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.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
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.
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.
http://current.newsweek.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-c.cgi
"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."
RightsFreedomsandRights.blogspot.com
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.
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.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Palin for VP
by Robert L. Gisel
Governor Palin of Alaska has taken the spotlight as the new kid in town Vice Presidential running mate for John McCain. There is a ton of press on it today but this article summarizes it well, linked below followed by the comment I posted.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/082908/sta_325107976.shtml#mdw-comments
This was a clever move by McCain as without this his campaign was destined for the low road. With Palin's reputation this definitely stirs the pot.
The issues aren't the issue, Paris Hilton's politics notwithstanding, as much as is the idea that someone with some moxy could gain position in the White House that would put in ethics on the government crowd. That's so sorely needed as to outweigh everything else, if she only accomplished that.
Her experience isn't the issue either as she has shown she has the learning curve ability to rise to the responsibilities. The plan to enact an ethics bill is a good move that will tend to amnesty the tempest of the widespread corruption she will find in Washington, an otherwise overwhelming prospect, albeit Braveheart that she is.
The question is how will she handle the holdover from the Bush and Cheny corruption of our government as veep. McCain himself has yet to denounce Bush and his high crimes and war crimes listed in the Impeachment Resolution HR 1258 still in the House Judiciary Committee as we speak, not to mention the more confrontable destruction of our country of rights, constitution and fiduciary responsibility. It's a mess and it will take some high confront and on-your-feet clever handling to turn the ship away from the shoals.
For sure it will take all she's got to maintain her integrity, independence and willingness to take on the corrupt and shake up "politics as usual" without herself being compromised. That McCain now comes out with his version of "I have a dream" and claims to have intentions to clean up politics in Washington stretches the credulity. Feasibly Palin could shake him up as well, not too far fetched an idea.
Personally I wouldn't vote for McCain or Obama. Maybe I'll just vote for VP.
As a postscript to this comment, any judgement within the nation or on the world scene is barren without the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights considered as a moderating principle. While Diplomacy and State Security are full bodied subjects on their own the guiding path can never negate the existence of inalienable rights.
Where Palin stated that Ron Paul "is cool, he's very independent" one wonders if she understands it's his adherence to rights that mold that "coolness". All the rest is brilliant application to the existing scene to arrive at pragmatic application of the guiding principle.
Palin displays a lot of potentiality in that regard but has yet to take it all the way home. One can only hope that she will go the distance.
These Public Service Announcements illustrate each of the 30 rights:
http://youthforhumanrights.org/watchads/index.html
Governor Palin of Alaska has taken the spotlight as the new kid in town Vice Presidential running mate for John McCain. There is a ton of press on it today but this article summarizes it well, linked below followed by the comment I posted.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/082908/sta_325107976.shtml#mdw-comments
This was a clever move by McCain as without this his campaign was destined for the low road. With Palin's reputation this definitely stirs the pot.
The issues aren't the issue, Paris Hilton's politics notwithstanding, as much as is the idea that someone with some moxy could gain position in the White House that would put in ethics on the government crowd. That's so sorely needed as to outweigh everything else, if she only accomplished that.
Her experience isn't the issue either as she has shown she has the learning curve ability to rise to the responsibilities. The plan to enact an ethics bill is a good move that will tend to amnesty the tempest of the widespread corruption she will find in Washington, an otherwise overwhelming prospect, albeit Braveheart that she is.
The question is how will she handle the holdover from the Bush and Cheny corruption of our government as veep. McCain himself has yet to denounce Bush and his high crimes and war crimes listed in the Impeachment Resolution HR 1258 still in the House Judiciary Committee as we speak, not to mention the more confrontable destruction of our country of rights, constitution and fiduciary responsibility. It's a mess and it will take some high confront and on-your-feet clever handling to turn the ship away from the shoals.
For sure it will take all she's got to maintain her integrity, independence and willingness to take on the corrupt and shake up "politics as usual" without herself being compromised. That McCain now comes out with his version of "I have a dream" and claims to have intentions to clean up politics in Washington stretches the credulity. Feasibly Palin could shake him up as well, not too far fetched an idea.
Personally I wouldn't vote for McCain or Obama. Maybe I'll just vote for VP.
As a postscript to this comment, any judgement within the nation or on the world scene is barren without the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights considered as a moderating principle. While Diplomacy and State Security are full bodied subjects on their own the guiding path can never negate the existence of inalienable rights.
Where Palin stated that Ron Paul "is cool, he's very independent" one wonders if she understands it's his adherence to rights that mold that "coolness". All the rest is brilliant application to the existing scene to arrive at pragmatic application of the guiding principle.
Palin displays a lot of potentiality in that regard but has yet to take it all the way home. One can only hope that she will go the distance.
These Public Service Announcements illustrate each of the 30 rights:
http://youthforhumanrights.org/watchads/index.html
Friday, June 27, 2008
Can a President Be Impeached?
by Robert L. Gisel
House Resolution 1258 "Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors" was passed in the House mid July, 2008, with a vote of 251 to 166. It is currently in the House Judiciary Committee for action.
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/06/kucinich_introduces_bush_impea.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.1258:
H.Res. 333 "impeaching Richard B. Cheny, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors" was earlier by a year or so. Probably it didn't go anywhere as the bill to impeach Bush had not yet been entered.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.333:
Conference Report on HR 1: Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007; at this time the House Resolution 1258 was introduced.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r110:38:./temp/~r110GfZU8h:
As the mainstream press is no longer covering these current events I am posting these on my blog lest someone forget that HR 1258 is currently in the House Judiciary Committee which has been issuing subpoenas and gathering data so this can be passed to the Senate for impeachment proceedings. It is not old news, it is a current event, which would think the press would all over this with coverage. The House Resolution 1258 cites evidence for war crimes and high crimes so I fail to see how this is a light matter.
The truth is when criminal action is committed the person always has the choice the come clean and get straight. When that doesn't occur justice actions must be taken. How many times have we heard that someone indicted for a new crime has a history of past crimes so that the new crime could have been predicted and stopped before it happened.
The House Judiciary Committee will, I trust, keep putting forth its ethics presence and stem the tide of further heinous acts. We can only hope. The public presence is very much needed and this is where the press has come a cropper: not making it known.
We're looking at falsely propagandizing a war, just for one of the 35 charges, that has taken a lot of lives in Iraq, about a million counting the Iraqis who have died. Not a good statistic for the US President.
This has been a great country. I for one would like to keep it so. Speak up and say your part: your voice will heard somewhere and to that degree it will make a difference. This so that America can truly be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
House Resolution 1258 "Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors" was passed in the House mid July, 2008, with a vote of 251 to 166. It is currently in the House Judiciary Committee for action.
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/06/kucinich_introduces_bush_impea.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.1258:
H.Res. 333 "impeaching Richard B. Cheny, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors" was earlier by a year or so. Probably it didn't go anywhere as the bill to impeach Bush had not yet been entered.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.RES.333:
Conference Report on HR 1: Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007; at this time the House Resolution 1258 was introduced.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r110:38:./temp/~r110GfZU8h:
As the mainstream press is no longer covering these current events I am posting these on my blog lest someone forget that HR 1258 is currently in the House Judiciary Committee which has been issuing subpoenas and gathering data so this can be passed to the Senate for impeachment proceedings. It is not old news, it is a current event, which would think the press would all over this with coverage. The House Resolution 1258 cites evidence for war crimes and high crimes so I fail to see how this is a light matter.
The truth is when criminal action is committed the person always has the choice the come clean and get straight. When that doesn't occur justice actions must be taken. How many times have we heard that someone indicted for a new crime has a history of past crimes so that the new crime could have been predicted and stopped before it happened.
The House Judiciary Committee will, I trust, keep putting forth its ethics presence and stem the tide of further heinous acts. We can only hope. The public presence is very much needed and this is where the press has come a cropper: not making it known.
We're looking at falsely propagandizing a war, just for one of the 35 charges, that has taken a lot of lives in Iraq, about a million counting the Iraqis who have died. Not a good statistic for the US President.
This has been a great country. I for one would like to keep it so. Speak up and say your part: your voice will heard somewhere and to that degree it will make a difference. This so that America can truly be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Re Article "Bush Should Get A Life"
An article belaboring the petty quibbling between Obama and McCain demanded a comment and it is an important enough point that I reprint it here:
Have you examined why the Bush popularity has dropped to 29% domestically (if not even less by now), even lower overseas? The American people are intelligent enough to know when an operation is being run on them. The administration's black propaganda campaign based on lies and deceipt is something honest American people want nothing to do with.
Bear in mind the potentially biggest event of the year is evidently being swept under the carpet by the Bush-domineered press: the Bush Impeachment Resolution that passed in the House last week 166 nay to 251 in favor, HR 1258. Some of the 35 charges are token but the main ones are enough to indict him on criminal charges for war crimes and international crimes against the Geneva Convention. You'd think this would be major headlines daily.
The broadly known public data is enough to impeach them let alone what would be found by undercovering a bit more evidence. Plus there is a whole set of accessory (minimally) to crimes against humanity if not outright commissions more closely surrounding the events of Sept 11, 2001 that readily could be charged. That these are not even addressed on the impeachment bill but could easily be is an oversight. It appears the resolution may be allowed to stand as no more than a warning shot. Nixon was successfully impeached on 1/10th of the issues Bush needs to account for.
Like the American Gangster Bush and Cheny and their lieutenants stand there with a smoking gun confident there isn't anyone around with enough guts to call a crime a crime and enforce it. Bush and Cheny are just blatantly over the top in malfeasance.
If we ever needed the Minute Men who didn't hesitate to drop their dinner forks and run out the door with their muskets to face the Britsh without fear for their lives we need them now. Those brave Freedom Fighters whose courage and integrity gave us what freedom we have today. As individuals we need to speak out for action, right now.
Instead we have a cocaine snorting rich kid now in the White House who knows he can get away with murder because his wealthy family is well connected and the people he swore to serve are so complacent he can get away with war crimes because no one will face him and say "Punk, you may be wondering if I fired 6 bullets or 5... do you feel lucky?"
Have you examined why the Bush popularity has dropped to 29% domestically (if not even less by now), even lower overseas? The American people are intelligent enough to know when an operation is being run on them. The administration's black propaganda campaign based on lies and deceipt is something honest American people want nothing to do with.
Bear in mind the potentially biggest event of the year is evidently being swept under the carpet by the Bush-domineered press: the Bush Impeachment Resolution that passed in the House last week 166 nay to 251 in favor, HR 1258. Some of the 35 charges are token but the main ones are enough to indict him on criminal charges for war crimes and international crimes against the Geneva Convention. You'd think this would be major headlines daily.
The broadly known public data is enough to impeach them let alone what would be found by undercovering a bit more evidence. Plus there is a whole set of accessory (minimally) to crimes against humanity if not outright commissions more closely surrounding the events of Sept 11, 2001 that readily could be charged. That these are not even addressed on the impeachment bill but could easily be is an oversight. It appears the resolution may be allowed to stand as no more than a warning shot. Nixon was successfully impeached on 1/10th of the issues Bush needs to account for.
Like the American Gangster Bush and Cheny and their lieutenants stand there with a smoking gun confident there isn't anyone around with enough guts to call a crime a crime and enforce it. Bush and Cheny are just blatantly over the top in malfeasance.
If we ever needed the Minute Men who didn't hesitate to drop their dinner forks and run out the door with their muskets to face the Britsh without fear for their lives we need them now. Those brave Freedom Fighters whose courage and integrity gave us what freedom we have today. As individuals we need to speak out for action, right now.
Instead we have a cocaine snorting rich kid now in the White House who knows he can get away with murder because his wealthy family is well connected and the people he swore to serve are so complacent he can get away with war crimes because no one will face him and say "Punk, you may be wondering if I fired 6 bullets or 5... do you feel lucky?"
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Democracy: Dead or Dieing
Here's an interesting viewpoint being debated, the consideration that democracy has been overridden by status quo of the two party system:
http://www.friction.tv/ftv.debate.php?debate_id=1589
It is a voice I have heard a lot of lately, and indeed throughout the presidential primaries. Whether one believes it or not this signals a big red alert for our nation. When a majority of the peoples of a sovereignty lack the voice, or are too complacent, to any longer bring a necessary positive change to that nation it can be understood that that nation is headed down the same route of so many great civilizations now vanished.
To put it another way from a child's viewpoint:
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art6419.asp/zzz
Where the debate was lively and spirited at the outset days of our nation one does not see that so much so today. Certainly the Ron Paul followers were this spirited, while the stuffed shirts of the GOP chose to stifle their participation as evidently way too lively for them. If you only looked at this as a study in tolerance of motion you could have a lot of fun with it.
Having a democracy mandates that you have freedom and rights, including the right to be heard.
Having followed the Ron Paul campaign in the press alerts one definitely saw a pattern of media focus on the two main party candidates to the exclusion of other candidates. The press pre-set an outcome and then propagandized that as if it is the people talking. For instance, Ron Paul would be shunted in, or entirely left out of, televised debates. If you hadn't been following all the Ron Paul news alerts you would have missed that he was even still running. Thus the voice of democracy all too much has become the voice of the press, or more basically who is in the ear of the press who is then their mouthpiece.
Sometimes we're not permitted our own life by reason of government interference though supposedly protected as an inalienable human right. This has been highlighted by the permissive wording of the Patriots Act which does tend to stifle democracy. Speak out against the war loud enough and you could find yourself, in the worst case scenario, under surveillance as a suspected terrorist, seized and incarcerated for years with no representation or trial or without charges even. If someone suspects you have the wrong friends and reports this you then could be put on the watch list, perhaps grabbed and secreted away in the name of the Patriots Act, it is subject to such abuse. Seems remote, but it appears now this was the case in at least a few hundred of the detainees who were held for years without representation, so don't say it can't happen.
Evidently if you have nothing to say you could be "persuaded" until you do. We now know about waterboarding but what else went on? It is not known at what point you are believed, if you have no connection, or when the military junta would finally accept that and let you go carry on with your right to life. It's the government's call. This is a reversal of the historical precedents of our nation, innocent until proven guilty.
Now that a pretense of trials is occurring in Guantanamo to determine the guilt of the detainees a majority have been released. There was at one point about 800 detainees and now there is around 200 so one can suspect those released were not guilty of anything or nothing that would stand up to a trial. Can you imagine being incarcerated 3 to 5 years while never being charged and with no recourse, all the while not being guilty but having to endure abusive and humiliating treatment, assumed to be guilty until you can prove yourself innocent? With no counsel provided that you could prove your innocence. Even in the climate of fear promulgated by the righteous war on terrorism this is an insult to a nation founded on human rights.
In the surreal 007 world of cover ops these things go on. Where this has crossed the line in the undeclared war against Iraq and the proclaimed "war" against terrorism the attempts to legitimize the actions taken don't hold up against the burden of proof.
There's nothing democratic about the unjust treatment of others. While Bush's popularity is at an all time low here in the US it would appear he is rated even worse across other nations of the world. During Bush's recent overseas tour over 100,000 people turned out to protest Bush at one Iraqi war demonstration in England, our closest ally.
This is not good, yet our democracy is a hope factor for the world. Brits evidently count on on us to lead the way and hold the line for freedom per reports from abroad. One columnist advocate has said:
" George Bush is on his way out. He as an individual is not that significant but it's what he represents.
Whoever replaces him in the US is going to carry on with the same policy. They're preparing to install themselves in Iraq semi-permanently. It's turning Iraq into a colony while thousands of people continue to die.'"
Concurring or not with that sentiment there is more than a few overseas voices with similar sentiments.
To be the aggressor in the Iraqi war has been a betrayal not only in the US, where this was in no way a democratic choice, but now has put our president and our country's presence in the world in ill regard. The 100,000 to 200,000 protesters in London indicates a considerable dissenting voice. That is just in one city, in one country.
On the other hand it came to my attention when I observed a British editor friend of mine avidly following the Ron Paul campaign. John Mappin, owner of The Independent chain of papers wrote a song in support of Dr. Paul's campaign efforts. For some time this event monopolized the Google searches with numerous mostly foreign press feeds. Fascinated by this I did some looking around and discovered that the campaign of Ron Paul was indeed being watched by the world in hopes that he would win and some of the freedom would return to their shores.
Holding high the torch for freedom is not just an American phenomena. It is the hope and trust for the world. I surely hope we don't let them down.
http://www.friction.tv/ftv.debate.php?debate_id=1589
It is a voice I have heard a lot of lately, and indeed throughout the presidential primaries. Whether one believes it or not this signals a big red alert for our nation. When a majority of the peoples of a sovereignty lack the voice, or are too complacent, to any longer bring a necessary positive change to that nation it can be understood that that nation is headed down the same route of so many great civilizations now vanished.
To put it another way from a child's viewpoint:
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art6419.asp/zzz
As ours is a democracy the sound functioning of our governing system requires two forgone conclusions:
1) That the voice be heard and acted on when a majority and
2) That people are vocal so the voice can be heard.Where the debate was lively and spirited at the outset days of our nation one does not see that so much so today. Certainly the Ron Paul followers were this spirited, while the stuffed shirts of the GOP chose to stifle their participation as evidently way too lively for them. If you only looked at this as a study in tolerance of motion you could have a lot of fun with it.
Having a democracy mandates that you have freedom and rights, including the right to be heard.
Having followed the Ron Paul campaign in the press alerts one definitely saw a pattern of media focus on the two main party candidates to the exclusion of other candidates. The press pre-set an outcome and then propagandized that as if it is the people talking. For instance, Ron Paul would be shunted in, or entirely left out of, televised debates. If you hadn't been following all the Ron Paul news alerts you would have missed that he was even still running. Thus the voice of democracy all too much has become the voice of the press, or more basically who is in the ear of the press who is then their mouthpiece.
Sometimes we're not permitted our own life by reason of government interference though supposedly protected as an inalienable human right. This has been highlighted by the permissive wording of the Patriots Act which does tend to stifle democracy. Speak out against the war loud enough and you could find yourself, in the worst case scenario, under surveillance as a suspected terrorist, seized and incarcerated for years with no representation or trial or without charges even. If someone suspects you have the wrong friends and reports this you then could be put on the watch list, perhaps grabbed and secreted away in the name of the Patriots Act, it is subject to such abuse. Seems remote, but it appears now this was the case in at least a few hundred of the detainees who were held for years without representation, so don't say it can't happen.
Evidently if you have nothing to say you could be "persuaded" until you do. We now know about waterboarding but what else went on? It is not known at what point you are believed, if you have no connection, or when the military junta would finally accept that and let you go carry on with your right to life. It's the government's call. This is a reversal of the historical precedents of our nation, innocent until proven guilty.
Now that a pretense of trials is occurring in Guantanamo to determine the guilt of the detainees a majority have been released. There was at one point about 800 detainees and now there is around 200 so one can suspect those released were not guilty of anything or nothing that would stand up to a trial. Can you imagine being incarcerated 3 to 5 years while never being charged and with no recourse, all the while not being guilty but having to endure abusive and humiliating treatment, assumed to be guilty until you can prove yourself innocent? With no counsel provided that you could prove your innocence. Even in the climate of fear promulgated by the righteous war on terrorism this is an insult to a nation founded on human rights.
In the surreal 007 world of cover ops these things go on. Where this has crossed the line in the undeclared war against Iraq and the proclaimed "war" against terrorism the attempts to legitimize the actions taken don't hold up against the burden of proof.
There's nothing democratic about the unjust treatment of others. While Bush's popularity is at an all time low here in the US it would appear he is rated even worse across other nations of the world. During Bush's recent overseas tour over 100,000 people turned out to protest Bush at one Iraqi war demonstration in England, our closest ally.
This is not good, yet our democracy is a hope factor for the world. Brits evidently count on on us to lead the way and hold the line for freedom per reports from abroad. One columnist advocate has said:
" George Bush is on his way out. He as an individual is not that significant but it's what he represents.
Whoever replaces him in the US is going to carry on with the same policy. They're preparing to install themselves in Iraq semi-permanently. It's turning Iraq into a colony while thousands of people continue to die.'"
Concurring or not with that sentiment there is more than a few overseas voices with similar sentiments.
To be the aggressor in the Iraqi war has been a betrayal not only in the US, where this was in no way a democratic choice, but now has put our president and our country's presence in the world in ill regard. The 100,000 to 200,000 protesters in London indicates a considerable dissenting voice. That is just in one city, in one country.
On the other hand it came to my attention when I observed a British editor friend of mine avidly following the Ron Paul campaign. John Mappin, owner of The Independent chain of papers wrote a song in support of Dr. Paul's campaign efforts. For some time this event monopolized the Google searches with numerous mostly foreign press feeds. Fascinated by this I did some looking around and discovered that the campaign of Ron Paul was indeed being watched by the world in hopes that he would win and some of the freedom would return to their shores.
Holding high the torch for freedom is not just an American phenomena. It is the hope and trust for the world. I surely hope we don't let them down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
