Photographing Truth

“Afghan photos worry military” reads the front page headline in today’s Oregonian.

The headline reflects the story that follows — up to a point.

The story says that the “revelations...caught on camera” have “intensified questions within the military community about where fundamental discipline is breaking down given the nature and length of the war.”

Questions: Are the photos intensifying the questioning? Does the military require photographs before it knows what is happening within its units? Before it gets serious? Do those photographs have to be made public in order for action to be taken? What if they had never been published?

As is all too common with stories that put the heat on government institutions, the very publication of the news (in this case photographs) becomes the story. Should the Los Angeles Times have printed them? What will the publication do to the morale of our troops? Will their lives be in danger?

(THIS STORY in today's New York Times reveals that the Pentagon made an issue of the publication and tried to stop it.)

In short, the publication itself, not what it reveals, becomes the headline grabber.

Lest we forget, the outrages depicted, like those of Abu Ghraib and others (the list long), are bought and paid for by us, the taxpayer. To extend the consumer analogy, we need to know what we are buying. If it isn’t what we had in mind, we need to stop buying it.

The problem is that we are forced to buy it. We have no options. The two major political parties are identical with regard to the brazen barbarity they have allowed in the military, the intelligence agencies and contract mercenaries.

As we get farther and farther into the 2012 campaign, the candidates will lay out sharp, allegedly “defining” differences between their parties. But who will point to their troubling similarities: reliance on massive contributions from the super-rich, the need to pander to and serve the military-industrial-media complex, the defense of “justice” that is anything but, the support of covert operations at home and abroad that shred human rights and human dignity, the denial of the need for immediate, urgent action to stop global warming, the acceptance of grotesque inequality?

“Afghan photos worry military.”

What kind of photos will it take to “worry” us, the People, into changing our current unresponsive political/governmental/military/industrial system?

HERE is an example of what's possible. The short clip is called "Things Happen."

Witness to the Occupation

I’ve pondered deeply, as you no doubt have, what the Occupy movement is all about.

I’ve conclude that, at its root, it is a witnessing — witnessing for justice and a just society.

“To bear witness” is a spiritual term, and this movement is certainly that. It is driven by a spirit of outrage, of non-violence, of consensus, of fairness, of peace, of equality, of community and of justice....the list goes on and on.

To bear witness is also a legal term. Unrefutable, unbiased, untainted witnessing is the basis of justice in our courts. The Occupy movement here in Portland is encamped next to the County and Federal Courthouses. But the bearing of judicial witness is not for those courts alone.

The witnesses here have brought themselves before the court of public opinion, whose verdict, one hopes, will be cast at the polls.

So far, surveys tell us, the public sides with this committed eclectic community of witnesses. Their testimonies are beyond credible. They need only point to the homeless and bereft who have joined them. They too — the veterans, the mentally ill, the bankrupt, the homeless — are witnesses to the injustices of our society.

They also point to the greed of the one percent.

What society dare arrest and detain its honest, non-violent witnesses? That’s the question posed to those who hold public office. Here in Portland, so far, our public servants recognize the righteousness and truth of this cause.

They recognize the need of the public, to whom they answer, to fully hear the testimony and fairly weight it.

In places like Oakland, public officials will pay the price of stifling the sworn and overt truth of this movement.

To those who have not become involved but who have seen this movement and heard its message, realize that you too are now witnesses. How long will it be before you volunteer to take take the stand, to swear to tell the truth — to testify.

Remaining silent in these troubled times is not an option.

A just society as executive compensation

Tuesday, New York Times columnist David Brooks attacked the Obama administration for placing limits on executive compensation.

He called the effort a “fatal conceit” that is doomed to failure.

Brooks, and most who address this madness, overlook a key fact.

If lining their own pockets drives executives to their decisions, it stands to reason that the corporate decisions will be based on how much the executives can game the system to reward themselves.

The result: decisions that feed executive greed and to hell with the rest of us. We’ve seen plenty of those kinds of decisions recently. Hence the response of the Obama administration.

If there’s a problem with the government’s approach, it’s that it ignores the bankrupt values that drive the system.

We need leadership that makes decisions not for personal gain but for societal good.

By “good” I mean paying a living wage, offering meaningful work, providing universal health care, protecting the environment, providing affordable housing, maintaining justice and security, and educating children and adults alike.

Those are the rewards of leadership. Not vacation chalets in Aspen, yachts in Barbados, mansions in Scarsdale, private jets at the ready, country clubs, penthouses and jewels.

And certainly not compensation that is 500 times that of the average worker.

No, the rewards for the powerful should be nothing more than this: a modest, adequate salary with basic benefits and the knowledge that one’s leadership has helped create of a better, more just, sustainable society.

Ultimately, it comes down to a question of values. Talk about fatal conceit. What do our corporate leaders believe in? Themselves and their personal wealth or humanity and the future of the planet?

The government must come up with a way to ensure that the latter, not the former, values prevail.