Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Ballad to the Ode of a President

This chilling music video from Pink recalls the tumultuous protest times of the 70's. While songs have historically always been a venue for political activists that we see more and more of this indicates how far off the mark our nation's leaders have gone.

Remember Jimmy Hendricks, Simon and Garfield, The BeeGees, the Doors and so many others? There were the marches in the street, the war protests and the unforgettable Woodstock. And earlier when John Kennedy came and was shot for refusing to step in line to the swift boat politic of his time.

In today's meltdown economy the President wants to sign a $700 billion check to bail out criminally irresponsible banking institutions, not for the people evidently, but for sure at the cost of the taxpayer. This from the same President who through deception and lies committed the nation to 2 preemptive wars, neither of which we can we win nor walk away from, shades of Vietnam.

Who is served by this? Or this more burning question, who profits from this?

One wonders if this shattered nation will soon recover from the debacle or is this the fall of the Roman Empire? God help us if McCain (Bush in practice) gets in as President as the next 4 years could push the crippled nation beyond the point of no return and destroy the country forever.

It isn't even Bush or McCain or Obama, whatever Administration follows next, it's the super rich above them who feel they are who is really running the world on their hidden agendas and obscene wealth. So try as we will at the polls it will not be enough to stem the cancer.

Music, however, leads a culture, in fact, the works of all artists herald the dreams of a culture. It is a way to speak up in an effective voice without getting put on the President's terrorist watch list. Music is heard. Perhaps others will follow suit with song like Pink's Dear Mr. President and add support to the message: enough already. It is sorely needed.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

It's a Public Service Not a Porn Store

by Robert L Gisel

The issue of offering WiFi service on Airlines and whether to filter off porn is an interesting one and has elicited many diverse comments in a lively discussion. It's good to see the lively debate as this is after all a democracy. The matter of rights is also forwarded in the comments following the article but this actually is not an issue.

Common decency and fair play alone will find the airlines observing the rights of others as they regularly would extend politeness and courtesies to their fares. After all they want your business. Don't be surprised though if they later refuse your business after you have done something unthinkably distasteful like deliberately urinate in the aisle way.

Doing business with someone is a matter of mutual agreements and accord not divine right.

In the article the matter is brought up whether the Airlines offering in flight WiFi should filter porn sites so that passengers next to the porn user are not violated by the openly public porn. This is my response to this article and the ensuing comments.

"As Pat says:

'All good comments. The airlines, like all businesses, have the right to limit activities on their premises.'

"While I am an ardent advocate of human rights I also recognize that property is property, it is owned. The airplane belongs to the Airline and you are their guest, albeit a paying guest.

"It is really a question of proprietorship on the part of the airlines and manners on the part of the customers. The Airline transports people but also assumes responsibility for their safety as well as customer satisfaction. If you don't like what happens on the flight say so to the Airline or fly with a different carrier. Or take the train. The Airline doesn't have to sell you a ticket to travel on their airplanes if they feel you put their business at risk. Passengers sharing the space with others must be considerate of others as they would be in any public spaces.

"That said, the Airline would have to use a filter delicately limited to porn and nudity and not one that blocks out U-Tube and other non-offensive sites by overlarded blocking. Also the light and noise may invade others sleep besides the open porn that flaunts one's sensibilities. So why not block off a separate area for those who want to use cell phones and laptops. But bring back the smoking section while you are at it."

The issue should be very simple if you see it as in this example: you loaned your laptop to a friend you would be of rights to ask your friend not to log on to any porn sites. If he fails to heed your reasonable request you can refuse in the future to lend him your laptop. Furthermore if you want to have porn blocks on your laptop prior to lending the computer you are completely of rights to do so. This is even true if you rent it to your friend for a month or so.

Your friend's 1st Amendment or 4th Amendment Rights have nothing to do with this. The disposition of your property is totally up to you. In this same light a restaurant owner has control over the customers of his restaurant, a cabbie of his fares and of course the airline of what happens inside the plane.

In this wise a proper perspective can be maintained and rights not trammeled on or forced into a situation where inapplicable.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

What Goes Around Comes Around

by Robert L. Gisel

It is a truism in this universe that one is fought by those one is fighting. One mourns with condolences those who died in the conflict at the US Embassy in Yemen. Then one points the finger at Bush.

Why Bush? It's his turf and he started the fight. Whether you agree with that impartial analysis or not he is undeniably fighting since. The preemptive strikes on Afghanistan and on Iraq, going it alone despite the contrary advices of our allies and in defiance of international law, these things did not win the US friends on the world scene.

Furthermore he is the President and the realm of his responsibility includes how the world considers this country and what happens regards this sovereignty even on the world scene. In other words if it's good it's his, if it's bad it's his. I simply expect him to be competent and make the right decisions and take affirmative action to the benefit of the greatest good of the greatest number.

Now we are told he is simply going after the terrorists, the al-Quaida, that attacked us in the Sept 11 Twin Towers destruction. This is a clever Machiavellan misdirection that the Skull and Bones crowd is no doubt proud of. If we can't irrevocably prove that the Towers One and Two were an inside job one can definately see that the Tower 7 was a controlled demolition, thus the work of pre-preparation.

This leaves the question open of what role, if any, did the al-Quaida actually play in that event. The actual facilitation of the event was most probably more than the al-Quaida could have put in motion. They would have to have had super-secret access to Tower 7, for instance, for a week or two prior to set the controlled demolition explosives that dropped the 48 stories of a building which contained the civil defense posts for the emergency reponse units and US intelligence offices, CIA, FBI etc. That would be a cute trick for a "terrorist group", so someone else did it.

Theorizing this all the way out one can imagine the Taliban of Afghanistan hearing that they solely responsible for the whole act on Sept 11th and they are reason we are invading Afghanistan and later Iraq. They just might object to being made the scapegoats and even be militantly hostile about it. This would account for the very low opinion of the US that is seen in those other countries and is the subject of massive marches against Bush in places like London.

To be a President you'd perhaps have to have the memory of an elephant, goodwill of a Gandhi, the analytical logic of Grand Master chess player and the observance of a god like compassion towards mankind to appreciate this viewpoint. In other words, like mankind, realize that all men have inalienable human rights, be exemplary in justice and fairness, use rational thinking to embrace the greatest good for the most mankind, be able to envision consequences across the span of time from the deep past to the far reaching future and have the benevolence and generosity of a saint.

In other words you'd have to have the magnanimously competant leadership you'd expect of the President of the most influential country in the world. Taking actions that could be ascribed to a lieing, deceiving bully would not gain favoritisms except among the James Gang.

Here is another sweeping datum that sets the mind to wondering: a criminal anti-social personality will always accuse others of what himself has been doing. This is demonstratable, observable truth. Applied to the circumstances of this administration one is left wondering what have they really been up to.

It is understood that being President of the United States is a tough job. It just takes a very skillful individual at the helm. Reagon was able to do it and is no doubt the best President we have had in recent times. He was exceptional in this respect: he was a high toned individual, had a good sense of values and was very candid.

This is an important comparison. Reagon had the graciousness of the hero in one of the old cowboy movies, only it wasn't an act, that was his personality. He was someone you could trust. Seeing that in a President was refreshing. America needs again his open honesty.