Saturday, October 16, 2004

Posted here Saturday, October 16, 2004 at 11:25:41 AM       OK, yes I agree we need a larger vision. But what is it? The move away from dogmatic structures to open thinking? A more aesthetic world? A world of more justice?   Let me propose two alternative views of the future.   1. garden world: the effective entrepreneurial environmentally sensitive (through rigorous standards) use of the best technologies, much broader distribution of income and wealth, much higher education levels balancing science, humanities and art, to build a world modeled more on Olmsted (central park and many others) than wall street and the twin towers, a world where the entire landscape is gardened, for human living and the production of wildlife, flowers, food, orchards, design sensitive, and with prizes and magazines and web sites and government priority.   vs.   security world, with army police and surveillance, the use of wealth to hide behind gated enclaves and abandon those on the outside to the residual employment, other than being as soldier, they can get. The use of tech to hold the together the infrastructure and provide the coordination and surveillance managed by elites for the benefit of elites.   I put it this way to highlight that we need a real image of a better future, something concrete to move towards. Imagine if each of us made sure that our own business was moving towards garden world and away from security world. Hard. Take a company like Hewlett Packard: what is the balance? I recall in 1972 interviewing John Young when he was President. - what percentage of HP business is military? 17%. By mid afternoon (I had lots of access) I had already gotten to 45%. H left out things like the Israeli and Japanese defense departments, and the stuff sold to AT&T used on tanks.    I see democracy emerging easily from #1 but submerged to mere manipulation in #2. ********

Posted here Saturday, October 16, 2004 at 10:29:13 AM     The core problem for me with Bush et al is what they are drawn towards: bully power rather than concern for the fate of people. Permanent war is really attractive to president. He is not drawn to justice, art, compassion, ordinary lives, nor peace. Taking a stand attracts him, building something real he does not have the patiene not sensibility for. A failure of education, family influence, life experience.   ********