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

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.

One Who Would Serve

by Robert L. Gisel


Being in a position of service only gives one the right to serve. As a poilitician is a civil servant it would stand to reason he is one who serves the people who elected him. Herein lies the failure of American statesmanship and our world diplomatic personality.

If the point of Lions for Lambs was too cryptic it was not missed by outspoken people like Naomi Kline, Brian Michels and Charley Sheen. The Republican niche group of neoconservatives would turn all political action into a super-capitalism money making proposition. The implementation of this into reality in our government translates into yet another form of fascism.

Only one candidate today has the courage to stand apart from the self-serving aims of the neoconservatives. Ron Paul has consistently held his ground in stating his views of how the people would best be served without the hackneyed spin of the money mongers.

The way the press slant colors the presidential campaign it would seem that McCain is the chosen one to carry the banner for the neocons agenda launched by the first Bush administration of which the current president is just carrying the ball of the father's legacy.

When you are attacked and you have to go to war you get in and get it over with quickly. You don't drag it out for 6 years. Making the maximum amount of profits for the longest possible time - that's what corporations do. It is not what armies do. Restore freedom and let the people get on with it.

Unless profits is what you had in mind in the first place.

Is there anything worse in store for our great country than money-grubbing civil servants? Money motivation for an elected politician is not only highly immoral it can be downright illegal.

The hallmark of the neoconservative is an extreme favoritism of the "haves and have-mores" as the President put it. This while he struts his pearls in defense of war to prove he has the cajoles macho enough to be a president. My appologies to Clinton for the male analogy but then isn't she putting this forth as well as the American woman who would ignore her husband's blatant infidelities that were even the subject of impeachment hearings. She would have to, it would seem, have some condoning agreement with the "men will be men" or some sort of psyche-based false datums justifying Mr. Clinton's out-ethics.

Clinton has stated some views as if she would strike out on her own politic but her overall campaign has changed regularly with the sway of the polls. One gets the idea she would sadly only be party to the temptations of compromising neoconservative special interest groups.

Obama comes across on a cursory view as one who would take up the call of serving the people. However when an attack was launched against him questioning if he was a Muslim and whether he was in the wrong camp he broke into a tirade in defense of America with a voice that smacked of strained justification and weak relinquishment of his own integrity in support of the neoconservatives. One doesn't get reassurance Obama would be steadfast in serving the people and the constitutional oath of the presidency when faced with pressures brought to bear by greedy politicians.

You can definitely follow a consistency by Ron Paul who is openly outspoken in his platform and steadfastly stands by the constitution, rights and freedoms. Even when he took a hit where a racist article had in the past been erroneously posted in his name he took responsibility for that, simply re-stated that he is not a racist and did not get pulled down into the petty game of low blow politics.

This truely exhibits a Jeffersonian beingness that this country would do well by during these times that try men's souls with daily assaults on the foundation that made this country great.

It is not my intention to throw my hand into the political counter plays of the presidential campaign. On the contrary it is a broader view when one reads the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, steps back, views the problems of our sovereign country and sees how this Declaration pronounces a common thread of all mankind.

If this were understood and fully embraced in our diplomatic stance in the world we would not now be embroiled in a war in Iraq that appears we cannot walk away from, shades of Vietnam, that compromises us in the world community and illustrates our country as the new world bully.

The trillion dollars spent on the war in Iraq is evidence enough this is about money. That Saddam Husain was a tyrannical psychotic totalitarian dictator is undeniable. Bringing him to justice for his crimes against humanity did not require a trillion dollar bill and the lives of non-combatant men, women and children. It is too painfully obvious that the best interests of the humanity in Iraq was no consideration in the decision to take up arms against that nation.

If we really were out to rid the world of a mad dictator who truely deserved to be hanged for his crimes against humanity the feat of bringing Saddam Husain to justice could have been accomplished in diplomatic policing choices available on probably less than 1/100,000 the trillion dollar bill for the Iraq war. No, it is about money and using the body politic to grab for oneself as much as possible.

There are always choices in diplomacy and statesmanship. It is the intention that makes the difference - is it for the greatest good of all or is it an evil and secretive desire to line one's own pockets.

While the neoconservatives are out glorifying this war it has gone unnoticed that the the guiding principle of inalienable rights held by all mankind does offer up viable solutions and highlight those would be politicians who chose to ignore these principles to serve themselves, the neoconservatives, and who would blatantly ignore the truth that the presidential oath of office is really about serving the people.

One man would genuinely and honestly serve the people. Ron Paul deserves a lot more attention and support in the ongoing presidential election.


Here is a link containing Public Service Announcements of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
http://youthforhumanrights.org/watchads/index.html