View previous stories
	President Bush is serving up the Cold War warmed Over by Robert Scheer The Los Angeles Times USA   Published: July 5, 2005   The "war on terror" is turning out to be nothing more than a recycled formulation of the dangerously dumb "domino theory." Listen to the way President Bush justifies the deepening quagmire of Iraq: "Defeat them abroad before they attack us at home." If we didn''t defeat communism in Vietnam, or even tiny Grenada, went the hoary defense of bloody proxy wars and covert brutality in the latter stages of the Cold War, San Diego might be the next to go Red.   Now, the new version of this simplistic concept seems to say, "If we don''t occupy a Muslim country, inciting terrorists to attack us in Baghdad, we''ll suffer more terror attacks at home." The opposite is the case. Invading Iraq has, like the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan before, proved to be a massive recruiting tool for Muslim extremists everywhere. Even the embattled CIA, which the White House is struggling to neuter as a semi-objective voice on foreign affairs, recently declared the Iraq occupation to be a boon to terrorists.   Yet the president stumbles on, demanding that we support his Iraq adventure lest we sully the memory of the victims of Sept. 11, 2001. "We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand," said Bush last week. Actually, no. We fight in Iraq today because Bush listened to a band of right-wing intellectual poseurs who argued America could create a reverse domino effect, turning the Middle East into a land of pliable free-market, pro-Western "democracies" through a crude use of military force. This is rather like claiming a well-placed stick of dynamite can turn a redwood forest into a neighborhood of charming Victorians.   Furthermore, it is not Bush and his band of neocons who are fighting — and dying — for the Iraq domino, but rather raw 19-year-old recruits, hardworking career military officers and impoverished or unlucky Iraqis. And foreign terrorists linked to Al Qaeda are in Iraq because it is a field of opportunity, not because it is their last stand.   For four years the White House has framed the war on terror as an open-ended global battle against a monolithic enemy on many fronts, rather than employing a modern counterterrorism model that sees terrorism as a deadly pathology that grows out of religious or ethnic rage and must be isolated and excised.   From the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Bush has systematically sought to parlay the public''s shock over a singular, if devastating, terrorist assault by a small coterie of extremists into what amounted to a call for World War III against a supposed "axis of evil." But these countries — Iran, Iraq and North Korea — shared only a clear hostility to the United States, rather than any real alliance or ties to 9/11 itself.   In the process, Bush has justified an enormous military buildup, spent tens of billions of dollars in Iraq, reorganized the federal government, driven the nation''s budget far into the red and assaulted the civil liberties of Americans and people around the world, all without bothering to seriously examine the origins of the 9/11 attacks or compose a coherent strategy to prevent similar ones in the future. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden remains at large, as do his financial and political backers in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.   But why has the White House pursued this nonsensical approach over the loud objections of the country''s most experienced counterterrorism and Islamic experts? Because it allows the administration all the political benefits the Cold War afforded its predecessors: political capital, pork-barrel defense contracts and a grandiose sense of purpose.   And because the war on terror has no standard of victory, it can never end — thus neatly replacing the Cold War as a black-and-white, us-against-them worldview that generations of American (and Soviet) politicians found so useful for keeping the plebes in line. It''s a one-size-fits-all bludgeon.   The terrible, unspoken truth of the war on terror is that the tragedy of 9/11 has been exploited as a political opportunity by George W. Bush, Halliburton, the Pentagon and the other pillars of what President Eisenhower dubbed the "military-industrial complex" in his final speech as president.   The former general who led us in World War II warned of the dangers of an unbridled militarism. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex," said Eisenhower, a Republican, in 1961. "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." .. Consider yourself warned.
	A manifesto for wellbeing by Clive Hamilton The Australia Institute Australia   Australians are three times richer than their parents and grandparents were in the 1950s, but they are no happier. Despite the evidence of a decline in national wellbeing, governments continue to put economic interests first. The obsession with economic growth means other things that could improve our wellbeing are sacrificed.   There is widespread community concern that the values of the market—individualism, selfishness, materialism, competition—are driving out the more desirable values of trust, self-restraint, mutual respect and generosity. Many people feel alienated from the political process; the main parties seem too alike and think of progress only in material terms.   The challenge of our age is to build a new politics that is committed, above all, to improving our wellbeing.   Wellbeing   Throughout history sages have counselled that happiness is not a goal but a consequence of how we live, that it comes from being content with what we have. Today, we are sold a different message—that we will be happy only if we have more money and more of the things money buys. Human experience and scientific research do not support this belief.   Our wellbeing is shaped by our genes, our upbringing, our personal circumstances and choices, and the social conditions in which we live. Our collective wellbeing is improved if we live in a peaceful, flourishing, supportive society, so promoting wellbeing should be a public as well as a personal task.   We often think of wellbeing as happiness, but it is more than that. It is about having meaning in our lives—developing as a person and feeling that our lives are fulfilling and worthwhile.   Wellbeing comes from having a web of relationships and interests. Family and friends, work, leisure activities and spiritual beliefs can all increase our wellbeing. The intimacy, sense of belonging and support offered by close personal relationships are of greatest value. Material comforts are essential up to a point, and there is no doubt that poverty remains a serious problem in Australia. But for most Australians more money would add little to their wellbeing.   What can governments do?   Governments can’t legislate to make us happy, but many things they do affect our wellbeing. Industrial relations laws can damage or improve the quality of our working lives; government policies can protect the environment or see it defiled; our children’s education depends on the quality of schools; tax policies can make the difference between a fair and an unfair society; and the cohesiveness of our communities is affected by city design and transport plans.   This manifesto proposes nine areas in which a government could and should enact policies to improve national wellbeing.   1.   Provide fulfilling work   Fulfilling work is vital to our wellbeing; insecure, stressful and unsatisfying jobs diminish it. High-quality work can provide us with purpose, challenge and opportunities. Through it we can develop our capacities, begin to realise our potential, and meet many of our social needs. In short, fulfilling work is essential if we are to flourish. Workplaces that provide secure, rewarding jobs should be encouraged. Workplace flexibility, including quality part-time jobs, should operate in the interests of employees as well as employers.   Unemployment is more damaging than just the loss of income, and disparaging unemployed people serves only to increase their anxiety and sense of exclusion. Pursuing full employment is essential to a wellbeing economy, as is ensuring decent minimum workplace standards.   Satisfying work can be found inside and outside the home. Work in the household and in communities is essential to social health but it is ignored because it falls outside the official economy. Governments should value this work, and employers need to adapt to the realities of family life. Maternity leave, paternity leave, carers’ leave and sick leave are not costs but essential to our wellbeing.   2.   Reclaim our time   Among the countries of the developed world, Australians now work the longest hours and have less holiday leave than most. We systematically overestimate the amount of wellbeing associated with high incomes and long work hours. As a result, our families, our health and our sense of achievement all suffer.   If Australia is to thrive, our working lives should contribute to, rather than sap, our wellbeing and that of our families. Spending more time with our families, friends and communities would make most of us happier, and our workplaces must be reshaped to allow us to reclaim our time.   To flourish as a nation—not just as an economy—we need to limit working hours by reducing the maximum working week to 35 hours initially and by more thereafter. Other developed countries have reduced working hours without the often-predicted chaos. If we took productivity gains in the form of a shorter working week rather than higher pay we could improve our quality of life and create new job opportunities, all without any reduction in pay.   3.   Protect the environment   A healthy, diverse natural environment is valuable in itself; it is also essential to human wellbeing. But government and business tell us we cannot afford too much protection—it’s bad for GDP. We know, though, that the wellbeing of future generations will be heavily affected if we fail resolutely to tackle biodiversity loss, pollution and waste. Climate change in particular poses a severe threat and demands immediate and far-reaching measures by government.   We can do much more than we have to date. We should increase taxes on damaging environmental activities such as burning fossil fuels and reduce taxes on socially beneficial activities such as providing fulfilling work. We should make the generation of waste very expensive and reward businesses and households that reduce their consumption and recycle materials.   4.   Rethink education   It is impossible for all students to come first in their class, and our education system should stop pretending they can. Our schools should be dedicated to creating capable, confident, emotionally mature young people who are equipped to face life’s vicissitudes.   Young Australians are told they will have up to six careers in their lifetime, yet we insist on making high schools and universities more vocationally oriented. As a result, students learn less about themselves and the societies around them. A greater focus on children’s physical, emotional and moral wellbeing—rather than competitive test results—would produce happier, healthier young people.   We should stop turning universities into businesses selling degrees and make them the critic and conscience of society, places where students flourish as humans and where academics feel free to question powerful institutions without fear of victimisation.   5.   Invest in early childhood   Studies show that, for each dollar wisely invested in early childhood education and care, we can save up to seven dollars in avoided costs of crime, unemployment, remedial education and welfare payments. A wellbeing government would invest more.   Children need a great deal of individual attention in their early years. Shared parental leave should be extended to cover the first two years of a child’s life. Parents, too, need support so they can do the best job for their children. Adolescence too is an important time; parents need to participate actively in the whole developmental journey.   6.   Discourage materialism and promote responsible advertising   Buying a particular brand of margarine cannot give us a happy family, and owning a four-wheel drive will not deliver us from humdrum lives. But the advertisers seek to persuade us otherwise. Advertising makes us more materialistic, even though we know that people who are more materialistic are usually more self-absorbed, less community oriented and less happy. Materialism is also bad for the environment.   Marketers have hijacked the media and most of our cultural events, and it is impossible to escape their daily barrage. We need commercial-free zones in our cities and limits on shopping developments. And governments should use tax and retirement policies to help people who want to change to less materialistic lifestyles.   Advertisers prey especially on children because they know they lack the ability to distinguish between facts and advertising fiction. As in Sweden, advertising aimed at children under 12 should be banned, and advertising codes of conduct should be made legally binding so that irresponsible and deceptive marketing is outlawed.   7.   Build communities and relationships   A flourishing society is characterised by vibrant, resilient and sustainable communities. Loneliness and isolation cause much unhappiness, especially among single parents, unemployed people, older people living alone and people with disabilities and their carers.   Instead of criticising single parents who do the best they can, we should support them. Instead of judging people by their sexuality, we should encourage all loving and supportive relationships. And we need to help people develop the skills to build stronger family relationships.   We all depend on others for care at some time in our lives. Care is provided by parents, children, friends and others. We need to value all carers more. Governments and employers should do much more to support workers with caring responsibilities.   Governments should also support participation in community organisations, especially among marginalised groups. Volunteers contribute greatly to our wellbeing and need to be recognised and rewarded.   8.   A fairer society   Strong economic management will always be needed; but instead of a narrow focus on GDP growth, the objectives should include building public infrastructure and reducing social and regional inequalities. Widening disparities in incomes and access to services create resentment and disharmony.   Instead of blaming the victims, a wellbeing society would acknowledge that some people are left behind by the market. A fairer system of taxation and government spending—including better public services and income support for those less able to compete in the marketplace—would enhance social wellbeing.   More public funds could also go to overseas aid to help the poor in developing countries escape from poverty and destitution.   Increased public spending on measures to improve wellbeing in Australia could easily be financed by cutting business and middle-class welfare and cracking down on tax avoidance.   9.   Measure what matters   Economic growth is treated as the panacea for our ills. But for affluent societies growth in GDP has almost no connection with improvements in national wellbeing. Bushfires, car accidents and crime waves all increase GDP, but they don’t make us better off. GDP takes no account of how increases in income are distributed or the damage to the natural environment that economic activity can cause.   We need a set of national wellbeing accounts so that we can monitor our progress. They should report on the quality of work, the state of our communities, crime rates, our health, the strength of our relationships, and the state of the environment. Governments should be judged by how much our wellbeing improves, not by how much the economy expands.   Towards a flourishing society   The question for Australia in the 21st century is not how we can become richer: it is how we can use our high standard of living to build a flourishing society—one devoted to improving our wellbeing rather than just expanding the economy.   Many Australians are anxious about declining moral standards. We worry that we have become too selfish, materialistic and superficial and long for a society built on mutual respect, self-restraint and generosity of spirit.   The changes proposed in this manifesto would inspire healthier communities, stronger personal relationships, happier workplaces, a better balance between work and home, less commercialisation, and greater environmental protection.   A flourishing society is not a futile hope. Australian democracy offers people the opportunity to shed their cynicism and commit themselves to creating a better future. Visit the related web page
	View more stories