a waiver. One of the consequences of this deed is that the City of Austin, Texas, has to buy electricity from Mexico at premium prices. Who do you think owns that plant in Mexico? General Electric; that’s who.

Please take a look at the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr3l4oPXiAw

     For a video that’s both entertaining and infuriating, see Max Keiser’s take on a wide range of embezzlement issues over the past ten years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i-B2V2l_6QE

     During the 1870’s, Boss Tweed and his cronies were limited to stealing everything they possibly could from one city: the City of New York. During our time, high-level gangsters are using national leaders to steal everything they can from all of America and many other nations.

     The Truth is a powerful weapon against these robbers and mass murderers. Boss Tweed and his cronies were ousted by an informed public. The Truth—reliable information—can save us in our time as well.

     Don’t expect that a change of political parties can save us. Only this month—February 2011—Republicans in the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to extend the so-called USA PATRIOT Act, the measure that shredded the Bill of Rights and ushered in rendition and torture of political opponents, electronic strip searches at airports, warrantless wiretapping of our citizens, and too many other abuses and usurpations to count.

     How did your congressman (I won’t call them representatives) vote? Here’s a link to how they voted: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml

     Americans who had already kept themselves informed didn’t believe for a minute that a change in party leadership in the House of Representatives would signal a return to liberty. For the banksters and their kleptocratic henchmen, it’s business as usual.  Remember that the election of Obama was largely a reaction against the robber Republicans, and that didn't work for us either.
     Don't expect any other quick fixes such as a constitutional amendment or a Constitutional Convention either.  There is no quick fix that will free us from the responsibility of safeguarding our liberties.

     To oust the kleptocrats and restore the Bill of Rights, we don’t have to go as far as Egypt and Tunisia did, nor must meekly submit to being herded to the FEMA camps. Peaceful resistance is still an option in most countries. There are countless reliable web sites informing us as to how we can protect ourselves and how we can restore our freedoms.

     Scroll to the top of this page and find the link for Recommended Web Sites. That’s a start. Find the Table of Contents at the top of this page and read other articles telling people how systems really work, as opposed to how most people think they work. Stop buying into the kleptocratic lies that divide Democrats against Republicans, conservatives against liberals, native-born against immigrants, straights against gays, blacks against whites, Christians against Muslims—well, you get the picture.
     There are 307 million of us in America (6.7 billion in the world) and only a few thousand of those gangsters. The criminal sociopaths at the top know that they can succeed only if they keep us divided against one another. If we stand united in passive non-cooperation, they are powerless against us.

     By all means, pray; but roll up your sleeves and pray on your feet.

Sustainable Fit for Business, Society, and the Environment

     Regardless of whether you consider yourself an environmentalist, almost every person has certain things in common with environmentalists.

We want our food, water, and air to be free of things that are likely to make us sick or kill us. However we understand the word likely, we agree that we want to be healthy. Many of us would like to enjoy optimum health.

     We also appreciate beauty, especially natural beauty. You don’t have to be an environmentalist to appreciate beautiful scenery, especially if it’s a vacation destination. No brochure for a travel agency or tourism bureau ever displayed a polluted pond full of dead fish.

     Environmentalists and other people are not divided by their differences in values or necessarily by matters of fact. They are divided by perceptions that are often mistaken by both sides of the debate.

     Many of the perceptions that divide us are mere shibboleths. A belief or disbelief in global warming has nothing to do with whether you want a clean environment. People on both sides of the debate want to be healthy, they appreciate natural beauty, and they want goods and services of reasonable price and quality.

     The latter point brings us to another thing that environmentalists have in common with almost everyone else. We’re often divided by the mistaken belief that there’s a conflict between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate profit. There isn’t. No matter how much people hate business, they still want jobs.

     Businesses, societies, and the environment have mutual needs. To whatever extent the needs and values of all three areas dovetail, the interests of all three are advanced.

     Thus, it doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game in which each side benefits only to the degree that the others lose.

     That’s not to say that any business can locate wherever its managers please, then magically come up with a sustainable strategy. Sometimes the fit just isn’t there, and the business is not suitable for that particular society or environment. Australians, for example, would probably never consider starting a dingo farm next door to an infant daycare center.

     This farm (above) is located only a few meters from the wetlands outside the city of Taipei, Taiwan.  Clean water, of course, is vital for raising food crops.  A gray heron, one of many wetland birds, (at right) co-exists with human activities on this farm.

   

     The stream you see at left is waste water .  The  protected wetland helps to purify the water.  Because of the cleaner water, fishermen are able to make a living by catching fish that are safe to eat. (See below)

     A clear example of a win-win situation is the Golden Riverside Park in New Taipei City (formerly Taipei County), Taiwan.

     More than ten years ago, the Danshui River was horribly polluted, the ferry had been defunct since the Guandu Bridge was built, the fishing industry was ailing, and Danshui itself was a sleepy college town. It was such a sleepy town that, at night, motorcyclists could race along its major streets with little fear of hitting someone.

     Wetlands—the lungs and kidneys of Taiwan’s environment—were freely used as trash dumps by businesses and individuals. This was especially tragic, since only 20% of Taiwan’s wastewater is treated at waste treatment plants. Wetlands shoulder the burden of cleaning up the rest.

     Since the Guandu River Bridge was built during the 1980's people no longer need a ferry to cross the Danshui River.  Since the wetlands have been restored, and the water is much less polluted, the Guandu River Ferry has enjoyed a new career as a picturesque form of tourism.
 
     The lamentable economic and environmental situation changed when the Taipei County government laid plans to restore the wetlands. Restoration of the natural wetlands and the construction of other wetlands has improved water quality, attracted wildlife, attracted tourists, created businesses that rely on tourism, and improved the social and economic well being of the entire area. 

     The photos above and at left were taken at one of Danshui's tourist areas on a slow weekday.  On weekends, it's far too crowded for bicycling. 

      Just think of how many jobs are saved or created, and how many other human needs in the area are met by fully functioning wetlands.


     The video below shows a panoramic view of tourist-related businesses along the riverbank, bicyclists, the Guandu Ferry, the mountains, the wetlands, and the Guandu Bridge.

(For more information on the importance of wetlands, click the following URL:)
http://eng.sdec.tpc.edu.tw/bin/home.php 

     On the other hand, let’s suppose someone were irresponsible enough to allow the construction of a chemical plant along the wetlands. Let’s further suppose he were reckless enough to permit the dumping of toxins into the air and into the wetland’s water table, on the grounds that this measure would create jobs.

     It’s true that expanding a petrochemical plant into an ecosystem's lungs and kidneys could create some jobs. We can be sure that  jobs would be created for medical personnel specializing in the treatment of various cancers and respiratory ailments.  Furthermore, undertakers (illustrated above center) wouldn't have to wait as long for customers, nor would hospitals or medical schools have to wait as long to make claims on your organ donor card (illustrated above right). 
     Can we say, though, that the only jobs that matter are the ones created by businesses with pockets deep enough to contribute oceans of money to political campaigns?

     How many jobs would be lost? How many lives would be shortened due to cancer and respiratory illnesses? How much natural beauty would be destroyed? No, each person is valuable, as are each person’s health and general well being. Any business that is given privileges at the expense of society and the environment becomes a menace to society, the environment, and most other businesses.

     The value of a person’s job can’t be measured by how much it contributes to the GDP. GDP measures money spent, but it doesn’t measure value received.

     Look at a loaf of bread. The manufacture of a plastic bread wrapper contributes more to the GDP than the production of the wheat that goes into the bread. The wheat, on the other hand, contributes more value to the finished product. It’s the fit among all factors—the ingredients of the bread, the quality of the water used in growing the wheat, and social needs—that give bread its overall value.
     In the video below, you can see what happens at the end of the river.  At low tide, people forage for crabs and various other foods from the sea.  They, too, depend on relatively clean water for food safety, and GDP has nothing to do with it.  Each person has value that can't be measured in dollars and cents.

     Just as “jobs” is used as a rationale for corporate greed and depredation, certain giant corporations sometimes use “environmental protection” as a rationale for destroying their competitors. In such cases, environmental legislation is written to give favored businesses virtual monopolies.

     But that’s the subject of another article.

The Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) Con

     Since the late 1970's,  some 34 states have called for a new Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) that purportedly would be limited to considering a Balanced Budget Amendment or other amendment.  From the get-go, opponents of the Con-Con have called it the Con-Con con, in that a constitutional convention is exactly what the name implies: a constitutional convention. 
      In a 1988 letter to Phyllis Schlafly, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger wrote that a constitutional convention could not be limited to single issues or even a few issues. Specifically, he wrote the following:
     "...[T]here is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention.  The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.  Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey.  After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda.  The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress 'for the sole and express purpose.' 
     "With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecdy, with no pres coverage and no leaks.  A Constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.
     "Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a 'miracle.'  Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved.  A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention.  I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a Convention."
     Here's the link to Chief Justice Burger's letter:  

http://www.jbs.org/action/downloads/freedom-campaign-downloads/15-warren-burger-letter-to-phyllis-schlafly-re-an-article-v-constitutional-convention

      In a nutshell, a constitutional convention, regardless of the motivation for calling it, is still a constitutional convention. Anything and everything in the Constitution would be up for grabs.  There is no quick fix for the problems that ail America, and a new constitutional amendment or convention is no substitute for a vigilant, well-informed citizenry.
    Recently, someone began circulating a resolution for a major political party to present at a state party convention.  The resolution in its original form contained divisive language: language pitting Republicans against Democrats and conservatives against liberals.  It's not a partisan issue; it's an American issue.
     I've taken the liberty of changing or deleting the divisive language and correcting the punctuation and grammar.  As it was written strictly for one political party in one state, I've made other needed changes.  Please make any other changes you believe are necessary.  Below is my emended version of the resolution against the Con Con.

RESOLUTION OPPOSING ANY CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

WHEREAS, the State Legislature will be/may be considering a number of Senate and House Joint Resolutions calling upon Congress to call a Constitutional Convention (ConCon) for the purpose of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment or other supposedly limited purposes to the Constitution, and

WHEREAS , there is no provision in the Constitution or in law to limit the convention to any one agenda item, and

WHEREAS, a runaway convention carries a host of unintended consequences:

• Repeal of the Second Amendment

• Repeal of the Tenth Amendment

• Repeal of the Electoral College in favor of a popular presidential election

• Repeal of presidential term limits

• Recognition of International Law as a part of our Supreme Court decision making (which is already being done unconstitutionally

• Re-write of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding the “under the jurisdiction thereof” phrase to include children born of Illegal Aliens

• Adoption of a North American Union (open borders as proposed by George W. Bush,) and

WHEREAS, a Balanced Budget Amendment without a cap on federal spending and taxes would require a large tax increase and/or exorbitant fees to match the revenue with the spending, and

WHEREAS, a Balanced Budget Amendment without built-in safeguards to cap spending would merely give constitutional cover to the big spenders to raise taxes, and

WHEREAS, the cost of waging an effective campaign against bad amendments would be enormous and possibly a losing effort, and

WHEREAS, the original constitution was intended to protect the people from excessive governmental control and is still sufficient to meet today’s needs if the president, the congress and the judiciary would honor and enforce the original intent, and


WHEREAS, only 34 states are needed to force congress to call a ConCon and only two more states are needed, now therefore


BE IT RESOLVED BY ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬_____________________________that all (name of state) legislators be contacted and urged to vote NO on any and all resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention for any reason however well-intended., and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 1979 resolution, or any other resolution, calling for a Constitutional Convention be rescinded, and


BE IT FURTHER RESLVED that a copy of this resolution be faxed to every state  Senator and House Member.

PASSED AND APPROVED this ___day of January, 2011

Micro-tells Expose Beijing’s Hostile Intentions and South Korea’s Weakness

     You may be wondering what a micro-tell is. A micro-tell is an unintended signal that—if noticed—can reveal hidden thoughts. A micro-tell differs from a tell in that it’s so brief or minute that it can easily escape detection, yet its message can be of great importance.

     Yes, I’ve borrowed the term from the study of body language.

     So what about those secretive critters known as politicians, who often hold the destiny of nations in their conspiratorial hands? They’re quite adept at hiding their intentions and their weaknesses when it comes to dealing with other nations, but their behavior in smaller matters can give them away.

     Hence, I’ve written this article about an obscure taekwondo competition in Guangzhou, China, on November 17 of last year.

     Many athletes at some time or other have had to “swallow” unfair rulings. The Yang Shu-chun incident, however, was thread that, once tugged a little, unraveled a tapestry of deceit and aggression of international proportions. At one end of the thread was that one, obscure event; at the other was my discovery of the degree to which South Korea has slipped under Beijing’s hegemony—as well as a strong indicator that “China’s peaceful rise” is a lie for temporary convenience.

     At the 2010 Asian games in Guangzhu on November 17, Taiwanese athlete Yang Shu-chun was favored to win a gold medal. On that date, she competed against the Vietnamese athlete T. H. Vu (Wu Shr Hou, in Chinese) in a taekwondo match in the 49 kg. category. If Yang had been allowed to win, her next and final competitor would have been a Chinese athlete.

There was just one problem: One of the two judges that day just happened to have been the Chinese athlete’s coach, a Mr. Chao. Hmmm. It already smells like a conflict of interest. With China hosting the event and the coach of a Chinese competitor judging the event, how would you think it turned out?

     Before the match, each competitor was testing the sensors on her socks. Because the technician claimed that Yang’s sensors weren’t working properly, she had to change socks. Because Yang’s feet were very small (22 ½ cm.), the only socks available to her were an older pair that will be allowed until July 2011.

     These socks had an extra sensor on each heel, which was promptly removed and placed on the floor beside Yang’s coach’s seat.

     A series of photos from the blog Applause for U picks up the story from there:

http://applauseforu.blogspot.com/2010/11/yang-shu-chun-is-not-cheater.html

     The above-linked series of photos was taken from a video. Applause for U also features a You Tube video of the incident.

     With only 12 seconds remaining in the first round, Yang Shu-chun was ahead 9-to-0. Videos show that the Chinese coach stopped the match, walked over to where Yang’s coach sat, picked up the sensors from the floor, and claimed that he had removed them from Yang’s socks.      As obvious as the deception was, it was backed up by the Korean-based World Taekwondo Federation.

     Ordinarily, I’m not interested in spectator sports. If they enjoy their sport, it’s their lives and they’re free to live them as they see fit; but I’d rather live my life than watch someone else live his.

     I was, however, intrigued by the heavy hitters who went to bat for the Chinese even when videos clearly revealed that Yang had been cheated out of the victory that was rightfully hers. Why would the World Taekwondo Federation risk its credibility by obviously cheating in a competition they were sponsoring? The world at large would scarcely notice it, but athletes who have worked for years to get to the Asian Games would like to believe in the fairness of the system—unless they happened to be favored by referees who cheat on their behalf.

     As the Internet buzzed with still photos and videos showed that there were no sensors on Yang’s heel, and that the Chinese coach had picked them up from the floor, the World Taekwondo Federation website ran the headline “Shocking Act of Deception!” The “shocking” cheater, according to them, was Yang and not the Chinese coach.

     I teach a course in Journalism English to Taiwanese college students. I immediately gave them assignments in investigative journalism, trying to cover all bases.

     Are there any clear photos of Yang Shu-chun’s heel during the match? What would Korea gain by cheating on behalf of Beijing? Has Korea cheated on behalf of Beijing before? I was assuming that, for an international sports organization to stoop to the level of the World Taekwondo Federation there must be weighty reasons for their obvious and shocking acts of deceit. Also, for Korea’s cheating on Beijing’s behalf to be meaningful, Beijing would have to welcome it or even encourage it. Does Beijing itself have a record of cheating in international athletic events?

     Most of the teams came through with flying colors. Here are the links to the simulated “newspapers” that they created for the course:

"Taekwondo federation accuses Taiwan athlete of cheating, but pictures tell a different tale"

"Yang Shu-Chun was disqualified from the videos" (sic)

(Here’s the link this team provided: http://old-school-news.blogspot.com/2010/12/yang-shu-chun-was-disqualified.html )

"Korean officials would cheat on behalf of China."

Yang Shu-chun incident not the first time

-The previous questionable decisions by Korean athletic officials

     My students were unable to find any information about Beijing cheating without outside help; and they were unable to find information as to South Korea’s motive in cheating on behalf of Beijing. No matter; I found both after about 10 minutes of searching.

     According to the article “China stripped of 2000 gymnastics medal for underage athlete,” dated April 28, 2010, the answer is, “Yes.” Details of the article reveal that Chinese cheating in athletic events is so pervasive, and at such high levels, that much of their cheating (such as producing fake passports can be carried out only with high-level government assistance. 

     Gangster regimes, lacking the legitimacy that comes with the consent of the governed, seek legitimacy wherever they can get it—even if they have to steal it.

At the 1938 Olympics in Munich, Hitler sought ratification of his “super race” fantasy. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union entered some decidedly masculine-looking entrants in women’s weightlifting competitions. Now it’s Beijing, with its Middle Kingdom fantasy pumped up with a narcissic craving for “great nation status.”

     What about South Korean motives for cheating on Beijing's behalf?

     The following article in the Chosunilbo (an English-language, on-line Korean newspaper, dated December 17, 2007) reveals that South Korean legislators are concerned that their government too often tries to “curry favor with China.” The title of the article reveals a motive for cheating on Beijing’s behalf: “It's Principles vs. Profits in Dealing With China.” (sic)

     In the final paragraph, we read, “Fifteen years after the establishment of ties with China, South Korea leads the world in investment in China and the number of students studying there, and it is concentrating more on China than ever before. But unlike the German case, South Korean politicians and diplomats are always trying to curry favor with China.”

     So, there we have it; but what exactly do we have? We have strong circumstantial evidence that South Korea, losing confidence in America’s promises of security, is slipping under Beijing’s hegemony.

     We also have concrete evidence that “China’s peaceful rise” is just a façade. We can discern a nation’s intentions with regard to other nations by observing their treatment of individuals in those nations. Beijing was willing to call upon the resources of one of the most powerful nations on Earth—China—in order to gain bragging rights in a sports competition that would soon be forgotten.

     With Beijing, that’s nothing new. Only a few months ago, they called upon their resources in a childish attempt to deny one of their citizens—a blogger—a Nobel Peace Prize. In the process, they showed astonishing ignorance of how the Nobel Committee actually operated. They imprisoned the blogger for stating facts that Beijing dared not refute, and denied his family the freedom of receiving the prize.

     Going back to March 31, 1994, Chinese soldiers robbed and murdered 31 Taiwanese tourists in what has become known as the Lake Qiandao (pronounced Chiendao) Incident. After weeks of claiming that the tourists had died in a boating accident, Beijing arrested three civilians for the crime. That’s right: In a gun control zealot’s paradise, three people supposedly robbed and murdered 31 people. To this day, Beijing has never given an accounting of what had happened.

     During the Cold War, the Soviet Union often did that sort of thing to American citizens just to show that they could get away with it; it demonstrated their power and America’s weakness. Like a dog returning to its vomit, Beijing appears to be doing the same thing.

So much for great nation status. So much for China’s “peaceful rise.”
     Oh, please allow me to conclude on a cheerful note.  Yang Shu-chun returned to a hero's welcome in Taiwan.  Taiwan's national government is pursuing the issue all the way to an international sport arbitration in Switzerland.  A fan in Taiwan ordered a "gold" medal struck for Yang, and the maker of the medal charged only for the materials that went into it.  Yang's boyfriend proposed marriage to her in front of the news media.  She replied, "Don't talk foolishness.  My parents are present."

Step into Japan's Moccasins

    (It's not all that often that I repost an article to the American Action Report.  It's rarer still for me to repost one of my own articles.  Every couple of years or so, the wording of Japanese history books becomes a major political issue for the Chinese Communist Party in China, and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in Taiwan, and perhaps other countries.  The Japanese are accused of not being contrite enough in their wording of accounts of their role in World War II.  

     The real purpose of the controversy is to keep Japan in a post-war doghouse in order to give more leeway to Beijing's hegemonic ambitions.  Below, without changes, is a letter I wrote to the Taipei Times almost six years ago.  Since the new textbooks should be coming out by spring, I thought I'd get the jump on Beijing and their quislings.)

     During the controversy over the precise wording of Japanese history books, I was coincidentally engaged in a study of cultural and other influences that go into the writing of textbooks. The failure to consider these influences generates more heat that light in any textbook debate.

     Although restitution to victims of Japanese atrocities during World War II is of concern to this letter writer, it is outside the scope of this particular letter.

     The main purpose of education is for each generation to pass its values to succeeding generations. Nowhere is this more evident than in social sciences such as history.

     Unfortunately, no nation succeeds in living up to its own values on a consistent basis. The loftier the values, the greater the discrepancy. To further complicate matters, a textbook is useless if schools choose not to assign it. If a high school history book told Japanese children that their kindly old grandfathers were sadistic rapists, thieves and murderers, their only buyers would be Japan's enemies in Beijing -- history's most prolific mass murderers.

     Writers of history textbooks face disadvantages not faced by writers of popular histories found in bookstores. (Ironically, it's the popular histories that save history from the fate of being no more than "a set of lies, agreed upon.") They find themselves carefully selecting words and facts in order to promote the values they wish to impart. The best they can hope to produce is a textbook in which inconvenient facts are sacrificed on the altar of truth.

     In A Nation Grows, the US history book I selected for my study, I found dozens of dubious passages. To give only a few examples, the seizure of Native American lands was compared to the immigration of Europeans to New York City. [AAR Note: This referred to the English supplanting the Dutch in New Amsterdam and renaming the place New York City.]  The Trail of Tears, along which 4,000 of my fellow Cherokees and thousands of other Native Americans were forced to travel, was given only five words, with no mention of what had taken place. The only Revolutionary War battles described took place in four Northeastern states.

     New England's virtual monopoly on the importation of slaves was described in the passive voice -- thus leaving the culprits unnamed. Scornful fingers were pointed at Southerners.

     Andrew Carnegie was praised for his supposed concern for the poor, while his depredations on the poor were condemned without mentioning him by name. One of the authors of A Nation Grows was a professor at Carnegie-Mellon University.

     The concern over Japanese history texts is valid, but critics should view those concerns within a cultural context. The challenge is how the Japanese can promote the best of their history while facing the fact that the Japanese -- like the Chinese and the Taiwanese -- have not always lived up to their own best values.

     Perhaps Beijing would like to produce a history book that accurately portrays the murder of 65 million Chinese by their fellow Chinese since 1949, the cultural genocides in Tibet and Turkestan and other shameful acts. Perhaps Taiwan's history textbooks should be similarly larded with mea culpas. By walking a mile in Japan's moccasins, Japan's critics may realize the enormity of the task they demand of the Japanese.

     They may also realize that Beijing's histrionics have nothing to do with historical justice and everything to do with power politics in the Pacific.

How the Israeli Regime Manipulates the "Exodus" Narrative

     Advertising has been defined as the art of making corporate propaganda look like revealed Truth.  In fact, I once took a master's level course called Advertising, Public Relations, and Propaganda.  All three areas comprise a single area of psychology.  All three areas involve bypassing rational processes.  

     No matter how rational you think you are, you don't have immunity to these techniques unless you know what they are.  I'll describe a few.

     Your rational mind has a gatekeeper, so to speak.  In some ways, it's like an anti-virus program on your computer.  

     When information comes knocking at the gate of your mind, the gatekeeper determines whether the information is true and just how credible it is.  This gatekeeper either rejects the information, or it accepts it as a document file.  If it passes the gatekeeper, it may eventually become part of your brain's hard wiring; in which case, it becomes harder to delete.

     Advertising (a.k.a. propaganda) seeks to fool the gatekeeper.  Just as a computer virus may be disguised as a harmless file extension such as JPEG, advertising is often disguised as entertainment.  If it fools the gatekeeper, it doesn't go into a file folder somewhere, where it may be easily deleted; instead, it goes directly to your brain's hard wiring.

     As early as the Middle Ages, some political leaders wouldn't undertake a major initiative until a minstrel has written and popularized a song about it.  It's hard to disagree with a song that you enjoy singing; and, since it's disguised as entertainment, it bypasses the rational thinking processes.
     Actually, this phenomenon goes beyond the art of disguising propaganda as entertainment.  This technique can employ anything that is designed to mimic something that you're already conditioned to accept.

     For example, suppose you're waiting your turn at the photocopier and someone else wants to cut in ahead of everyone else.  You're conditioned to believe that he shouldn't be allowed to do this unless he can offer a good reason for it.  
     Some years ago, psychologists created an experiment with three "groups" of unsuspecting subjects.  Individuals in the first group heard, "May I get ahead of you?"  Around two thirds of the subjects allowed the intrusion.  
     The second group of subjects heard, "May I get ahead of you?  I need to make some copies."  That, of course, was not a good reason, since that's the only reason anyone would use a photocopier.  Nonetheless, it had the structure of a rational argument, and the rate of agreement jumped to three fourths.  

     The subjects in the third group heard, "May I get ahead of you?  The boss needs some copies right away."  That, of course, was a valid reason.  The rate of agreement from this group was only slightly higher than for the second group.
     The conclusion of the study was that most people spend most of their time in a state of "non-thought" and are open to suggestion if they're offered what mimics a rational argument.  I'll get back to that one later.
     Let's consider another phenomenon: That it's difficult for the average person to maintain two separate images in their minds at the same time.
     In different parts of a single survey, people heard the same question twice.  The first time, they were asked if they agreed with the statement that "abortion is a personal decision to be decided between a woman and her doctor."  The second time, the statement was, "The rights of unborn children should be protected by law."  Both statements enjoyed agreement from two thirds of the respondents.

     In a nutshell, Israeli arguments for the occupation of Palestine mimic the popular version of the Genesis narrative pertaining to God's promises to Abraham.  You can  momentarily convince a supporter of Israel that the rights of Palestinians should be protected, but it's an easily deleted file.  The popular version of the Genesis narrative is part of their hard wiring.
     The only way that it can be deleted is through reformatting the hard drive.  You do that by creating a situation in which they have to watch both images at the same time.  Some will become very angry with you, but I see no other way.
     I said I'd get back to the mimicry.  So I shall.

     The Israeli narrative of their occupation of Palestine mimics the story of Exodus, in the Old Testament.  It's attractive but false.  It justifies ethnic cleansing because it mimics the Lord's command that the inhabitants of Palestine be driven from the land.  The the book of Exodus, the Israelite religion was just getting started, and the Philistines (ancestors of today's Palestinians) were an idolatrous people who may tempt the Israelites away from the Lord.
     Judaism today is well established.  Palestinians are predominantly Muslims, who more closely adhere to the Law of Moses (they call it Sharia Law) than the Jews do.  
     Furthermore, the Lord's promise to Abraham was that Abraham would become the father of "many nations," and not just the Jews.  The Promised Land was to be inherited by Abraham's descendants.  I've seen nothing in the Bible that would exclude the descendants of Abraham's firstborn son Ishmael, who was the ancestor of Mohammad.

     The Old Testament records examples of Israel descending into idolatry and other abominations, for which they were delivered into captivity.  Each time they returned to their homeland, it was because they were repentant and they were led by righteous men.  Each time they returned, they returned as peaceful new neighbors and not as conquerors.  They didn't steal land; they paid for it.
     There are other examples of the Israeli regime using mimicry for propaganda purposes, but I'll mention only two more:.
     One isthe attempt to equate opposition to Zionism with anti-Jewishness.  Like Satan, who disguises sin as enlightenment, the Zionists apply a thin veneer of counterfeit Jewishness to camouflage their corruption.  Jesus called religious leaders of their ilk "whited sepulchers." 
     The other is the deliberate confusion of the word mine, as in "This Land is Mine."  When you say, "This teddy bear is mine," you mean that you have exclusive ownership of it; you're free to tear off its arms if you wish.  "This dog is mine," limits your actions.  "This girl is my sister," has nothing to do with ownership; it refers only to a relationship.  "My homeland" is another relationship that mustn't be confused with ownership or sovereignty. During the time of Joshua, they "took possession of the land."  Afterward, they were returnees, and there is no biblical record of force being used against Jerusalem's inhabitants.
     I mentioned the possibility of forcing a deluded supporter of Zionism to come to grips with both the myth and the reality of "modern Israel" at the same time.  Here it is:             

 "This Land is Mine" (with introduction and subtitles)
or watch it at You Tube and the following URL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abBTrbDKwBo