Archive for the Politics Category

2 Climate Change Theories

Posted in Artificial Chemical Products, Climate Change, Commercial Corporations, Critical Commentary of Civilization, Military, Science & Math, Technology - Vehicles, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 3, 2019 by Drogo

Scientific vs Corporate

The main climate change theory i will call the Scientific Climate Theory presented by the majority of scientists is that artificial CO2 and other man-made (in addition to natural) factors are primarily contributing to overall global warming, which causes climate change in various ways, sometimes temporarily cooling during warm seasons (which seems like a contradiction but is not because the overall trend is warming according to annual temperature averages). This consensus in Science is supported primarily by Centrist Left Wing and Radical Liberals politically, who believe that the time for debate is over and it should not be a political issue because it is true and not just an opinion.

The minority climate change theory i will call the Corporate Climate Theory, supported by extreme skeptics of science and government (deniers), is that environmentalists are lying about the data evidence to hide that most of it is naturally either being caused by Solar irregularities or Geo-tectonic magnetic seismic shifts and volcanic activity or both. This is the side that defends those totally uninterested or ignorant in climate science as well, who doubt there are any problems with pollution that can affect global conditions. One of the issues they bring up is that storm flooding (cold) and (heat) droughts are opposites, and should not both be results of global warming. This proposed paradox does not take into account the melting of the polar ice which raises sea level, and the chaos that can result from this regarding flooding and more severe storms, freak cooling periods in some areas, but overall prolonged intense heating of the global atmosphere. Minor theories are usually supported by Radical Right Wing Conservatives and Libertarians (Corporate Centrists tend to pay lip service and not want any action on it), who believe no one should interfere in the rights of corporations to pollute, and are currently dismantling the EPA, NPS, and other branches of the government under Trump.

So to summarize, both agree that there will be more severe climate chaos like weather that is out of season. The Scientific Climate Theory says that artificially caused CO2 pollution from industry and agriculture is mainly to blame, as it can clearly be shown to increase during the Industrial Age of civilization, and not anytime in human history before this. It does have some similarities to pre-historic massive volcanic periods, but other chemical evidence and current factors rule out volcanoes as the main cause in CO2 levels currently. The most extreme Corporate Climate Theory is our government is lying to us to hide that our Sun is growing closer or more intense; which can be debunked by talking to actual scientists who observe the Sun independent of the government, and that it would make no sense for the branches of the government like the EPA or NPS or Pentagon to give false support for environmentalists, because most of the government is controlled by Corporate interests, and they do not benefit by belief in environmentalism. Corporate Green-washing is not what interests people who care about quality of life for all animals and humans, nor the military who takes the threats of Climate Change seriously due to the causes of wars that are tied to natural conditions like resources, property, shelter, and all the economics related to environmental issues. The money being made by Scientists or environmentalists currently, still pales compared to the profits of fossil fuel polluters, so the theory of profit motive causing scientists to lie about climate data is bunk as well. The debate is over for rational thinkers, but the corporate socialism vs democratic socialism debate is just beginning for a world run and terrorized by capitalists.


Requiem of a Dreamer

Posted in dreams, Economics, Ethics & Morals, Futurist, Military, Sustainability, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 13, 2019 by Drogo

I have been exploring “fairness” in journalism (Fairness Doctrine) and “justice” in politics (Just War Doctrine) ever since i was in the military working on my ‘Conscientious Objector’ theory. It is not until i made time to study the things i wanted to, that i was able to learn things that no one was going to teach me; and perhaps that is the most important lesson as an adult …. that we must pursue our best interests or give up free will, if freedom scares us too much.

People think that if they are allowed to dream or be seen to do ‘nothing’, then they will grow more and more lazy and be losers entirely. I have always had ambition to dream, create, and share with fellow dreamers. As AOC pointed out recently in Congress, ambition is not always bad or just for greedy people; and apathy can be used contemptuously by greedy people that had ambition to gain power, but now that they have power they selfishly cling on to their bribes so that they can make no changes to help the masses (who become apathetic too), rather than ambitious to make the world a better place for all. Watching the film “Saving Mr Banks” about Mary Poppins’ author and Walt Disney was very inspirational today regarding creating using stream-of-consciousness imagination; and so I am writing this poetic essay on a few idealistic subjects, including judging books by their covers and adult rights to life.

I had some understanding when we visited Italy as a child, that Rome represented ‘law and order’ (the good guys), and barbarians represented ‘tribal chaos’ (the bad guys). I began to wonder, were all those who looked or acted ‘barbarian’ evil? Were all those who looked or acted ‘Roman’ good? Should we judge good and evil by the uniforms we wear, or the languages we speak? Both sides seemed to fight each-other, back and forth equally; but for some reason the Romans were considered better as winners. This is part of why I choose to look a bit different as an artist, to get people to think beyond stereo-typing.

As a young adult massively in debt out of college, barely able to earn a living working 5 jobs during every month, I was miserable trying to provide a living for myself and others (parents and partners), at the cost of our environment and future as a civilization. The two goals (income and sustainability) are not mutually exclusive, but we all must find our own balance. If we cannot make money pay for our dreams, we can let our dreams pay for our money.


– Drogo the Dreamer

American Patriot Tulsi Gabbard

Posted in Military, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 8, 2019 by Drogo

American Patriot Congress-woman from Hawaii Tulsi Gabbard is fighting for citizen civil rights and environmental justice against the corporate MIC. Tulsi is a military veteran for peace. She wants to end perpetual wars and invasions by calling out corrupt liars at the highest levels, which would make us more secure for homeland defense. She also wants to legalize cannabis so veterans and civilians can have natural medicine that works for them, instead of making them criminals. She would make a great president.

TulsiGabbard 2







Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Posted in Illustration, Politics, portraits, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on January 22, 2019 by Drogo

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an American politician, educator, and political activist. On June 26, 2018, Ocasio-Cortez won the Democratic primary in New York’s 14th congressional district. She fights for civil rights and environmental causes; against corporate greed and pollution. Her campaign funding was door-to-door real neighbors, so she serves the actual population of people, not just rich people.

AOC final

aoc 1






The Problem of Real Science and the Bias of Money

Posted in Artificial Chemical Products, Climate Change, Commercial Corporations, Ethics & Morals, Legal / Laws, Sustainability, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 31, 2018 by Drogo

Regarding Corporate Science Corruption


“How do we find out about the real science behind corporate chemicals?” is a great question. There are major court cases that are on-going and are finally exposing how scientists (not just politicians) are affected by where they get their funding, as other historic cases have shown before. Activists are attacked by people claiming to be the voice of scientific reason who defend corporate science, although they seem to know less about the corporate details involved with how the business world affects science and our environment (not just politics). It is very difficult to get people interested in large scale safe environments above immediate MONEY to supply specific food, drink, and shelter for individuals and loved ones…. until those things are taken from us; but then without money we lack much power within the system, and we are accused of emotional bias, as though corporate lackeys are objective. ‘Ring of Fire’ on Youtube has lawyers involved so they are covering the news about these issues, with a bias that is dedicated to exposing how corporations function by using science for their profit as the structure of their power. It is not true that companies use science for purely objective reasons, or that they would allow themselves to be subjected to ‘objective’ science if it did not benefit them, and in fact they do everything within their power to make sure that they can control studies in their favor.

Is there any way to know if the ‘peer-reviewed’ information has filtered out any bias towards the company? This is the best way to ask the question about our most ‘objective science’ regarding company neurotoxins and carcinogens. No offense to scientists, but it happens like with the Oil and Tobacco companies, pay-checks often come first for families. It does not benefit employed scientists to admit to bias, it just simply affects their way of interpreting data and conducting tests. Nuclear scientists are more prone to be in favor of things that cause nuclear radiation by down playing the risks which are acceptable costs for them in favor of ‘advancing science’ and getting their funding. Every profession is subject to this problem of economics, so i am not picking on scientists, i am an architect and many of us are rational and brilliant too, but profit influence happens in our field as well because it is the system that hires us that is on trial when it comes to environmental science ethics. Environmental peer review for Climate Change seems to be large enough to have not been as corrupted in the favor of companies as much as specific chemicals that companies produce to sell.

With so many billions of dollars at stake for corporations like Monsanto (GMO and Glyphosphate Science), our courts and scientists may not even be aware of how to be objective when their own family members have bought into the propaganda that allows them to pay their bills and provide and protect their loved ones. As with Oil Companies and Tobacco Companies, we should assume that toxins can affect us and our environment, and those that produce them should perhaps be more responsible by being held accountable. Few people will not be biased in one way or another, but real science should be the goal, not corporate greed. If it sounds like I am describing a fictional dystopia, perhaps the reader should be more realistic about how Capitalism actually works in reality (our EPA is in ruins in 2018). The larger problem of real science and the bias of money that affects us all will continue to exist so long as we allow our government to be influenced by corporate money at the highest levels, more than they are influenced by environmental ethics and a desire for more ethical science which means being more objective than the influence of money (which is asking a lot). People are innocent until proven guilty, but if a provable crime needs to be investigated we need to let the evidence decide if people are using corporations as tools to corrupt politics and science, and harm humanity in favor of profits for the few.

As an architect i take rationality and logic about designs very seriously, so i do not believe scientists are alone in wanting to take credit for knowing how we interact with our environment and how we can make technological innovations for improving humanity by using ‘facts’. “Peer reviewed” does not mean scientists do not all have their own human biases regarding how data is interpreted; that is part of my point. “Purely objective” as a philosophical ideal is worth talking about for the sake of science and law enforcement and ethics etc… This issue of the influence of money on science (and every profession and field of study) will not go away, but it is one we should deal with honestly in studying the sustainability of civilization. Peer reviews are not exempt from being reviewed over decades, with new conclusions drawn.




Essay on Ethical Bias In Reasoning

Posted in Ethics & Morals, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , on December 23, 2018 by Drogo

Personal Bias and Reasoning

We can have personal biases for and against various things, based on our conscious or subconscious emotional attitude towards personal involvement with associated issues. Having a bias does not mean our opinion or the facts we have about it are invalid, no matter how much the opposition might declare we are too biased to be taken seriously. In matters of voting we can recuse ourselves if want to admit that we are not impartial due to personal private involvement creating a prejudice (like in public offices). This essay is about the times when bias can be considered fair. Emotional involvement should actually be treated logically separate from the validity of arguments. I think most of the problems with logic have to do with what the terms are, and if people can agree on what the terms are; and the second problem is the values of the logic equations.

It may not be the fault of the product if they have been unethically created or used, and yet a poison is a poison; in bio-genetics issues of augments and mutants directly links ethics with science, much as money and art are connected in an unholy alliance.

Working for a company and having a particular maybe scientific mindset does have a type of bias. People involved with Healthcare have a bias towards voting for people that are going to say that they will support healthcare. Jews will be biased against Nazis, it does not mean that the biased prejudice is unjust.

We are all biased in some way, as our perspective is relative to our experience and subjective human mind-sets. Bias seems to be okay as long as we can recognize it, and admit to it so people can try to be more objectively fair towards more people, and disregard unwelcome emotions if they can. Emotion can be used as persuasion for some, but emotion can equally turn against the user when turning others off. A slave could be biased against slavery because they were abused and neglected. Despite their hateful bias they might be excused their mental prejudice; and we do not use their harsh attitude against slavery to discount the abolition movement.  

So the issue of bias becomes whether the bias is clouding our judgment or not ; which is highly debatable. I don’t think that just having a bias should dismiss somebody from an argument; for example hiring a lawyer does not ban them from the court-room just because they are biased by their pay to act on behalf of their client. Is passion always irrational? Or are there cases where allowing emotion makes sense? So a bias on a particular subject could in fact actually help to bring facts to light involved with it in , and actually be the opposite of discounting the Merit of the argument.

We see Capt Kirk doing this for example when he says something like “I know its against the Prime Directive, but dammit im doing it because im human.” and Spock goes “highly illogical”. and of course later it would be argued that it is not illogical knowing that a human might care about specific emotional issues of ethics more than rules. It is logical that Kirk would save people he cares about, because he is prone to that biased reasoning that is not logical to people who value general ethical orders more than personal particular life-saving ethics.

Philosophical Anarchism

Posted in Cooperative collaboration, Critical Commentary of Civilization, ecovillages, Legal / Laws, Sustainability, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 29, 2018 by Drogo

Anarchy is absence of supreme government leaders, company authorities, or laws. Anarchism is rejection of central state or group hierarchy for collaborative democracy and independent freedom. Anarchy does not mean ‘let chaos rule’, but can be messy as individuals express themselves voluntarily. Lack of direction from a boss can be scary for many who prefer to be told what to do. Another problem is the political vacuum of anarchy allows despots to use charisma and power to shatter the ideal potential of anarchy and democracy, and create populist structures of obedience to corrupt state systems.

Anarchy is a natural feeling for many people who have an intuitive reaction to any perceived authority over them; which maybe related to our pre-history. Civilization is considered new and brief compared to thousands and thousands of years when humans must have lived more or less like other wild animals with no writing, and no language rules, in primitive anarchy. This anti-authoritarian type of human nature can manifest in complex egalitarian cultures, and thus can create advanced anarchy systems based on cultural capacities. Proudhon considered anarchism to be a political philosophy for “stateless societies based on voluntary associations”. Having no desire for authoritarian companies or governments, anarchists often try to organize and maintain voluntary institutions (like SCOD).

Labor unions (aka trade unions) are groups or collectives of workers, organized to represent their job interests within capitalism. Unions are similar to trade guilds, except they are often employees of companies that need to negotiate with bosses using social pressure and collective protest bargaining, with threat of striking vs lay-offs to enforce contracts. Safety standards, living wages, and benefits are labor themes.

Philosophical anarchism often relates to democracy, communism, socialism, and labor unions because they all are systems to empower workers to control leaders, companies, and governments by the people being responsible for their power. The term ‘worker’ (proletariat) represents the bulk of citizens or their families, and therefore the masses of society. When the workers have to power to vote directly and frequently on their bosses, companies and governments become decentralized and depend on social networks and sub-cultures.


[see also Mondragon, Mother Jones, Emma Goldman]