What is humanity’s purpose?  It seems to me that we have accepted the purpose of “control over resources.”  This is most commonly known as “capitalism” but it could also include communism and fascism.  In all of these systems the purpose is to control the resources of society, albeit by different means.

Suppose that we were to seek a better purpose for humanity.  What would it be?  Homeostasis, perhaps. Our purpose might be to build a stable relationship between nature and humanity.  This is often referred to as “sustainability” meaning that a homeostasis (stable state) between nature and humanity could be maintained over time.

Our current predicament is that we are “inside the box” of capital control.  We are trying to control the resources of society ( “capital” ).  That produces war by its nature.  In truth, the very idea that we should pursue control is the dominant paradigm.  The dominant paradigm is dominance.  Seeking to control resources, which includes other people, produces dominant behavior patterns, such as war, political fights and societal divisions.

What do politicians mean when they say “I’ll fight for you?”  Who or what are they fighting?  They are fighting for control of resources, usually money.  Money is a fluid form of capital. It can easily be “controlled” by government. 

From a higher perspective we are all being controlled by money because we lack a better purpose.  We are “victims of money.” If our purpose was to build a “sustainable world” we might still have money but it would be in service to the higher purpose. Without a higher purpose we are left to “fight over money” which produces a parade of negative behavior patterns.

We need to “get out of the box” of fighting over resources ( money ) and start building a better purpose.  We can start by thinking about how we are going to produce a world where everyone gets what they need, without having to compete or conflict with each other.

We might begin by doing a global inventory of resources and needs.  What do we have?  What do we need to do to accomplish sustainability?  This forms the foundation of a new economic system and a new political system.

It’s what’s for dinner!

Steve Moyer
http://stevemoyer.us

( – promoted by odum)

A 36 year old man from the village of Gilman in Essex County has been banished from his hometown for a period of three years, following a five month prison sentence. Francis Robb (who will be allowed to visit his mother on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and her birthday) was sentenced for retaliating against neighbors following repeated conflicts, including felony aggravated assault and a reported incident (denied by Robb) involving threats with a handgun. Fron the AP:

“Given Mr. Robb’s record of convictions and his menacing behavior toward some of his neighbors, it made sense to get him out of the picture for an extended duration,” [Essex County State’s Attorney Vincent] Illuzzi said in a prepared statement.

“The only other alternative would have been a longer jail sentence and I’m not sure the state’s taxpayers should foot that bill. The entire burden should rest on Mr. Robb,” said Illuzzi, who also serves as a [Republican] state senator from the Essex-Orleans district.

The Northeast Kingdom banishment decree comes from a plea arrangement and is attached as a condition of probation to the felony conviction. The AP piece leaves several questions unanswered, however, the essence of the story remains clear:

“It’s kind of a ‘get out of Dodge’ sort of thing,” said Illuzzi.

Robb’s lawyer, Peter Langrock of Middlebury bristled at the use of the word “banishment” and had this to say:

“You frequently have cases where someone is told to stay 500 feet away from (his or her victim). These people are next-door neighbors, so it made sense” to have Robb stay away from the village.

It’s worth taking a moment to consider just how weak the argument that banishment is no different than a restraining order really is.

First and most obvious, a restraining order is releative to a person or persons. Banishment is relative to a static, fixed point. If the interest is in protecting Robb’s neighbors, and this sentence is simply a restraining-order-on-steroids, what happens if the neighbors move out of Gilman? What protection do they have then?

Second, small as it is, Gilman is not a village simply of Robb and his neighbors. In the interest of letting the punishment fit the crime, why extend the restraining order to everyone in the town? If the authorities believe he is a threat to everyone and anyone, why isn’t he serving a longer jail sentence? Is the suggestion that he is a threat to people in Gilman, but not in Norton? Canaan? Based on what, exactly?

So it’s, at best, a goofy sentence, and quite possibly overly cruel (it’s certainly unusual), as it serves to arbitrarily seperate the man from his mother, who may well play a vital role in the support system that could be crucial for any hope of rehabilitation.

But it’s worse than that. Consider for a moment – is this a sentence likely to be handed down to a homeowner? Would a judge tell a middle or upper class person they had to abandon their property for a year and make their way elsewhere?

Of course not. Banishment is a punishment that will be exclusively applied against the poor, and could easily become another tool against the homeless.

And consider where this might lead. We often talk about “slippery slopes,” whereby an idea that might be appealing (as this one, in many ways, is) might project several steps forward into scary unintended consequences.

Well, we only have to project one step down this “slope.” After banishment will eventually come town laws refusing to allow individuals under banishment sentences on their streets (after all, no town wants their neighbors dumping their unmanageables on them). If this stands up to a legal test and catches on, it could be the beginning of a frightening new wave against civil liberties.

Of course it won’t be called banishment if that happens:

Langrock disputed Illuzzi’s characterization of the sentence. “It’s not banishment. Banishment is pejorative.

It’s perjorative, you see. It sounds bad. We wouldn’t countenence anything bad would we?

Maybe we’ll just call it a correctional time out…

At GMD, we have been known to comment on happenings in neighboring states. While Connecticut isn’t quite neighboring, it is New England, yet I’ve never quite felt it quite right to blog on the Democratic Primary there. However, recent events have put that race front and center among everyone who considers themselves a Democrat, as well as any who feel that the netroots are part of the antidote to the disease of entrenched power in Washington.

The Democratic primary, if you haven’t heard, pits long-time incumbent and former Dem veep candidate Joe Lieberman against political newcomer Ned Lamont. If you know this story, you might want to skip to the end. If you don’t, I’ll try to summarize the events that brought us to the point where Lieberman has now publicly announced his intention to bolt the party, and how (like it or not) this race has become the make-or-break battle for the soul (and future) of the national Democratic Party.

Frustration has long been simmering against Lieberman among liberal Dems, and particularly among the netroots, where the anger isn’t so exclusively ideological (more on that in a moment).

Although Liberman’s voting record isn’t so bad overall, there’s been a strong sense that liberal Connecticut should be able to do much better. When explaining their frustration, lefties most frequently point to Lieberman’s stance on the Iraq war, where he has staked a position to the right of most Republicans. In fact, Lieberman remains one of the the handful of the Bush Iraq policies most adamant and unapologetic supporters. Even as many Republicans have been forced to find cover and chastise the Bush administration fro screwing up, Lieberman is the poster child for the “everything’s going great, and the critics are undermining our troops and should shut up and support the President” school of political rhetoric.

Lieberman supporters try to cast the opposition as fixated on one issue, but the seething truly originates as far back as Lieberman’s embrace of the racist psuedo-science of Charles Murray’s infamous Bell Curve, along with his stance against affirmative action:

On March 9, 1995, in remarks at the National Press Club, as chairman of the pro-corporate Democratic Leadership Council, Lieberman denounced the case for affirmative action as “an un-American argument because it’s based on averages, not individuals,” and went on to praise Ward Connerly’s Proposition 209, the misnamed “California Civil Rights Initiative,” which outlawed affirmative action: “I can’t see how I could be opposed to it, because it basically is a statement of American values.” The year before, the New Haven Advocate’s excellent Paul Bass — who’s covered Lieberman for 22 years — wrote, “After meeting with racist scholar [and Bell Curve author] Charles Murray, Lieberman promoted Murray’s idea of taking children away from mothers on welfare and putting them in new government-run orphanages (rather than, for instance, boosting support for agencies seeking to keep together families in crisis).”

…and a little digging (especially in recent history) confirms that the ideological split goes deeper. FOr example, in defending his position that Catholic hospitals should be allowed to refuse emergency “Plan B” contraception to rape victims, Lieberman said “in Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital.” Some consolation, eh?

But at the end of the day, what finally put the Netroots over the edge is Lieberman’s eagerness to take every opportunity to appear on Fox News and the Sunday talk circuit specifically to attack and undermine his fellow Senate Democrats. The degree to which he has pursued this media strategy is truly unique, and it means he consistently places himself in positions to undermine Democratic efforts against the Bush regime on a host of issues (not just Iraq) more than he possibly could by simply being a conservative Democratic Senator. And this is how this one-time vice presidential candidate, dubbed “Loserman” (at the time) by the right, now counts Sean Hannity among his fans.

Which brings us to the big news from the other day (from GMD’s sister-site in Connecticut, My Left Nutmeg):

Joseph Lieberman will announce at his 1 pm news conference that he will pull petitions to begin gathering signatures for an independent run.
Furthermore, he will announce his intention to stay in the primary, but bolt the party if he loses.

No surprise to many of us. Joe is desperate to cling to power and the voters of his own Party be damned.

So that’s the thumbnail of the background. Lieberman is willing to scuttle the Democratic process in the Democratic Party, deliver a big “fuck you” to voters, and potentially give the Republicans their best chance to gain a Senator in Connecticut they may ever have. All to hold power at all costs.

Why does it matter to Vermonters, beyond the simple satisfaction it brings to see a weaselcrat like Joe brought to his knees by a grassroots/netroots driven campaign like that of challenger Ned Lamont?

This:

Schumer said that the DSCC “fully supports” Sen. Joe Lieberman in his primary bid, and he refused to rule out continuing that support if Lieberman were to run as an independent.

There were degrees of independence, Schumer said. “You can run as an independent, you can run as an independent Democrat who pledges to vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader.”

Schumer said he had neither sought nor recieved assurances from Lieberman that an independent bid would not ensue if Ned Lamont tightened the noose

What this means is that the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is refusing to say whether or not he will support the rightfully chosen Democrat in the Connecticut Senate race.

Just take moment and let that sink in. It is truly extraordinary. And it is completely intolerable.

And Schumer is not alone:

It hasn’t taken Lamont long to unnerve the Democratic establishment. (CT Democratic Sen. Chris) Dodd, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and ultimate party loyalist, refuses to give an unqualified answer to whether he will support the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

What this energing sitution does is crystallize in such a tangible form what the netroots and the rise of “people-powered” politics is fighting against: the fraternity of entrenched power for entrenched power’s sake.

To many’s surprise, the first out of the gate to say what should be obvious is Hillary Clinton:

“ALBANY, N.Y. – Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a longtime supporter of Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Tuesday she will not back the Connecticut Democrat’s bid for re-election if he loses their party’s primary.

Of course, there isn’t necessarily a lot of love lost between Liberman and the Clintons after Joe very publicly called Bill to the mat for his sexual indiscretions (and, of course, how he continues to be Bush’s #1 Democratic fan:)

Ahem.

But it does signal that it’s time to take a stand. This situation, for better or worse, has become the defining flashpoint for the soul of the Democratic Party at the national level. It is time for all Democratis Senators, and those who aspire to the Senate, to stand up and be counted, and that includes Leahy and Sanders. The question is; do you stand with your Party, the voters, and the principles of a fair Democratic process…?

…or do you stand with Joe, Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer?

It’s time to remind the DSCC who they’re working for:

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Phone (202) 224-2447

And for an answer from Bernie and Leahy:

Leahy:

Burlington office
199 Main Street, 4th Floor
Burlington, VT 05401
(802) 863-2525
1-800-642-3193 

Montpelier office
P.O. Box 933
87 State Street, Room 338
Montpelier, VT 05602
(802) 229-0569 

Bernie:

Burlington, Vermont
1 Church St. 2nd Floor, Burlington, VT 05401
Phone – 802-862-0697 In-State 800-339-9834
Fax – 802-860-6370

Brattleboro, Vermont
167 Main Street, Suite 410 Brattleboro, VT 05301
Phone – 802-254-8732 Fax – 802-254-9207

UPDATE: Sheesh, I’ve never had to update a diary only a few minutes after posting it before. From Raw Story:

In a serious blow to Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s (D-CT) reelection campaign, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is likely to back the winner of the Democratic primary in Connecticut, meaning that Lieberman may be left without national allies for campaign money.

A senior Democratic party official confirmed that the DSCC is unlikely to back Lieberman should he lose the primary to Ned Lamont, a more progressive contender in Connecticut who has garnered support from bloggers and has catalyzed his campaign around Lieberman’s aggressive position on Iraq.

Hunh. The DSCC supporting the Democratic candidate. To think that this is news…

I still wanna hear it from Schumer.

UPDATE II: Kos is now keeping a “where do you stand” tally, now that Sen. Salazar has said he will support Liberman regardless of the primary.  I’m hoping some enterprising GMD reader with more time on their hands will check with our folks and report back so we can update the list over there…

UPDATE III: Leahy states he will support the Dem nominee regardless of who wins. Heard it on VPR. Dont have a link…sorry. He had some relatively harsh words for Joementum, though. Good stuff. Thanks, Pat.