That I am ... pushing the pendulum to the far side so we can establish what we`ve really had and lost in the middle; for in the middle is where we can use terms like general consensus and most people, good/common sense, and other concepts which carry the weight of "duh" and not some moral authority or divine right specifically assigned to one nation or people.
If we can begin with here and now, forget the past and specifics of what`s gotten us to this point, then we can truly examine the social context of what`s "good and just" about our world as we work towards the future ... true we have some historical context, but most people don`t hold on to the past and can only "grok" that which feeds/bites them today.
New moralities and values should not be judged "bad" for it prevents the critical evaluation of just why they exist; if you can`t see the reality then you can not grasp the forces driving the change and therefore you will be unable to tilt/mold/direct the evolution of thought ... at the points of change there is much flux and organic growth is pell-mell (?) so someone with a plan can create massive shifts just by identifying, focusing on the points of benefit, and communication of the "duh logic" ... change/identity is only real on an individual level.
History is filled with examples of people who have seized "popular sediment" and changed the world, two obvious ones are Martin Luther and Adolph Hitler (ours will be someone who has the ability to use both the written word and broadcast media) and they did that by tapping into those things in someone going "something isn`t right in my world" and giving them a new "rule" to live their lives by as they worked towards a better future ... not nailing them to the past.
Bringing it back to "conscience of American Business" in "National Security" ... aside from the fact of nothing besides a thinking being being able to have a conscience, or how national security is now wrapped in "homeland security" and preemptive force in foreign countries ... is it the right question to ask, can it be answered, and to what means are we to leverage this answer.
From my point of view it breaks down from the "politics" of the leading by example; when the past VP ran (and runs again?) a corporation that did business with Iran, profits from war and does just about everything Eisenhower (and others) warned about being the dark clouds in our future, then all else becomes moot ... but more importantly, it sets the stage for all the other companies going, "cool, let`s go make some money".
War is serious business, and while mercenaries have always played a role, they have never been glorified or able to profit, or direct the national interests like they do today; in our case here in the US it`s wrapped in all the glory of a marketplace marketing campaign (insert etc. spiel).
My bottom-line is that we as a people should not profit from some things, that means companies should not be allowed to run/drive some things in this country ... it is that simple. By setting up some real "for the people by the people" things we can show that when it comes to certain basic elements of people/country it is not "buyer beware" or profit at any cost, but "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (insert marching song here LOL).
, a simple taco maker:
The Tiger Taco home in the U.S.A.Tiger Tacos in AustraliaTiger Tacos in the United Kingdom