On the Right to Legal Vegetable-hood(edness)

Posted on 24th January 2014 in Reflections, Self Determination, Theory

I have debated such things with some of my vegan friends: should vegetables be given legal person-hood? Of course, an affirmative is founded in vegetable sentience. If vegetables are sentient, then they, according to the UN charter, have the right to self-determine. I ask myself then, should Palestinians not have the right to legal vegetable-hood. Yes, it sounds stupid to even think of at first bite, but if you peel of the skin and pith you begin to realize that the whole idea of legal person-hood is speciesist and we would serve the unambiguous idiology of justice to question the language we bow to.

 

“But vegetables don’t have neurons” is a common argument for why its ok to eat vegetables and not ok to eat animals. For me, survival is a good reason to eat, period. It’s not what you eat, its why you eat it and where it comes from. That’s my parable paradigm. What is yours? Because plants don’t have the same structures humans do to conduct information is no good cause to assume they don’t have some apparatus to conduct information from one place to another, register it, respond to it – in some cases to engage or avoid things we associate with pleasure or pain.

 

I know humans are still struggling with legal person-hood for any other-than human species. To ask people to accept monkeys and turtles as people is asking a lot. It is a big stretch of the moral imagination arc somewhere over the rainbow outside of the comfort zone of an identity that exists on its better-ness because of other-ness. Yet, within this context we can see that when it comes time to compare ourselves to wombats and groove billed anis, all of a sudden we are all one as a species and can stand together in solidarity (perhaps as a species belligerent occupant to the earth). This speciesist perspective is then a unifying cause to champion racism, nationalism and, in some very strange sense, is the cause celebre for championing human rights and equality under the law to all those currently under a belligerent occupancy or under and kind of enslavement be it physical or mental.

 

In any case, what I’m getting at here is that it is way beyond anyone’s intellectual capacity at this point to realize that we might well just apply rights universally to all living beings – make it a part of our common culture and enshrine it in international law. We can think of the right to self determine as universal – and I don’t mean just universal on the tiny universe of earth. I mean, since the universe is vast (don’t hurt yourself trying to think about it too much) and it is a commonly accepted belief (yes, so common that you believe it too, now) that life exists everywhere where it can and that requires two things: a percolating solution (in our case, water), and a thermal threshold for certain reactions to take place that are not inherent to the environment (solution). These conditions exist all over the place and so life exists all over the place. To think otherwise is foolish because it would set your beliefs outside of the norm of indigenous beliefs (which is, by definition, just one small part of being a fool).

 

Good, Now that we’re all on the same page page we can agree that the words are somewhat interchangeable. I now can claim I have the self evident right to legal kangaroo-hood. You, dear soul, can get down with your vegetables in a state of pure existential existence-hoodedness and, yes, the Palestinian people most certainly have the right to declare themselves as possessing the right to legal vegetable-hood. Why not?

 

Since corporations have such rights, too, they must have some homologous structure to a nervous system and, I suppose, a set of organs and systems complimenting all those structures necessary for survival. I can see it now, there will be fortune 500 companies filing for the right to legal asshole-hood.

Pass the hummus, please.

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , ,

DWB, LGM, and Olive Trees

Posted on 22nd January 2014 in Reflections, Self Determination

Racism may be partly natural and partly nurtural. There is probably something coded in our genes that makes cells undergo meiosis every time we see “other” such that we need to reproduce within our tribe – but not with out siblings (cousins are OK in most places). There is definitely something encoded in our brains about “other” from the racist propaganda (read: education) that most people get.

 

I don’t remember being taught in non or secular school that we’all humans have a relatively broad and meaty common set of biological, logical, moral, ethical, religious, spiritual, chemical and physical properties. I don’t recall too many people who actually embrace universal love – in principle or in practice. I’m not suggesting we should.

 

An acquaintance of mine got a DWB. I understood what he meant before I could stop my mouth from asking. It was obvious; though I’ve never gotten a Driving While Black myself since I am heterozygous black recessive. It’s amazing to me, probably because I’m still only in someone else’s late 20′s, and not in my own 400′s, that I can’t relate to the fact that racism is still strong and proud in the United States. Another generation or two will have to die off before things get much better. They are better than they were, but we got a long way to go people. We have to start remembering ourselves from the future, after we’re dead and gone, to get a better perspective on who we are today. See you there.

 

Perhaps the aliens, not the illegal one’s who come here to steal jobs from Americans (that is, the South or Central Americans that come here to steal ‘our’ jobs (the ones that don’t exist anyway)), are Little Green Men. That could mean numerous things in terms of size. Size is relative. Size matters. Two things are clear. The aliens are men and they are green. They are mono-gendered, which is fine with me. We – as a species – are tending towards something similar here anyway. The numbers are increasing (the percentages are staying the same).We don’t know how they reproduce or if they reproduce. It is not implicit in the label (read: name). These men are green. There is nothing ambiguous about green. It is a range of frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum which, when viewed in one’s own inertial frame, are well defined. Of course you could be looking at someone else’s green and see red. Little for me is about waise height – below the belt: illegal.

 

An approximate acquaintance of mine was shot in the leg by an Israeli Security Forcerer while planting Olive Trees in Gaza. He asked, rhetorically I presume, “What was I doing wrong?” The answer, of course, is that he was Planting While Palestinian. While he is protected under international law, the racism runs so deep that injustice is rampant and accountability slim to none. Salam. Shalom. Pass the hummus, please.

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , , , ,

NON VIOLENT Movement #1 in G(ene) Sharp: The Fifth American Revolution (Dedicated to Gene Sharp)

Posted on 29th June 2013 in Peace, Reflections, Self Determination, World Peace Academy Reflection Papers

Prelude:
In the very short amount of time that modern weaponry has existed, humankind has witnessed a tragic escalation in violent military conflicts. These conflicts have shifted from inter-state military actions of both offensive and defensive natures to  humanitarian interventions’ and intra-state military actions. In one sense – the case of interstate warring – the world has become a  less violent place; though the means for the total obliteration of life on earth (roughly) exist, they do not pose as great a threat to peace, security, health and the welfare of humankind as much as things like access to and availability of potable water, street drugs, cancer, civilian related gun deaths, choking on pretzels and falling asleep while driving.

In places where there is no relative peace, work can be done to foster relative peace through the means elaborated and elucidated by  many ‘experts’ who work in the field (Galtung, Gandhi, Sharp, Olberg, Johansen, et. al.). Where there is peace, work can be done to  foster community and creativity as well as a sense of charity to those in need. Charity  an come in many forms and, in its essence –  whatever the form,  is an act of solidarity. An example of this would be OTПOP ‘members’ working with movements in the Arab Spring; this is a direct form of charity, solidarity and peace building through the statistically proven effective method of non-violent actions  and interactions. Perhaps that is the differentiating factor – where there is relative violence, non-violent actions can take place. Where there is relative peace, peace promoting actions can take place.

The intent of non violent or peace promoting actions is to change the dynamics of the system in question. The system in question here is the the structure and function of a tyrannical regime, as opposed to the dynamics of trade union disputes, interpersonal  relationships such as marriage, or saving endangered species from the threat of environmental degradation and destruction. In terms of promoting democracy (the ideal and principle of one person one vote – not it’s practical manifestation) there are a number of  aspects we must consider with respect to the the structure and function of governments: how the government gets its money; how the system maintains the status quo in terms of the work force necessary to keep the state functioning; the military; the police; civil obedience , and the bureaucracy of governmental institutions and its proxies. Two dynamical models should be considered and applied and will be recurring themes throughout the movement: 1.) viewing the six items listed above as pillars for dismantling; 2.) viewing the six items listed above in terms of fulcrums that will act as the pivot for displacing or shifting structure and authority in a direction away from the status quo.

Click here to read more.. »

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , ,

Magic Hat: A Rabbit and a Gun

Posted on 7th December 2012 in Notes, Reflections, Theory

“This one’s for you.” – anonymous

Probability is always just around the corner. Step out into the street, and only certain things will probably happen to you. You may be run over by a car, but you will not likely be kissed by a frog 30,000 kilometers away from you. You can’t, really, because it is not in the mix of probabilities. It is very much like a magic hat that has only a limited selection of things you can pull out of it; maybe it is only a partially magic hat. You can’t retrieve or conjure what is not there and what it can not produce. From a quantum mechanical perspective, the probabilities for spectral composition of wave to particle are limited in scope – your canvas is not unlimited in potential. However, it is possible to add ingredients to the probability mixture and increase the number of items that you can pull out of the vortex of the mad hatters wares.

Arguably, my alleged axiom applies to all circumstances and all situations. This is good. It can be a proving ground for that thing some of you call hope. It can be a breeding ground for what some of you call fate. It will be, should you accept that there is a world of infinite probabilities for dreamers, healers, meta-physicists and magicians, an opportunity for the highly improbable to manifest.

This should come as no surprise, really, since the history of so called human progress is nothing less than the visions of dreams and dreamers becoming common place such that we take it all for granted. I can’t think of one thing that was made by the hands of human, that does not fit into this category (other than things like beer and cheese- which, by the way, happen on their own but required human acknowledgment to become fully orchestrated).

Certainly, the idea for and of god didn’t just pop out of the sky. The torque wrench is certainly a creation of magic that works magic – someone understanding the forces of nature and how to conjure and manipulate the long arm of influence to seemingly static objects. The atomic bomb and the breast pump, both – forms of magic – may be catalyst for the end of humankind on Earth (it is difficult to say at this point) and the oud and timpani definitely hold high ranks in the manipulation of mind over matter tending towards balancing the dramatic effects of climate change and the warring amongst sons, fathers and brothers.

If you believe any of this then you have freed yourself from the enchanted prison of ideas and ideologies. You accept and understand that you are free to dream, free to live in your dreams, free to pursue your dreams, because each time you do this you add to the probability mix of things that can happen. Once your dreams become thoughts become words become a part of the common knowledge and, potentially, the common wisdom of the culture of inhabitants of planet Earth – the common ground for all of humanity where our differences become a source of inspiration rather than a source of conflict, trauma, and the cycle and culture of violence, your thoughts become waves in the matrix of matter, accessible to any and all who surf the network.

I am told that my brothers and sisters in Syria, and I suppose this means parts and aspects of Arab culture in general, do not really have the ideas of non-violent means of armed resistance in their probability mix. Shall we acknowledge this and move on, complain, become polarized by this fact? Can we introduce these ideas into the probability mix; infuse the notions into the atmosphere; inject a new ideology under the skin of a culture steeped in violent resorts?

Of course. According to the axiom it is pointless not to.

It is time, dear friends, for the Jasmine Revolution >>

comments: 0 » tags: , , ,

Earth, Its Inhabitants, and Their Survival Viewed as a Multi-Stakeholder Process

Posted on 7th November 2012 in Peace, Reflections, Self Determination, Theory, World Peace Academy Reflection Papers

 

The basic premise I shall expound upon in this brief reflection paper is the notion that in order for human beings to live more sustainably with the environment they will have to ask all members of the five kingdoms of life, and the natural worlds provisions upon which they are reliant for their survival, what their interests are in the gross interplay of the dynamics of self-organizing organic systems.

 

To consider this idea immediately poses a problem for most modern civilized westernized cultures – which I shall refer to as occupiers; the situation is quite different for many indigenous cultures whose survival is intimately intertwined with the land they inhabit – thus, I shall refer to these people as inhabitants.

 

Since we can’t communicate directly to organisms other than humans in a language that is familiar to us we have decided to make decisions for them without asking them what they want. In the best case, we have decided to be the stewards of nature. In the worst case we have decided to consider other living organisms and the organic systems upon which they are reliant as resources for us.

 

This speciesist arrogance poses a severe problem for humans regarding their survival. Since the air we breath, the water we drink, the land on which we walk, and the atmosphere that protects us are all influenced by human activity and, for so long, humans have not considered the other than human living beings and the water, earth and sky’s needs for their health – if not happiness – humans are finding that the normal structure and function of the earth’s inhabitants and environment have been influence in a way that has not only harmed other organisms and the environment, humans themselves are suffering the consequences of their own actions. Perhaps the most noteworthy examples of the consequences of humans not paying attention to the environment is global climate change and the fifth mass extinction.

 

It makes sense, however, for an occupier to ask, “What should we do to find out what they want if they can’t represent themselves at a MSP party when we get together to determine how we shall exploit natural resources for benefit and profit?”

 

The answer to this questions is quite simple: ask them.

 

“How do we know what the answer to our questions are,” would be a next logical question?

 

As you might expect, the answer is quite simple: pay attention and listen.

 

So, for example, if you ask the diatoms in the oceans, which supply a majority of the atmospheric oxygen that people like humans need to survive, if they enjoy and appreciate the temperature changes and toxins we give them as a result of our activities if they are happy and healthy and then listen to the signs they are giving us we might quickly conclude that our actions, which will ultimately not benefit us, do not benefit them. If we ask the tens of thousands of species of amphibians who have gone extinct because of human behaviors which have caused changes in weather patterns and acidification of the rain and earths waterways what they want we shall see and hear no response. However, I speculate we can take their silence as a sign that they are dissatisfied with our selfish behavior. If we ask the river, who provides life for vast numbers of species in vast numbers of ecological niches, if the dam that was built by humans served the river well in providing for the welfare of the interconnected webs of lives, you might speculate that it’s diminished flow was simply a stream of tears from the sadness and humiliation it feels for not being able to provide for the lives of its inhabitants and for not being able to control its own destiny.

 

These words and thoughts should not be taken to imply that every species that becomes extinct and every diatom that dies is the result of human activity. Likewise, it is also clear that it is impossible to consult all beings of all species all of the time to determine if it is FOK to burn this tree for warmth or to kill this opossum for food. Similarly, there is no absolute proof that global climate change is the direct result of any and all human activities – as local, and even global, fluctuations are perhaps the result of other factors. There is no certainty in these areas. This, however, does not and should not warrant arrogance and ignorance of the lives of others and, of course, the organic systems upon which they rely for their survival.

 

It is, in my opinion, always better to error on the side of caution. Especially in cases where so much is at stake. If we consider the notion that ‘effectiveness is the measure of truth’ and we ask ourselves how it is that in the last 45 years approximately, since the publication of “Silent Spring”, so much environmental degradation has taken place and so many non-linear changes have taken place in the environment and compare that to, for example, some indigenous cultures of the North American continent who had lived for 12,000 years, sustainably, in their environment who did strange things like asking trees, snakes, spiders, lakes, rivers, streams, and even their dreams, what it is they wanted out of this shared existence – this co-existence – they might very well say something like this, “The same things you want: to be considered, to be cared for, to be loved, to control my own destiny, to provide for my basic needs, and to be happy – as a bare minimum.

 

The challenges for a culture of occupiers, who consider the earth’s inhabitants and systems as resources for exploitation, to transform their behavior to an inclusive disposition in a global multi-stakeholder process are significant but not, theoretically at least, impossible. In order for a change to take place such that there is a shift in the perceptions of humans to consider the welfare of other living beings and systems as being important to those living beings and systems (let alone important for the survival of human beings) there will have to be a change in the attitudes and behaviors of people and this can be achieved through education. This shift in attitudes and behaviors has certainly begun as it is obvious that there is great attention being paid to the earth’s inhabitants and organic systems by children, educators, scientists, politicians and even business persons for they/we all realize that everyone’s survival, ultimately, is at stake.

 

While the shifts in perceptions, knowledge, attitudes and behaviors is obvious, the question I have is is it still possible for this shift to be reinstated as a part of a culture of inhabitants in time for the general trends of species extinction, climate change, resource wars, and so on to be slowed down and/or reversed in their course. Clearly, an extinct species will not come back to inhabit the earth, but maybe the general trends of climate change can be affected by changes in human behavior. My knowledge and understanding as a scientist is that it is already too late for the general trajectory of environmental degradation to be changed. The human population is increasing. While first world nations are struggling to limit, not necessarily reduce, the greenhouse gas emissions they produce, the second and third world nations are struggling to exploit more resources and produce more waste.

 

There are many other impediments to this shift in attitudes and behaviors that prevent attention and energy from going to the dire environmental circumstances on earth that threaten human survival and, of course, the survival of all living beings and the organic systems upon which they rely. I argue that these impediments are largely based in issues of identity. For example, while people are busy with their gender identity, or their national identity, or their religious identity, or their personal identity as relates to things like styles of hair, clothes, shoes, nails, eyes, lips, money, etc, attention to the environment is reduced to a minimum or is simply not there at all.

 

Necessity is the mother of invention, it is said, and so, as it becomes more and more necessary for people to focus on survival, perhaps the attitudes and behaviors of humans will change such that they/we begin to take into account the needs, desires, wills and expectations of all of the stakeholders in this multi-stakeholder process of the large scale dynamic of life on earth (generally best referred to as either ‘survival’ or ‘reality’).

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Just War and the Case of the US military action in Iraq in 2003

Posted on 16th July 2012 in Articles, Peace, Reflections, Self Determination, Theory, World Peace Academy Reflection Papers

The issue of just war elicits a gross interplay between competing and cooperative concepts such as the moral worth of the individual, competent authority and state sovereignty – to name a few. At this time in the moral evolution of human kind we see international agreements yielding the effect that state to state conflicts are virtually non-existent. However, there is a rise in non-state vs state conflict (terrorism) and intrastate (civilian vs state authority) conflict. Both cases call into question the use of different types of intervention: humanitarian intervention and preemptive use of military force. Both of these issues are dealt with in International Law – International Humanitarian Law (ius in bello) and International Human Rights Law; they can also, in specific cases, fall under the jurisdiction of International Criminal Law. In highlighting the relationship between the moral and ethical foundations of the establishment of a just peace, it is necessary to note that International Law is largely the result of several thousands of years of philosophical discourse, dialog and debate on the morality of armed conflict and establishing and maintaining peace as a response to long and brutal history of human-kind engaging in armed conflict – most notably, the two world wars that led to the establishment of the United Nations.

This reflection paper will look through the lens of International Law (IHL, IHRL, ICL) – as a culmination of a moral ethical evolution of humankind – at the case of the US military action against the sovereign state of Iraq (2003) as a preemptive war which violated both US domestic law and International Law and, because of the relationship between moral/ethical principles and international law, the United States has violated fundamental ethics which govern the relationships between sovereign authorities as well as the responsibility to protect the peoples of Iraq. In this light, we note that the basic mechanisms of international law are substantial to deal with the illegality, and thus moral irresponsibility, of the United States and the high ranking members of the George W. Bush administration; yet, the means of enforcement are not in place to hold those responsible for such violations accountable and bring them to justice.

While it can be argued that all branches of ethics have a part in the formulation of International Law, I believe the preeminent ethical formulations – based on my brief introduction to the field of Ethics – are founded in the Utilitarian, Contractualist and Kantian Deontological formulations with the addition of the Ethics of Care and Feminism adding to more recent developments such as the responsibility to protect. It should be duly noted, as well, that the ideas of pacifism espoused in the New Testament would, in essence, prevail in preventing armed conflict and, thus having been challenged by protestations within the christian church to pacifism, the need for international agreements became paramount.

As NATO claimed in it’s ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Kosovo, the war was not legal but it was ethically justifiable because of the grave humanitarian crisis unfolding. The United states argued numerous points – in succession – as justification for the use of preemptive military force against Iraq; I shall consider only two of these arguments. In the first case the US argued that there was an imminent threat from Iraq – that it had chemical, and potentially nuclear weapons and could launch an attack against the United States – and that the only way to prevent this potential attack was to attack Iraq first. The US sought authorization from the UN and was given conditional authority. However, the US could not prove to the UNSC that it had demonstrated an imminent threat since the inspections regime had neither verified US claims nor was given enough time to further investigate before the US began military action – in violation of both U.S. Law (The War Powers Act) and International Law (the UN Charter).

In the second case, the US argued that it was liberating the Iraqi peoples from a brutal dictator – essentially employing the principle of a humanitarian intervention based on the responsibility to protect the civilians of foreign states from crimes against humanity and genocide. While it may be true that Iraq’s president was brutal, there was no case for humanitarian intervention under international law. Again noting in both of these cases, the standards of international law are developed as a result of a long history of discourse on the subject of ethics and morality with particular regard to the use of arms in conflict.

At the time of the US preemptive military action against the sovereign Iraq, there were numerous alternatives that could have been employed. Primarily, the current course of UN inspections could have been allowed to proceed to completion. Diplomatic efforts could have been employed but the United States did not appear to have an interest in diplomacy, offering the Iraqi president a deadline which did not allow for reasonable alternative means. One has to question the motivation of an entity that will not allow for reasonable attempts to solve a dispute by peaceful means. It is not unreasonable to speculate, in this case, that the US’s intentions for invading Iraq were dubious – however, this question is beyond the scope of the nature of this paper and I shall not address it here.

In addition to the UN inspections regime, UNSC resolutions, and diplomatic alternatives, the US media and world media could have made a concerted effort to highlight the current political discourse in Iraq (albeit under a repressive regime, but there are means to get information out to the public) along with the history of Iraq and Iraq’s role in international relations politically and economically for the sake of simply creating a more educated and aware public. This would be counter to the role of the US government and media in instilling ignorance and fear into the US population (again, the subject of another discourse) in order to gain support for an unjustifiable preemptive military action.

In view of the arguments used by the United States under the lens of International Law, we see there is a clear violation taking place. This violation indicates, in the least, that there exists an ethical and moral foundation in international law to test the nature of military interventions. The conclusion can be drawn, then, that international law, in its principles, is fully equipped to judge to the value of such actions regarding interventions of the types discussed here but it is not effective, in this case, in enforcing the laws. It may be that in this case the ineffectiveness of the UN in enforcing international law might be due to the fact the the country in question of violating international law is the world’s only superpower. This indicates the difficulties of entangling international alliances as well as a non-equality of sovereign states.

That the UN was incapable of utilizing its established bodies to attempt to hold the US accountable for a preemptive military intervention on fallacious grounds – causing in wake of the invasion, gross violations of International Humanitarian Law, as well as crimes against humanity, crimes against the peace, and violations of state sovereignty – shows the violability and vulnerability of International Law. In order to restore justice and the principle of “pacta sunt servanda”- the legitimacy of the UN and it’s member states, I believe that the United Nations should heed the words and deeds of some of it’s member states who have taken action against the Bush administration as well as individuals and organizations who have called for justice. In the case of member states, several heads of state and/or state authority’s have banned hih ranking members of the George W. Bush administration from entering their country in protest to their violations of international law, and numerous citizens tribunals have been held to show the egregious violations of IL – which, ultimately, amounts to the killing of individuals, amongst other things, and calls into question the ethics of who determines who will live and who will die; the value of individual human lives.

The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court are the two bodies that could and should take action in this case. The ICJ should be challenging whether the US invasion of Iraq was just. If it showed any willingness to do so I believe there would be numerous member states that would challenge the US. A potential case for the ICJ would be Spain vs the US regarding US violations of international law in the case of its military actions against the sovereign state of Iraq. In a similar fashion, the Brussels tribunal, the Tokyo tribunal, and numerous other civilian run organizations/tribunals, and individuals, have valid claims against individuals in the Bush administration who were responsible for violations of humanitarian law and human rights violations, as well as violations of international criminal law. The ICC could handle such cases.

If the ICJ and the ICC were to engage in a fair juridical process, regardless of the outcome, the UN could show that is, and has, the authority to enforce it’s own rules and, through this, could establish its credibility and legitimacy. Without challenging rogue states, regardless of size or power – that is, treating the all sovereign states as equals – the UN, enforcement of international law, and the moral and ethical principles guiding humanity towards peace and security can not be taken to be equitable or just.

comments: 0 » tags: , , , , , , ,
« Previous Next »