Saturday, September 21, 2019

A Belief in Unicorns

Myth and Imagination


The Unicorn in Captivity (from the Unicorn Tapestries),1495–1505, South Netherlandish, as part of the collection of the Metropolitan  Museum of Art, New York City: The Cloisters Museum & Gardens. “Search for the Unicorn,” May 14, 2013–August 18, 2013.

In an essay (“Greenland Unicorns and the Magical Alicorn;” September 19, 2019) in the Public Domain Review, Natalie Lawrence, writes:
Unicorns seem to be everywhere these days. It’s virtually impossible to walk down a high street or go into a gift shop without coming face to face with one of these rainbow-spangled creatures in some form or other. They have become a fashionable cultural icon of fantasy, escapism, and (somewhat paradoxically) individuality — a fact exploited to the full by manufacturers and marketing experts. All the same, most people today are well aware unicorns don’t exist.
But people want to believe that they do indeed exist, especially today. The unicorns and their magical horns still captivate minds both young and old. This is true in my household, where my son and I--young and old--both enjoy the myth and magic of unicorns and what they can do for us, especially during these times of high anxiety and distress, chiefly brought about by a disruption and a disorder that has eaten away at what we long viewed and thought as good.

The unicorn promises not what politicians or clergy can and do promise, but what myth and magic can along with imagination. Merciful Justice. Fairness. Decency. Feeedom to Be. Such expectations come from somewhere afar, yet they are of the kind that are not humanly possible; the kind that takes the faith of a child, particularly a small one. And of course, unicorns are rare, so rare that you can't see them. At least not with your eyes. Unicorns are also fierce and pure, and these mythical creatures know what is necessary to know. Not everyone knows what the unicorn know, but you can.

*****************
For more, go [here].

Friday, September 20, 2019

Why the Green New Deal is Our Brighter Future

Our Living Planet

An article (“Only a Green Deal Can Douse the Fires of Eco-Fascism;“ September 16, 2019) , by Naomi Klein, in The Intercept, speaks clearly about the importance of the Green New Deal, an ambitious plan that makes perfect sense if you view that the current (non-renewable) fossil-fuel economy is harming our planet and every living thing which lives on it. I certainly do, and so do most scientists with close knowledge of climate change.

Klein writes:
ORGANIZERS ARE EXPECTING huge numbers to turn out for the Global Climate Strike, beginning on September 20 and continuing through September 27. It builds on the first global climate strike, which took place on March 15, and attracted an estimated 1.6 million young people, who walked out of class at schools on every continent.
But this week’s strike will be different. This time, young organizers have called on adults from all walks of life to join them in the streets. So in addition to schools in over 150 countries, almost 1,000 workers at Amazon’s headquarters in Seattle have pledged to walk out, as have some faculty unions, Britain’s Trades Union Congress, and many others. There is a plan to shut down Washington, D.C. on September 23.
This diversity of the groups involved may well prove to be a new stage in the climate movement, with many more movements and constituencies seeing themselves in the struggle against climate breakdown — as well as in the emerging vision for an intersectional justice-based Green New Deal.
And it’s a good thing too, because as Donald Trump spews racist hate at Bahamian refugees fleeing the wreckage of Hurricane Dorian and growing numbers of far-right killers cite environmental damage as a justification for their rampages, there is a pressing need to confront the ways in which the fires of climate breakdown are already intersecting with the fires of white supremacy and surging xenophobia globally.
Yes, these issues are related, although on first glance they seem separate. Nativism is nothing but old-fashioned hubris on a collective scale; fascism uses violence and cruelty, among other measures, to enforce its totalitarian and exclusive thinking, one fed on mythology and stories of historical power and supremacy. In this case, the unusual marriage of white supremacy and environmentalism has resulted in eco-fascism, an online ideology which is as bad and hateful as it sounds. It is a blood and soil (blut und boden) movement, mixing Nazism and Norse mythology (North Germanic origins). Eco-fascism is just another fascist thought masquerading as concern for the environment. It is nativist and its concern is exclusive to white people of certain “origins.” (For more on eco-fascism, go here and here.)

Its existence is worrisome, but its existence is not surprising, considering the right-ward tilt politically in many of the world’s wealthy nations. When things get bad, and turn from bad to worse, it is expected that nationalists and fascists will clamor to shut their nations’ borders to migrants fleeing cities, nations and large geographical land-masses that have already been damaged by extreme weather (i.e., floods, hurricanes, cyclones, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc.), and who have nowhere else to go but to the wealthy nations, which have better infrastructure and more resources to stay afloat. 

Survival of the fittest is not a good model for a modern humane society to follow, that is, unless cruelty and callousness are acceptable, which it is not for most people. Do not the wealthy nations have a moral responsibility to those migrants?  The answer depends on where you stand, not only on climate change, but also on how you view and value other human beings. We are much more interconnected than some believe or acknowledge; borders are human-made constructs, which will become meaningless (and likely impossible to control) in a future where extreme climate disrupts the lives of most of the people residing on Earth.

This is why the Green New Deal (along a Marshall Plan for Climate Change) is so important. The perceived consequences of not having such plans in place are so great that it is something that most of us would rather not think about. There are better ways, better scenarios, buy if only we act prudently and purposefully. There is a good purpose, after all, an end goal. A habitable planet.

We will collectively have to make changes to our way of life, to our habits and especially to our consumption of fossil fuels. As for halving carbon emissions by 2050, the ecological, social and economic benefits are many, and I plan to write about the decided advantages of a net zero carbon economy in a future post. It is always good to point out and remember that it is our responsibility to be good stewards of the Earth. It is the only place that all of us can call home.

************
For more, go [here].

Thursday, September 19, 2019

U.S. Hospitals That Operate on the Greed Principle

Life & Death

An article (“How Greedy Hospitals Fleece the Poor;” September 11, 2019), by Libby Watson in The New Republic reports on how greed permeates the decision-making of some hospitals in the United States. Such greedy hospitals show no regard for the poor of society, have no understanding of what it is to be poor, and, of greater significance, have carelessly forgotten (that is, if they ever knew) of what is their fundamental  purpose as a provider of healthcare. (Hint: It is not to make huge profits; it is to help heal people)

Yet, not all hospitals and their leaders accept this mandate. For such hospital administrators, it is chiefly, or perhaps only, about money; Watson writes about such examples:
On Monday, a Kaiser Health News report detailed the University of Virginia hospital system’s heartless pursuit of poor patients who owe them money. The hospital has sued its patients 36,000 times over six years, for as little as $13.91, with devastating consequences. The hospital has garnished wages and put liens on houses, levying high interest on delinquent patients. It sued its own employees for unpaid bills around 100 times a year.
It’s not just happening at UVA, though they are particularly aggressive. Last week, The New York Times reported on Carlsbad Medical Center in New Mexico, which has sued many more of its patients for unpaid medical bills than nearby hospitals; even the county judge who hears the cases was sued. In June, ProPublica published a story on Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare Hospital in Memphis, which filed 8,300 lawsuits against patients in five years.

These hospitals are outliers in their communities, pursuing cases more aggressively than other hospitals do; some don’t file lawsuits against patients at all. These particularly aggressive hospitals are only known about because reporters have highlighted their practices. How many more of the 6,210 American hospitals are suing their patients? And, in turn, how many Americans have been sued by their hospitals? We don’t know, but it’s at least thousands.
This helps explain why hospitals and the health insurance industry do not want single-payer government medicare (as is the case in Canada, where there are no such stories) made the primary health choice for Americans. “Medicare for All” means just that; no special privilege for the wealthy, and, more important, no going into debt for the average Joe or Jill because of unpaid hospital bills.

Greed. Unchecked greed, plain and simple. It is the same reason that there is a misinformation and disinformation campaign about such a fair and equitable system. It would likely reduce how much these hospital and insurance executives get paid. It is about the money. As long as institutions reward this, it will remain normative. Then we all suffer.

Not surprising, but disheartening. But, then again, this practice is normative in a system that rewards greed and, consequently, ensures that hospital executives and administrators are wealthy, at least in the top 10 percent, if not wealthier. They too are caught in the trap, the treadmill, take whatever metaphor fits, of meritocracy. A false promise, a beguiling one, that appeals to the ego.

Thus, they want more. For these greedy executives, it is profits and personal gain over people. There is a kind of rule of what usually happens when money is worshipped like this. If money becomes the focal point of someone's life, he will never be satisfied, and he will become more callous and more cruel. The love of money will affect his health, including his spiritual well-being.

As long as greed is institutionalized— as it has been for the last 40 years—there is little expectation for real change, but there is always hope. Both are human aspirations, but hope is of the non-material kind, anchored in unseen things. All in all, greed has to be seen for what it is, an unhealthy and deadly vice.


***************
For more, go [here].

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

The Least of These

The Human Condition


In an article (“Organizing Skid Row;” Summer 2019) in Dissent, Cora Currier describes a scene taking place at Venice Beach in Los Angeles:
Mornings on Venice Beach are often chilly, thanks to low-lying leaden clouds known as the marine layer. The gloom leaves no golden SoCal gleam on the graffitied concrete skate structures or the shuttered souvenir hutches promising legal pot, bikinis, T-shirts, and ice cream. Surfers cross the sand with their wetsuits half-on, joggers careen through with smartwatches on their wrists, and jet-lagged tourists wheel their suitcases in search of a beachfront hostel. And each Friday morning, near the famous weight-lifting equipment of Muscle Beach, a flotilla of trucks and police cruisers assembles. Police officers and sanitation workers, dressed in blue uniforms or white Tyvek coveralls, huddle amid the trucks before the sweep begins.
Their targets are the items accumulated by people living on the beach, the boardwalk, and in the alleys of Venice. Los Angeles permits sleeping in public spaces from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m., but on Fridays in Venice, the belongings of each of the unhoused must be packed up and consolidated into a sixty-gallon plastic bag, per city code. Anything that doesn’t fit, anything deemed “bulky,” will be seized, and if it’s “soiled,” it will be trashed.
This takes place regularly, the sweeps done as an attempt to remove all evidence of the human beings who are without any permanent shelter. It is done for very practical reasons, as if it is necessary to remove the shame and the stigma that the urban wealthy feel for not doing anything or not enough to better the lives of their fellow citizens— those who are dispirited, downtrodden and denied justice. The least of these.

It is truly a matter of perception. If you view the homeless as lawbreakers, then you will view the police actions as welcome and necessary; if however, you view the homeless as human beings, then you will take action to improve their lives. One such group is Street Watch, an organization with a purpose and a social conscience; Currier writes:
I’ve watched many of these sweeps over the past year and a half as a volunteer participating in Street Watch, an initiative organized by the L.A. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America and the Skid Row activist group Los Angeles Community Action Network (LA CAN), and carried out with volunteers from KTown for All, the Los Angeles Tenants Union, and other organizations. Modeled on Copwatch and building on monitoring work done by LA CAN, Venice Community Housing, and other legal observers over the past several decades, Street Watch sends volunteers out to observe and record sweeps of homeless encampments around the city, looking for illegal seizure of property and other forms of harassment, and offering support to the people in the camps. The work differs from charity outreach in critical ways. As well as helping homeless people to prepare for sweeps and keep their belongings, volunteers provide know-your-rights information. Street Watch also tries to engage homeless Angelenos in the broader fight for housing in the city, offering them rides to public hearings, demonstrations, or organizing meetings. (In this, it also follows the example of LA CAN, which was founded on the principle of low-income downtown residents organizing themselves. The group says that its model “directly addresses the core problem of exclusion of low-income residents in public decision-making by recruiting and training members to be involved—whether invited or not—in all levels of decision-making impacting our communities.”) Street Watch is about connecting homelessness to the issues of over-policing, gentrification, rent control, and the fight for affordable housing—and asking the city to recognize the homeless as members of the community deserving of resources and support, rather than a problem to be swept out of view.
Again, viewing such things on on the material level, it is about allocation of money and resources.  If some of it would be spent on those on the bottom, how much better would be cities like L.A and countless other cities with large number of homeless people. Late capitalism and hyper-capitalism (a political economy of greed mixed with lack of caring) is responsible for the problem as we see it and know it, as is a reduction in affordable housing since the 1980s.

It would be a sign of hope and of humanity if these same people who once advocated for such a cruel and selfish political economy should now want to fix it. It is not too late, and it is within the realm of possibility. This would take, I believe, a change of heart, acknowledging the spiritual malaise in one’s own heart and how it manifests itself in the love of money. Such is an insatiable love, which more often than not opens the door to many, if not all, immoral and unethical actions, including viewing the least of these as not worthy. But, of course, such are. Perhaps more than we know.

If interested, here is my plan for decent affordable housing. Let me know if you think it has any merit.

**************
For more, go [here].

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Loving Your Children (2019)

Beautiful Children


The Office of Missing Children (2019), posted on Youtube and on The Atlantic site itself on the continuing cruel and inhumane policies of the current American Administration.
ViaYoutube & The Atlantic.


Sadly, this is not a fictional movie or a cartoon, although it appears in such a manner, but an everyday reality for thousands of migrant children escaping with their parents from nations where there is no hope of a better life. Quite the opposite; they are escaping danger, and doing the only sensible thing that they can.

Despite the United States having made an error in its immigration policies, a mistake in judgment and a mistake in moral decision-making, it still remains a beacon of hope, for one, because such cruelty is shown for what it is and nothing more. This is what good journalism does—shines a light on injustice. This is always good and necessary.

In this piece, The Atlantic writes (What Happened to Wilson?; September 10, 2019), quoting and giving voice to a concerned neighbor:
“I was home when I saw two vans pull up. They opened the van, and out came the kids. They were all walking in a line. I don’t know what’s actually going on in there. I hope they’re okay.” When a concerned neighbor sent this to Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting, Aura Bogado went to investigate. Read more: https://www.theatlantic.com/video/ind... "The Office of Missing Children" was directed by Michael Schiller and reported by Aura Bogado, both from Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting. It is part of The Atlantic Selects, an online showcase of short documentaries from independent creators, curated by The Atlantic.
Now, call me crazy or sentimental, but I imagine myself in the shoes of such migrant parents whose children are taken away—for having the audacity of desiring to escape harm and wanting safety in a nation whose whole historical narrative is to provide such sanctuary. Well, I think my response is human, and not crazy at all. All good parents love their children. The inhumane response, starting with indifference, then rationalization and justification and escalating to hatred, is something alien to most of us.

***************
For more, go [here].

Monday, September 2, 2019

There Will Never Be Another Einstein

Moral Scientists


Albert Einstein [1879–1955] shares a joke with Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion [1886–1973] when the two men met at Einstein’s home on Mercer Street in Princeton, N.J., on May 13, 1951. The JTA writes about their private talk: “Israel’s Premier David Ben Gurion today sited Prof. Albert Einstein here at the latter’s residence and spent about two hours with him. No one else was present during their talk. Emerging from Prof. Einstein’s home, Mr. Ben Gurion told reporters that they discussed relativity, freedom, Greek philosophy, Spinoza and similar subjects. “We discussed no politics,” he stated. For more, go [here] and [here] and [here] and [here].
Photo CourtesyTablet Magazine & AFP/Getty Images


In an article in Scientific American, John Horgan writes why Albert Einstein, the noted physicist and pacifist, remains unique among modern scientists.
After Israel's first president, the chemist Chaim Weizmann, died in 1952, the Israeli cabinet asked Einstein if he would consider becoming the country's president. Einstein politely declined--perhaps to the relief of the Israeli officials, given his commitment to pacifism and a global government. (While awaiting Einstein’s answer, David Ben-Gurion, the prime minister, reportedly asked an aide, “What are we going to do if he accepts?”)
It is hard to imagine any modern scientist, physicist or biologist, being lionized in this manner. One reason may be that science as a whole has lost its moral sheen. The public is warier than ever of the downside of scientific advances, whether nuclear energy or genetic engineering. Moreover, as modern science has become increasingly institutionalized, it has started to resemble a guild that values self-promotion above truth and the common good.
Einstein also possessed a moral quality that set him apart even in his own time. According to Robert Oppenheimer, the dark angel of nuclear physics, Einstein exuded “a wonderful purity at once childlike and profoundly stubborn.”
I think that this alone explains much of what sets Einstein apart, a quality that is not much in evidence today among scientists—humility. Such is characteristic of individuals who truly cherish the truth, who view fame as secondary, who view awards and acclaim as a distraction. Such does not define our age and while there are today many intelligent men and woman, there are no notable scientific geniuses like Einstein.

******************
For more, go [here]

Sunday, September 1, 2019

Bernie Sanders and Old-School Real Journalism

Democracy & Public Interest

In an op-ed (“Bernie Sanders on his plan for journalism;“ August 26, 2019), published in the Columbia Journalism Review, Bernie Sanders, the U.S. senator for Vermont and the Democratic candidate for president, says quite clearly what hampers journalists and how journalists can better do their job—if only they were allowed to and had the means and support to do so. (How many frustrated and disappointed journalists there must now be.)

In so many words, in a well-functioning democracy, it is imperative to let journalists do what they were trained to do. Ferret out the facts. Get at the truth. Remain devoted to attacking wrong-doing. Report everything without fear of reprisals.

It was once like this, or much more so than today, before the Age of Internet, before social media, before attacks on journalists and the publications they represent became so common that moral outrage itself has been impeded and often suppressed along with the free unimpeded flow of dissenting views. One would agree that there is a need for reform only if we value and enjoy the benefits of democracy, which have been eroded and in marked decline for some time, but more noticeably so during the last two decades with the obvious moral decline in public life. As has been a decline in independent thought, maverick ideas and a strong social conscience.

It can be turned around, but it will be a challenge, because the obstacles are many and great. For one, it is necessary to put a stop to the conglomeration and control of the media by large business concerns, which is decidedly harmful for democracy, because it leads to real news being under-reported or ignored. It leads to the failure sadly common today of not holding the powerful sufficiently  accountable, which has always been a prime mandate and motivation of the press.

Even in the face of all these obstacles, many, many journalists are doing an excellent job in America—their hard-won efforts and stories reported on this blog. It is, however, not easy. The fault chiefly lies in those who hold the levers of power, in those who want to consolidate their power, in those who want to hang on to it.

Imagine what it could be, if there was greater transparency, greater diversity of views in the corridors of power, and, moreover, if power itself (and wealth, as well) was viewed with suspicion as an unhealthy burden to bear. In the end, it is fair to say that concentration of the media in the hands of the wealthy is not conducive and actually is terribly harmful to real journalism, the bringing to light of injustices, the bringing to light of wrong-doing and corruption, the bringing to light of the plight of the poor, the underprivileged, the underdog and anyone not part of the ruling and privileged class.

In other words, writing and speaking for ordinary people, giving voice to those who have no voice in the corridors of power; in the op-ed, Sanders writes:
Real journalism is different from the gossip, punditry, and clickbait that dominates today’s news. Real journalism, in the words of Joseph Pulitzer, is the painstaking reporting that will “fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, [and] always fight demagogues.” Pulitzer said that journalism must always “oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.”
When we have had real journalism, we have seen crimes like Watergate exposed and confronted, leading to anti-corruption reforms. When we have lacked real journalism, we have seen crimes like mortgage fraud go unnoticed and unpunished, leading to a devastating financial crisis that destroyed millions of Americans’ lives.
Real journalism requires significant resources. One reason we do not have enough real journalism in America right now is because many outlets are being gutted by the same forces of greed that are pillaging our economy.
And, yes, greed underpins most of what we are witnessing today in the realms of politics, of law and the courts, of business and of religion, to name four prominent areas of public life that require closer scrutiny. Such are four areas that have done little, or certainly not enough in the last 40 years, in this writer’s view, to markedly better the lives of the majority of  its citizens, or of its consumers or of its congregants. This, despite the promises made and not kept or fulfilled, as if they, “the forces of greed,“ never really had any intention to do so.

In a transactional society, where there is desire to commodify and monetize everything, these four areas of public life now converge to the top of a large impressive and monumental pyramid (somewhat crumbling at closer inspection), yet for now still richly rewarding the greedy, the unprincipled and those without an operating and awakened conscience—a spiritual necessity (but not necessarily religious) for the moral human being.

For such people who care nothing or little about morality and pursuing good, facts and truth are their adversaries and enemies and are to be assaulted and put down. For real journalists, facts and truth are allies and friends and are to be nurtured and kept close.

****************
For more, go to [CJR]

Saturday, August 10, 2019

The Appeal of Denying Climate Change

Our Earth

An article (“Burning Down the House;” August 15, 2019), by Alan Wiseman, in The New York Review of Books, repeats and reaffirms the bad news that all climate change believers (including me) already know and agree as true:
Climate scientists’ worst-case scenarios back in 2007, the first year the Northwest Passage became navigable without an icebreaker (today, you can book a cruise through it), have all been overtaken by the unforeseen acceleration of events. No one imagined that twelve years later the United Nations would report that we have just twelve years left to avert global catastrophe, which would involve cutting fossil-fuel use nearly by half. Since 2007, the UN now says, we’ve done everything wrong. New coal plants built since the 2015 Paris climate agreement have already doubled the equivalent coal-energy output of Russia and Japan, and 260 more are underway.
Climate deniers or skeptics, however, are unlikely to be convinced or persuaded one whit by this article or any other published, whether today or in the last 20 years, when the evidence started to become increasingly overwhelming—to the point that one would have to close his or her eyes to any and all scientific evidence to believe otherwise and carry on as nothing is wrong.

I am not really surprised that many can do this, because the evidence does not project a pretty picture of what we humans have done to the planet, particularly in the last 200 years of our fossil-fuel economy, coinciding with the Industrial Revolution. Our collective records of stewardship is quite frankly dismal. I am not pointing any fingers at any particular individuals, although the fossil fuel industry and its advocates are not looking good. It would be smarter if they dedicated more resources to the green energy revolution, and thus be a part of the solution.

But short-term thinking and greed predominates, with expected results, most not good for us. If we continue as we have been, our planet will eventually become uninhabitable. Money, and its acquisition and accumulation, will be an exercise in futility, which seems counter-intuitive now. You can’t eat money, which is certainly true with Canada’s plastic-based bills, which itself feeds the fossil-fuel economy. The beginning of the end might start in 2030, it might start in 2040, or it might start later. It is only a matter of time. Given the age of the Earth, a few decades is not much time in the grand scheme of things.

Yet, there is a kind of necessity to denying the evidence; and I can understand its appeal, which includes not making any changes to one’s way of life and not worrying about any dreadful consequences. I get it; there is already so much to worry about. Everyday stuff like paying the bills, which always pile up. Why add to the pile? Why make unnecessary changes, when we have been through so many disruptive changes? Yet, as much as I understand this, much of it, I also think that such an approach is neither prudent nor wise. Sure, it is appealing and beguiling.

After all, this is one of those arguments that if we avoid the catastrophe ahead that deniers will say, “you see; it was all a hoax and we were right all along.” Yet, if the events transpire as believers say they will, which includes the great majority of the world's scientists, well, it won't really matter, because we won't be around to say that we were right all along. Or if somehow some of us manage to survive, it will not really be much of a victory.

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Life After the Bombing of Hiroshima

Second World War


Hiroshima Ruins (October 1945), two months after an atomic bomb was dropped on it. This is a view from the top of the Red Cross Hospital looking northwest. Most of the land is bleak and desolate, and yet some wooden houses are still standing, as well as some infrastructure and trees, a reminder of the life that existed before. 
Courtesy: Wikipedia Commons


It was on August 6th, 1945, early in the morning around 8:15 a.m. when the U.S. dropped the world’s first atomic bomb—the first nuclear weapon—on Japan, a country which it was at war. The residents of Hiroshima were its first victims. An estimated 150,000 died or were wounded as a result; this is a conservative estimate; other atomic scientists say it might be as high as 240,000 dead and wounded.

The U.S. would drop another atomic bomb on Nagasaki three days later, with another estimated 75,000 deaths or wounded; or as high as 149,00 dead and wounded. Accurate numbers are not possible to ascertain, but these give a good idea of the results of atomic warfare. These are the only two cases when atomic weapons were used, and I can confidently say that all sane humans hope it is also the last.

The first was Hiroshima, a name that will always be synonymous with the first atomic bomb and what it did to a nation and its people. The stories have been written down and published, as they ought to be. Not to be forgotten. Not to be minimized. Not to be misunderstood.

Towards that effort, there is a fine piece of reportage by John Hersey [1914–1993], published in The New Yorker on August 31, 1946, a year after. It looks at the lives of six survivors. It looks at the human cost of war, which bears repeating. The article was then turned into a slim 160-page book of 31,000 words. If any book will change your mind about war, it is Hiroshima  (1946).

Get your hands on it and read it. You will not be the same person. You will be a better person for it, I think. Or at the very least I presume to hope, because this (knowing and understanding our shared humanity) seems the better way, the way of sustaining and nourishing life for all on the planet that we all humans share. War is the antithesis of life; one day of war is one day too much.

Friday, July 26, 2019

The Guess Who: On the Johnny Cash Show (1970)


The Guess Who: On the Johnny Cash Show (between June 7, 1969 and March 31, 1971 on ABC-TV), which was broadcast at the Ryman Auditorium, formerly the Grand Ole Opry House in Nashville, Tennessee). This episode aired on October 21, 1970. Here the Canadian rock band, originally from Winnipeg, Manitoba, sing “Hand Me Down World” and “Share the Land,” which are tracks tracks 3 and 5, respectively on the album, Share the Land, released on October 5, 1970.
Via: Youtube

The Guess Who

Burton Cummings: lead vocals, keyboards
Kurt Winter: lead guitar, backing vocals
Greg Leskiw: rhythm guitar, backing vocals
Jim Kale: bass, backing vocals
Garry Peterson: drums, backing vocals