I must admit, I am seriously disappointed with Barack Obama, and honestly, his actions now are too little, too late. We are expected to believe that over the course of twenty years he did not notice how far out the Reverend Wright was? Even if accepted at face value, what does this say about his judgement?
I am also saddened, as I honestly liked Barack...he seemed...genuine, now I am not sure what to think. I am left feeling he is either disingenuous, or a fool. The kind of radical statements that the Rev. Wright made are the kind of statements most people notice. If my pastor stood up in church and said that the US government was responsible for the AIDS epidemic... I think that kind of would get noticed. Honestly, I think if he stated that 'our chickens and come home to roost' he would have been stoned, well maybe not that extreme, but there would have certainly been significantly fewer members of the congregation the following Sunday.
So what are we left to think? That Barack honestly didn't notice any of this? or that he either agreed, or chose to ignore it. It is not like this can be chalked up to the eccentricities of a beloved uncle, oh...don't mind him... he's harmless, we have decided to find his behavior amusing. This behavior is so repugnant I am having great difficulty even extending the courtesy to Mr Wright of addressing him as Reverend. Barack stated that "the person he saw [Monday] was not the person that I had come to know over 2o years", what... the 'good' Reverend has just suddenly and completely gone nuts?
Obama maintained he had never heard these types of statements as a parishioner, but long term supporters of Wright said this was no different than what parishioners heard in church. Is Mr. Obama deaf? Or was he just sleeping through the sermon? Suddenly Barack is using adjectives like "appalling," "ridiculous," "outrageous," "insensitive," "destructive" and "divisive" about the man who officiated at his wedding, baptised his children, and prayed with his family.
Could he have been so duped? Are we to believe that Mr. Wright never mentioned these things when Obama was around? That even if these things were never said in his presence, he never heard anything about it from his fellow parishioners?
I'm sorry, I had actually thought that Barack Obama was a different kind of politician, but I can not in good conscience vote for a man who can not tell Wright from wrong.
~Finntann~
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
A European Perspective
For those of you of a technical bent... check out:
http://www.codesqueeze.com/forced-to-write-english-syntax-code-simplicity-or-burden/#comment-1816
Quite a humorous, and presumably 'tongue-in-cheek' perspective on the English language in the world community.
http://www.codesqueeze.com/forced-to-write-english-syntax-code-simplicity-or-burden/#comment-1816
Quite a humorous, and presumably 'tongue-in-cheek' perspective on the English language in the world community.
In Support of Iraq
First let me point out that "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" Passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and the Senate by a vote of 77-23.
The Spratt Amendment requiring UN Security council approval and the return to Congress for final authorization was defeated 155-270
The Lee Amendment requiring work through the UN for a peaceful resolution was defeated 72-355
The Byrd Amendment affirming that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq was defeated 14-86
The Levin Amendment requiring a UN Security council resolution for 'immediate access' was defeated 24-75
The Durbin Amendment restricting the use of force only to an 'immediate threat' was defeated 30-70
The representatives of the American people supported the use of military force against Iraq. In addition to the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which seems to be the anti-war movements catchphrase, the resolution also identified the following factors:
Non-compliance with the terms of the 1991 cease-fire
Iraq's brutal repression of its civilian population
Iraq's capability and willingness to use WMDs against its own people and other countries (Kurds, Iran)
Iraq's hostility towards the United States
The Iraq Liberation Act, calling for regime change... signed into law by President Clinton.
and so on, and so forth.
That having been said, and taking no position for or against the invasion of Iraq other than to reiterate what America's representatives voted for, let me posit the position that a unilateral withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would be a war crime.
Having, through military action, toppled the existing government of Iraq it becomes incumbent upon the invading power to ensure civil stability in the nation conquered.
I am not opposed to a withdrawal from Iraq based upon rational, measurable criteria, but a knee-jerk unilateral abandonment of the new democratically elected government of Iraq without ensuring that they have the means to ensure stability could well evolve into a crime of immeasurable proportions. Imagine, if you would, Darfur... with the US as the root cause of the problem.
Many will argue that this is not 'our' problem, that if they want to kill themselves off in a sectarian orgy of bloodshed who are we to interfere. There is also the argument that they are not worth one American life, why should 'our' boys and girls die in defense of a foreign land.
The 'why' comes back to House Joint Resolution 114, which became Public Law 107-243. Our representatives, whether you like it or not, authorized it, our military executed the operation, and our government is responsible for the results, for at least the forseeable future. I urge all of you who advocate a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq to seriously reconsider the repercussions of such an act, and ask yourselves if you are willing to accept responsiblity for them.
While I would be overjoyed to find the Iraqis standing on their own two feet and seeing the planned draw down of American forces take place leaving a peaceful and democratic Iraq in their stead, I would find a chaotic, explosive, and genocidal aftermath unconscionable.
The recent 'American' penchant for disavowing all personal responsibility is disheartening. "It wasn't my fault I knocked over that liquor store... my parents failed me, I came from a broken home, I was picked on at school, and I couldn't find a job" Seems to be what the great spirt of American individualism has devolved to. Don't let the common banality of shirking personal responsibility become the policy of the United States in world affairs.
The American occupation of Germany in WWII lasted for 10 years and the occupation of Japan lasted 7, officially Berlin was occupied until October of 1990. While formal hostilities ended in 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority did not turn over power to an 'Iraqi' government until 2005. We stand now, three and a half years from the establishment of an Iraqi government asking how long should 'occupation' forces remain? My how American patience has waned over the years.
Let us leave in the middle east a groundwork similar to post WWII Europe and not post WWI !
I for one, when we are done there, wish to be done... not back in another twenty years.
~Finntann~
The Spratt Amendment requiring UN Security council approval and the return to Congress for final authorization was defeated 155-270
The Lee Amendment requiring work through the UN for a peaceful resolution was defeated 72-355
The Byrd Amendment affirming that no additional constitutional authority was being ceded to the President outside of that necessary to deal with the threat posed by Iraq was defeated 14-86
The Levin Amendment requiring a UN Security council resolution for 'immediate access' was defeated 24-75
The Durbin Amendment restricting the use of force only to an 'immediate threat' was defeated 30-70
The representatives of the American people supported the use of military force against Iraq. In addition to the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which seems to be the anti-war movements catchphrase, the resolution also identified the following factors:
Non-compliance with the terms of the 1991 cease-fire
Iraq's brutal repression of its civilian population
Iraq's capability and willingness to use WMDs against its own people and other countries (Kurds, Iran)
Iraq's hostility towards the United States
The Iraq Liberation Act, calling for regime change... signed into law by President Clinton.
and so on, and so forth.
That having been said, and taking no position for or against the invasion of Iraq other than to reiterate what America's representatives voted for, let me posit the position that a unilateral withdrawal of US forces from Iraq would be a war crime.
Having, through military action, toppled the existing government of Iraq it becomes incumbent upon the invading power to ensure civil stability in the nation conquered.
I am not opposed to a withdrawal from Iraq based upon rational, measurable criteria, but a knee-jerk unilateral abandonment of the new democratically elected government of Iraq without ensuring that they have the means to ensure stability could well evolve into a crime of immeasurable proportions. Imagine, if you would, Darfur... with the US as the root cause of the problem.
Many will argue that this is not 'our' problem, that if they want to kill themselves off in a sectarian orgy of bloodshed who are we to interfere. There is also the argument that they are not worth one American life, why should 'our' boys and girls die in defense of a foreign land.
The 'why' comes back to House Joint Resolution 114, which became Public Law 107-243. Our representatives, whether you like it or not, authorized it, our military executed the operation, and our government is responsible for the results, for at least the forseeable future. I urge all of you who advocate a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq to seriously reconsider the repercussions of such an act, and ask yourselves if you are willing to accept responsiblity for them.
While I would be overjoyed to find the Iraqis standing on their own two feet and seeing the planned draw down of American forces take place leaving a peaceful and democratic Iraq in their stead, I would find a chaotic, explosive, and genocidal aftermath unconscionable.
The recent 'American' penchant for disavowing all personal responsibility is disheartening. "It wasn't my fault I knocked over that liquor store... my parents failed me, I came from a broken home, I was picked on at school, and I couldn't find a job" Seems to be what the great spirt of American individualism has devolved to. Don't let the common banality of shirking personal responsibility become the policy of the United States in world affairs.
The American occupation of Germany in WWII lasted for 10 years and the occupation of Japan lasted 7, officially Berlin was occupied until October of 1990. While formal hostilities ended in 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority did not turn over power to an 'Iraqi' government until 2005. We stand now, three and a half years from the establishment of an Iraqi government asking how long should 'occupation' forces remain? My how American patience has waned over the years.
Let us leave in the middle east a groundwork similar to post WWII Europe and not post WWI !
I for one, when we are done there, wish to be done... not back in another twenty years.
~Finntann~
Monday, April 28, 2008
Army harrasses Atheists ???
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/atheist-claims-harassment-in-military/20080428092709990001?icid=100214839x1200945981x1200035546
Army Spc Jeremy Hall is suing the Army over alleged harassment.
Spc. Hall was raised a Protestant, but became an atheist while in the Army, although he was concerned what other soldiers would think of him.
According to Hall, the matter came to a head when a superior officer threatened to bring charges against him for organizing a meeting of atheists. I find this very difficult to believe, not that charges were not threatened, but that they would be for this specific offense, nor can I readily believe that religion or the lack thereof was the motivation.
Now, not having been in the Army I won't call him a liar, but having just finished serving 24 years in the Air Force I must say that I am skeptical. I have never, in my entire career, ever experienced anything like what Spc Hall alleges in the article. I have worked with Christians, Jews, Muslims, a couple of Wiccans, and one new-age crystal kind of person (not sure what she was)... and a lot of agnostics and quite few atheists too.
While I have seen invocations and benedictions performed during ceremonies, usually retirement ceremonies or changes of command, I presume at the request of the participants, as I have seen them performed without them. They have predominantly been vaguely spiritual, tough to pin down as any specific denomination, although I have heard the occasional reference to Christ.
I have never seen religion brought up in any other official capacity. I have never been asked what my specific beliefs were by my chain of command, and any discussion of religion has always been incidental to conversation among co-workers. I did have one superior, NOT supervisor, who was predisposed to proselytizing a 'born-again' faith, but she was looked at as the 'oddity' and not the other way around. She was good natured about it, never mean or disparaging to anyone who challenged her beliefs, would leave you alone if asked, and while her behavior was recognized as 'inappropriate' by most, she was tolerated as anyone else was.
I have, during the course of my Air Force career, worked closely with the Army being stationed on one Army base and one joint base. Never, have I witnessed any institutionalized religious bias at all, and I find it highly unlikely that there is any. I have worked with a few religious high ranking officers and have never felt any pressure or compunction to profess my faith or to convert to one. Religion has always been incidental to my career, as I am sure it is in any career, and never a part of it.
While I will not dispute the possibility, in a small unit, of an inappropriate inclusion of religion by any specific commander, officer, or senior NCO, yet I can't say I would find the term 'institutional' accurate in any way. That he was quite possibly harassed by his fellow soldiers I can believe, although personally I would doubt that his religious beliefs were the underlying motive, that he claims 'he feared for his life', I find to be extreme.
Keep in mind I have never been in the Army, so I can't speak personally on their specifics, but to claim that this is an institutional bias in the Department of Defense I find highly unlikely. The only times I have routinely seen chaplains, outside of the chapel, is when they have changed, and once when a coworker was killed in an automobile accident; and all he did was let people know that he was available if anyone wanted someone to talk to.
Overall I'd have to say that religion was pretty much irrelevant in my professional career, neither here nor there, but just somewhere in the background (as it should be), it would occasionally come up, usually in conversation about news articles like this.
~Finntann~
Army Spc Jeremy Hall is suing the Army over alleged harassment.
Spc. Hall was raised a Protestant, but became an atheist while in the Army, although he was concerned what other soldiers would think of him.
According to Hall, the matter came to a head when a superior officer threatened to bring charges against him for organizing a meeting of atheists. I find this very difficult to believe, not that charges were not threatened, but that they would be for this specific offense, nor can I readily believe that religion or the lack thereof was the motivation.
Now, not having been in the Army I won't call him a liar, but having just finished serving 24 years in the Air Force I must say that I am skeptical. I have never, in my entire career, ever experienced anything like what Spc Hall alleges in the article. I have worked with Christians, Jews, Muslims, a couple of Wiccans, and one new-age crystal kind of person (not sure what she was)... and a lot of agnostics and quite few atheists too.
While I have seen invocations and benedictions performed during ceremonies, usually retirement ceremonies or changes of command, I presume at the request of the participants, as I have seen them performed without them. They have predominantly been vaguely spiritual, tough to pin down as any specific denomination, although I have heard the occasional reference to Christ.
I have never seen religion brought up in any other official capacity. I have never been asked what my specific beliefs were by my chain of command, and any discussion of religion has always been incidental to conversation among co-workers. I did have one superior, NOT supervisor, who was predisposed to proselytizing a 'born-again' faith, but she was looked at as the 'oddity' and not the other way around. She was good natured about it, never mean or disparaging to anyone who challenged her beliefs, would leave you alone if asked, and while her behavior was recognized as 'inappropriate' by most, she was tolerated as anyone else was.
I have, during the course of my Air Force career, worked closely with the Army being stationed on one Army base and one joint base. Never, have I witnessed any institutionalized religious bias at all, and I find it highly unlikely that there is any. I have worked with a few religious high ranking officers and have never felt any pressure or compunction to profess my faith or to convert to one. Religion has always been incidental to my career, as I am sure it is in any career, and never a part of it.
While I will not dispute the possibility, in a small unit, of an inappropriate inclusion of religion by any specific commander, officer, or senior NCO, yet I can't say I would find the term 'institutional' accurate in any way. That he was quite possibly harassed by his fellow soldiers I can believe, although personally I would doubt that his religious beliefs were the underlying motive, that he claims 'he feared for his life', I find to be extreme.
Keep in mind I have never been in the Army, so I can't speak personally on their specifics, but to claim that this is an institutional bias in the Department of Defense I find highly unlikely. The only times I have routinely seen chaplains, outside of the chapel, is when they have changed, and once when a coworker was killed in an automobile accident; and all he did was let people know that he was available if anyone wanted someone to talk to.
Overall I'd have to say that religion was pretty much irrelevant in my professional career, neither here nor there, but just somewhere in the background (as it should be), it would occasionally come up, usually in conversation about news articles like this.
~Finntann~
Friday, April 25, 2008
America is not the gift basket of the world!
Food crisis sends Haitian boat people to US. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24272407/
It is hard not to have compassion towards those who are suffering, yet one must ask when does it stop? We do not have unlimited resources, unlimited services, unlimited jobs, and unlimited money. With every illegal migrant the overall standard of living for each American declines a tiny bit. Each case taken individually is insignificant, it is in the totality of the problem that the numbers and effects add up.
"I will leave with the next boat going to Miami because I can no longer resist this hunger, I have four children and I don't have a job and everything is expensive, even for those who are working," Marcel Jonassaint said. "So what do you want me to do?"
I don't know what to tell you Marcel, other than you're not our problem, stay in your own country. What am I supposed to do? Give you a job? Give you a job that could have went to an American or a legal immigrant? Provide you with housing? Medical care? America is not the gift basket of the world. America is also not the answer to your problems, nor is it the cause of them. We are not responsible for your government's mismanagement of your country, its economy and its resources.
"It is clear that more boat people have been leaving the country and you should expect even more if they cannot find an alternative," said Pierre, director for the country's national migration office , who urged the government and the international community to set up programs to ease the plight of the poorest and most vulnerable.
Excuse me? I got news for you Pierre...you're part of the government... do something. While the international community and America are fairly compassionate and generous, the plight of your poor and vulnerable rests at your feet, not ours. I am sure there will be aid, the question is what will you do with it? How much of it will reach the poor and vulnerable? How much will line the pockets of corrupt politicians? The answer Pierre is not to beg, but to stand up, be recognized, and fix your own problems.
Human rights activist Renan Hedouville said Haitians are leaving because the government and the rest of the world have turned a blind eye to the hungry. "The universal right to have access to food has been neglected and denied to so many people," Hedouville said. "That's why people in desperate straits are taking to the sea, risking their lives and seeking a solution which is not really one."
The universal right to have access to food? What, my food? Don't you have land in Haiti? According to one source 28% of your land is arable, yet only 11% is under cultivation. We produce our own food here in the US and export the excess. Your labor did not produce it, yet you believe you have an entitlement to it? Your country has been identified as one of the most corrupt in the world, on a list of 179 countries, you are fourth from the bottom. It is not our fault that your people don't have access to food... look no further than the mirror to find the culprit.
Believe me, the generosity of America will send you food... what we do not need to do is send you an open invitation to eat at our table. We already provide you aid. Between 1985 and 2003 we gave you $850 million. In 2004 we gave you $435 Million, in 2006 we gave you another $200 Million, in fact, the US is Haiti's largest donor, with another $128 million slated for this year. How many billions of dollars do we need to send? We hand out almost $30 Billion in aid each year, and that is just our government.
Another $3.4 Billion gets handed out by US based foundations, $4.9 Billion from US business, $5.7 Billion from private and volunteer organizations (and another $4 Billion in time alone), $1.7 Billion in scholarships to foreign students, $4.5 Billion from religious organizations, and collectively, out of the goodness of their hearts, another $47 Billion comes out of the pockets of American citizens in the form of remittances.
http://gpr.hudson.org/files/publications/GlobalPhilanthropy.pdf
Over the last 50 years, the West has given $2.7 Trillion dollars to developing countries. Don't talk to us about a 'blind eye', it is time for you to stand up and set your own house in order instead of blaming everyone else... that is the root cause of your difficulties. Not too many people are going to Haiti on vacation, and why is that? Is it the violent armed gangs that roam your streets? The rampant crime? The complete and utter deforestation of your island? I suppose you cut down all but 2% of the trees to manufacture charcoal because we didn't give you enough fuel.
America gives and gives and gives, and more often than not it is throwing good money after bad. It's funny... do a search on the Internet for US aid, I think you'll find it flowing rather one sided. America is accused of being a bully on the world stage, when was the last time you were beat up in the school yard and forced to accept someones lunch money? America is accused of being an imperial power, sometimes I wish we were... it would certainly be cheaper.
~Finntann~
It is hard not to have compassion towards those who are suffering, yet one must ask when does it stop? We do not have unlimited resources, unlimited services, unlimited jobs, and unlimited money. With every illegal migrant the overall standard of living for each American declines a tiny bit. Each case taken individually is insignificant, it is in the totality of the problem that the numbers and effects add up.
"I will leave with the next boat going to Miami because I can no longer resist this hunger, I have four children and I don't have a job and everything is expensive, even for those who are working," Marcel Jonassaint said. "So what do you want me to do?"
I don't know what to tell you Marcel, other than you're not our problem, stay in your own country. What am I supposed to do? Give you a job? Give you a job that could have went to an American or a legal immigrant? Provide you with housing? Medical care? America is not the gift basket of the world. America is also not the answer to your problems, nor is it the cause of them. We are not responsible for your government's mismanagement of your country, its economy and its resources.
"It is clear that more boat people have been leaving the country and you should expect even more if they cannot find an alternative," said Pierre, director for the country's national migration office , who urged the government and the international community to set up programs to ease the plight of the poorest and most vulnerable.
Excuse me? I got news for you Pierre...you're part of the government... do something. While the international community and America are fairly compassionate and generous, the plight of your poor and vulnerable rests at your feet, not ours. I am sure there will be aid, the question is what will you do with it? How much of it will reach the poor and vulnerable? How much will line the pockets of corrupt politicians? The answer Pierre is not to beg, but to stand up, be recognized, and fix your own problems.
Human rights activist Renan Hedouville said Haitians are leaving because the government and the rest of the world have turned a blind eye to the hungry. "The universal right to have access to food has been neglected and denied to so many people," Hedouville said. "That's why people in desperate straits are taking to the sea, risking their lives and seeking a solution which is not really one."
The universal right to have access to food? What, my food? Don't you have land in Haiti? According to one source 28% of your land is arable, yet only 11% is under cultivation. We produce our own food here in the US and export the excess. Your labor did not produce it, yet you believe you have an entitlement to it? Your country has been identified as one of the most corrupt in the world, on a list of 179 countries, you are fourth from the bottom. It is not our fault that your people don't have access to food... look no further than the mirror to find the culprit.
Believe me, the generosity of America will send you food... what we do not need to do is send you an open invitation to eat at our table. We already provide you aid. Between 1985 and 2003 we gave you $850 million. In 2004 we gave you $435 Million, in 2006 we gave you another $200 Million, in fact, the US is Haiti's largest donor, with another $128 million slated for this year. How many billions of dollars do we need to send? We hand out almost $30 Billion in aid each year, and that is just our government.
Another $3.4 Billion gets handed out by US based foundations, $4.9 Billion from US business, $5.7 Billion from private and volunteer organizations (and another $4 Billion in time alone), $1.7 Billion in scholarships to foreign students, $4.5 Billion from religious organizations, and collectively, out of the goodness of their hearts, another $47 Billion comes out of the pockets of American citizens in the form of remittances.
http://gpr.hudson.org/files/publications/GlobalPhilanthropy.pdf
Over the last 50 years, the West has given $2.7 Trillion dollars to developing countries. Don't talk to us about a 'blind eye', it is time for you to stand up and set your own house in order instead of blaming everyone else... that is the root cause of your difficulties. Not too many people are going to Haiti on vacation, and why is that? Is it the violent armed gangs that roam your streets? The rampant crime? The complete and utter deforestation of your island? I suppose you cut down all but 2% of the trees to manufacture charcoal because we didn't give you enough fuel.
America gives and gives and gives, and more often than not it is throwing good money after bad. It's funny... do a search on the Internet for US aid, I think you'll find it flowing rather one sided. America is accused of being a bully on the world stage, when was the last time you were beat up in the school yard and forced to accept someones lunch money? America is accused of being an imperial power, sometimes I wish we were... it would certainly be cheaper.
~Finntann~
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Rozita! What? No Caller ID?
Any excuse will do!
Another interesting development in the Texas polygamy case:
According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, a phone number linked to a Colorado Springs woman was used to make calls to a Texas crisis hot line in the days leading up to a raid on a polygamist compound in Texas, records show. According to newly released court documents, Texas Rangers tracked the number to Rozita E. Swinton last week before traveling to Colorado Springs to interview her as part of their investigation into the April 4 raid at the Yearning for Zion ranch near Eldorado, Texas.
So, let's see if I understand this... you're sitting at your desk, fuming about the evil polygamists living down the street and the phone rings. A sobbing young woman begins to relate a horrid tale of rape and abuse. Action must be taken, bring in the sheriff and FBI, bring in the armored personnel carriers... RAID THE COMPOUND!!! Caller ID? What Caller ID?
What is with these people and how stupid do they think we are? Apparently they think we are pretty stupid, and we in our ignorance far exceed their expectations.
According to the Springs arrest affidavit, Texas Rangers determined the same phone that police in Colorado Springs linked to the Feb. 26 call had also been used to make false distress calls to the New-Bridge Family Shelter in San Angelo, Texas, on March 29 and March 30. In those calls, authorities allege, Swinton claimed to be a teenage girl named Sarah Barlow - the third wife of a 49-year-old man at the polygamist ranch. Read the whole story here:
http://www.gazette.com/articles/swinton_35580___article.html/calls_colorado.html
If I pick up my phone, dial 911 and hang up, the police will show up at my door, and I live so far out in the country I don't even get cell phone service. It is inconceivable that the Texas authorities did not know that the phone call was fraudulent and coming from out of state, and if they didn't they are completely and utterly incompetent. This woman would call and talk for hours...not minutes, more than ample time for the authorities if they so desired, to trace the call (which I will agree they had probable cause to do). Even if she was calling from a cell phone they could determine that it wasn't originating locally, as she would be on a cell tower in Colorado Springs, not in Texas.
The Texas authorities, without a doubt, were simply waiting for an excuse to raid this ranch. I would venture that in their desire 'to get in there', they acted in bad faith, if they did not know that the calls were fraudulent it was out of a desire not to know, a sin of omission so to speak, and trampled the constitution underfoot to do so. As much as the alleged behavior of the polygamists disgusts me, the actions of the authorities in Texas disgusts me just as much if not more. At least theoretically, the polygamists are acting on their beliefs and their faith... what's the state of Texas' excuse?
For those who find the FLDS practices and beliefs repulsive, consider that when they moved to Texas in 2003 the state's law allowed 14 year olds to marry with parental consent. That law wasn't amended until September 1, 2005 when the age was raised to 16. At least according to Texas Law:
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.001.00.000002.00.htm
I hear a number of people decrying the fact of married and pregnant 16 year olds... which unfortunately under Texas law is utterly and completely LEGAL! Looking at Texas law, theoretically, if a girl turned 14 on August 31st 2005 she could have been legally married on that day with parental consent. Still 14, she could have had her first child in May of 2006, her second child in February of 2007 at age 15, her third child in November 2007, and be five months pregnant today at age 16 years eight months. As repugnant this scenario is to most of us, it is still legal under Texas law (I'm not a lawyer, but I presume people married under the old law prior to their 16th birthday would fall under some sort of 'grandfather' clause).
So now the state of Texas is about to put 416 children into foster care, which one might rationally argue is an act of abuse in and of itself. Not only are these children being put into foster care, but I would wager that it will not be up to the same moral standards (polygamy issues aside) that they were raised under.
Setting aside their belief in polygamy and marriage at a young age, what do these people profess a faith in? A devout and worshipful life, hard work, a belief that modern society is corrupt? No TV, No Internet, Wives subservient to their husbands? Husbands subservient to the church? Children mindful and obedient? In other words a fundamentalist lifestyle? What riles us up more? Their polygamist belief system or the fact that they turn their backs on the rest of us as morally corrupt sinners? What does it say about us that the legal age of consent in Texas is 17 and marriage 18? We can have sex at 17 without our parents consent but we can't marry until 18 without it? We can make the rational decision to marry three years before we can make the rational decision to drink? We are wise enough to make decisions about sex, but not about politics at 17? Our laws are a conflicting hodgepodge of irrational and illogical boundaries. Why can't we all just get together and settle on an age at which someone is an adult? 18? 21? Heck... I'm sure the good state of Texas doesn't have any problems trying 14 year olds charged with murder as adults, seems like we kind of want our cake and want to eat it too!
~Finntann~
Another interesting development in the Texas polygamy case:
According to the Colorado Springs Gazette, a phone number linked to a Colorado Springs woman was used to make calls to a Texas crisis hot line in the days leading up to a raid on a polygamist compound in Texas, records show. According to newly released court documents, Texas Rangers tracked the number to Rozita E. Swinton last week before traveling to Colorado Springs to interview her as part of their investigation into the April 4 raid at the Yearning for Zion ranch near Eldorado, Texas.
So, let's see if I understand this... you're sitting at your desk, fuming about the evil polygamists living down the street and the phone rings. A sobbing young woman begins to relate a horrid tale of rape and abuse. Action must be taken, bring in the sheriff and FBI, bring in the armored personnel carriers... RAID THE COMPOUND!!! Caller ID? What Caller ID?
What is with these people and how stupid do they think we are? Apparently they think we are pretty stupid, and we in our ignorance far exceed their expectations.
According to the Springs arrest affidavit, Texas Rangers determined the same phone that police in Colorado Springs linked to the Feb. 26 call had also been used to make false distress calls to the New-Bridge Family Shelter in San Angelo, Texas, on March 29 and March 30. In those calls, authorities allege, Swinton claimed to be a teenage girl named Sarah Barlow - the third wife of a 49-year-old man at the polygamist ranch. Read the whole story here:
http://www.gazette.com/articles/swinton_35580___article.html/calls_colorado.html
If I pick up my phone, dial 911 and hang up, the police will show up at my door, and I live so far out in the country I don't even get cell phone service. It is inconceivable that the Texas authorities did not know that the phone call was fraudulent and coming from out of state, and if they didn't they are completely and utterly incompetent. This woman would call and talk for hours...not minutes, more than ample time for the authorities if they so desired, to trace the call (which I will agree they had probable cause to do). Even if she was calling from a cell phone they could determine that it wasn't originating locally, as she would be on a cell tower in Colorado Springs, not in Texas.
The Texas authorities, without a doubt, were simply waiting for an excuse to raid this ranch. I would venture that in their desire 'to get in there', they acted in bad faith, if they did not know that the calls were fraudulent it was out of a desire not to know, a sin of omission so to speak, and trampled the constitution underfoot to do so. As much as the alleged behavior of the polygamists disgusts me, the actions of the authorities in Texas disgusts me just as much if not more. At least theoretically, the polygamists are acting on their beliefs and their faith... what's the state of Texas' excuse?
For those who find the FLDS practices and beliefs repulsive, consider that when they moved to Texas in 2003 the state's law allowed 14 year olds to marry with parental consent. That law wasn't amended until September 1, 2005 when the age was raised to 16. At least according to Texas Law:
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.001.00.000002.00.htm
I hear a number of people decrying the fact of married and pregnant 16 year olds... which unfortunately under Texas law is utterly and completely LEGAL! Looking at Texas law, theoretically, if a girl turned 14 on August 31st 2005 she could have been legally married on that day with parental consent. Still 14, she could have had her first child in May of 2006, her second child in February of 2007 at age 15, her third child in November 2007, and be five months pregnant today at age 16 years eight months. As repugnant this scenario is to most of us, it is still legal under Texas law (I'm not a lawyer, but I presume people married under the old law prior to their 16th birthday would fall under some sort of 'grandfather' clause).
So now the state of Texas is about to put 416 children into foster care, which one might rationally argue is an act of abuse in and of itself. Not only are these children being put into foster care, but I would wager that it will not be up to the same moral standards (polygamy issues aside) that they were raised under.
Setting aside their belief in polygamy and marriage at a young age, what do these people profess a faith in? A devout and worshipful life, hard work, a belief that modern society is corrupt? No TV, No Internet, Wives subservient to their husbands? Husbands subservient to the church? Children mindful and obedient? In other words a fundamentalist lifestyle? What riles us up more? Their polygamist belief system or the fact that they turn their backs on the rest of us as morally corrupt sinners? What does it say about us that the legal age of consent in Texas is 17 and marriage 18? We can have sex at 17 without our parents consent but we can't marry until 18 without it? We can make the rational decision to marry three years before we can make the rational decision to drink? We are wise enough to make decisions about sex, but not about politics at 17? Our laws are a conflicting hodgepodge of irrational and illogical boundaries. Why can't we all just get together and settle on an age at which someone is an adult? 18? 21? Heck... I'm sure the good state of Texas doesn't have any problems trying 14 year olds charged with murder as adults, seems like we kind of want our cake and want to eat it too!
~Finntann~
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
New Math: Clinton, Obama both ahead
Both Clinton and Obama claim being ahead following the Pennsylvania primary. I suppose one can chalk it up to 'new math'. Two plus two equals five after all! Now matter how you add it up, one things for sure... I'm getting sick and tired of it all as this race drags on, and on, and on, and on, and on...
Seriously though, out of all this... who do I put ahead? Why John McCain of course. As the song goes... 'nothing could be finer than to be in Carolina....'
As Clinton and Obama duel, the only one unscathed is McCain... the guy holding the pistols, as he undoubtedly is sitting on the sidelines laughing his ### off.
Heck, he doesn't even need to run commercials, as his staff couldn't possibly be coming up with better stuff to use against Clinton and Obama than their own campaigns are providing. Even better, as the two candidates slash each other, McCain walks scott free of any of the negativity the voters feel to all this hacking.
Keep it up, drag it out... nothing could be better for Republicans than this Democratic run-off, neck to neck, down to the wire, watch from the bleachers as the Democratic Party self-destructs.
How negative will it go? Only time will tell, the question is will they ever recover from it.
~Finntann~
Seriously though, out of all this... who do I put ahead? Why John McCain of course. As the song goes... 'nothing could be finer than to be in Carolina....'
As Clinton and Obama duel, the only one unscathed is McCain... the guy holding the pistols, as he undoubtedly is sitting on the sidelines laughing his ### off.
Heck, he doesn't even need to run commercials, as his staff couldn't possibly be coming up with better stuff to use against Clinton and Obama than their own campaigns are providing. Even better, as the two candidates slash each other, McCain walks scott free of any of the negativity the voters feel to all this hacking.
Keep it up, drag it out... nothing could be better for Republicans than this Democratic run-off, neck to neck, down to the wire, watch from the bleachers as the Democratic Party self-destructs.
How negative will it go? Only time will tell, the question is will they ever recover from it.
~Finntann~
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Immigration
In researching this subject I have discovered that dependent upon the source, numbers and estimates vary wildly, generally dependent upon the source's point of view. So in the interest of neutrality I will simply rely upon the figures published by the Department of Homeland Security, numbers that are fairly close to those published by the Pew Hispanic Center.
In researching this subject a quote of Mark Twain's comes to mind:
Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
Given no universally acceptable source, the DHS will have to do.
In 2007, according to the DHS 1,052,415 persons became legal permanent residents (LPR) of the United States, generally since 2000 the number of illegal residents arriving per year has been averaging around 1,380,000.
As of January 2006 the estimate of legal immigrants (LPRs) was 12.1 million
In 2006 roughly 33.7 million I-94 visitors were admitted (The I-94 form is required for entry into the United States for non-immigrants from all countries other than Canada and Mexico.) and an additional 141 million visitors (from Canada and Mexico) were admitted.
For figures on illegal immigration, go here:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ill_pe_2006.pdf
In summary, 11.6 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in 2006, of those, 6.6 million were from Mexico. The estimated margin of error, at a 90% confidence level, is plus or minus 150,000.
The unauthorized resident immigrant population is defined as all foreign-born non-citizens who are not legal residents. Unauthorized residents refer to foreign-born persons who entered the United States without inspection or were admitted temporarily and stayed past the date they were required to leave.
These people are coming from: Mexico 6,570,000, El Salvador 510,000, Guatemala 430,000, Philippines 280,000, Honduras 280,000, India 270,000, Korea 250,000, Brazil 210,000, China 190,000, Vietnam 160,000, Other Countries 2,410,000
And the top five locations they are living in are: California 2,830,000, Texas 1,640,000, Florida 980,000, Illinois 550,000, New York 540,00
Let us put these numbers into some perspective, the illegal immigrant population of the United States exceeds the populations of each of these countries:
Cuba, Greece, Chad, Portugal, Belgium, Czech Republic, Tunisia, Hungary, Dominican Republic,Rwanda, Belarus, Haiti, Bolivia, Guinea, Sweden, Benin, Somalia, Burundi, Azerbaijan, Austria, Serbia, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Israel, Honduras, El Salvador, Tajikistan, Togo, Papua New Guinea, Libya, Paraguay, Jordan, Sierra Leone, Laos
The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is more than double the population of any of these countries:
Nicaragua, Denmark, Slovakia, Kyrgyzstan, Finland, Turkmenistan, Eritrea, Norway, Singapore, Croatia, Costa Rica, Georgia, United Arab Emirates, Central African Republic, Ireland, New Zealand, Lebanon, Palestinian Territories, Bosnia and Herzegovina
The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is more than triple the population of any of these countries:
Moldova, Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Lithuania, Panama, Uruguay, Albania, Mauritania, Armenia
The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is more than four times the population of any of these countries:
Kuwait, Jamaica, Mongolia, Oman, Latvia, Kosovo, Namibia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Lesotho, Botswana, Gambia, Guinnea-Bissau, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Gabon, Mauritius, East Timor, Swaziland
There are a further 80 countries on this list which is comprised of sovereign states and self-governing dependencies.
If you add the legal and illegal immigrant residents of the United States, you can add the following countries to the list:
Ghana, Taiwan, Yemen, Romania, Mozambique, Australia, Syria, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, Angola, Chile, Netherlands, Kazakhstan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Niger, Malawi, Guatemala, Zimbabwe, Ecuador, Senegal, Mali, Zambia
The complete list of sovereign states and self-governing dependencies contains 222 countries. Of those countries 175 have lower populations than the number of legal and illegal immigrants in the US.
Considering just illegal immigrants, 149 countries have a lower population.
Consider that fact... we could absorb the entire population of any of those countries and the number would be less than the number of illegals we currently have.
The figures for population for sovereign states and self-governing dependencies comes from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Some of you may have a problem with the term illegal immigrant, may I point out that the definition of illegal is 'forbidden by law or statute' and/or 'contrary to or forbidden official rules, regulations, etc.' The term is not used to describe their motives or behavior outside of their immigration status... they are in this country contrary to law or statute, they did not follow the rules to get here.
Just a small dose of perspective
~Finntann~
In researching this subject a quote of Mark Twain's comes to mind:
Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
Given no universally acceptable source, the DHS will have to do.
In 2007, according to the DHS 1,052,415 persons became legal permanent residents (LPR) of the United States, generally since 2000 the number of illegal residents arriving per year has been averaging around 1,380,000.
As of January 2006 the estimate of legal immigrants (LPRs) was 12.1 million
In 2006 roughly 33.7 million I-94 visitors were admitted (The I-94 form is required for entry into the United States for non-immigrants from all countries other than Canada and Mexico.) and an additional 141 million visitors (from Canada and Mexico) were admitted.
For figures on illegal immigration, go here:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ill_pe_2006.pdf
In summary, 11.6 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States in 2006, of those, 6.6 million were from Mexico. The estimated margin of error, at a 90% confidence level, is plus or minus 150,000.
The unauthorized resident immigrant population is defined as all foreign-born non-citizens who are not legal residents. Unauthorized residents refer to foreign-born persons who entered the United States without inspection or were admitted temporarily and stayed past the date they were required to leave.
These people are coming from: Mexico 6,570,000, El Salvador 510,000, Guatemala 430,000, Philippines 280,000, Honduras 280,000, India 270,000, Korea 250,000, Brazil 210,000, China 190,000, Vietnam 160,000, Other Countries 2,410,000
And the top five locations they are living in are: California 2,830,000, Texas 1,640,000, Florida 980,000, Illinois 550,000, New York 540,00
Let us put these numbers into some perspective, the illegal immigrant population of the United States exceeds the populations of each of these countries:
Cuba, Greece, Chad, Portugal, Belgium, Czech Republic, Tunisia, Hungary, Dominican Republic,Rwanda, Belarus, Haiti, Bolivia, Guinea, Sweden, Benin, Somalia, Burundi, Azerbaijan, Austria, Serbia, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Israel, Honduras, El Salvador, Tajikistan, Togo, Papua New Guinea, Libya, Paraguay, Jordan, Sierra Leone, Laos
The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is more than double the population of any of these countries:
Nicaragua, Denmark, Slovakia, Kyrgyzstan, Finland, Turkmenistan, Eritrea, Norway, Singapore, Croatia, Costa Rica, Georgia, United Arab Emirates, Central African Republic, Ireland, New Zealand, Lebanon, Palestinian Territories, Bosnia and Herzegovina
The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is more than triple the population of any of these countries:
Moldova, Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Lithuania, Panama, Uruguay, Albania, Mauritania, Armenia
The number of illegal immigrants in the United States is more than four times the population of any of these countries:
Kuwait, Jamaica, Mongolia, Oman, Latvia, Kosovo, Namibia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Lesotho, Botswana, Gambia, Guinnea-Bissau, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Gabon, Mauritius, East Timor, Swaziland
There are a further 80 countries on this list which is comprised of sovereign states and self-governing dependencies.
If you add the legal and illegal immigrant residents of the United States, you can add the following countries to the list:
Ghana, Taiwan, Yemen, Romania, Mozambique, Australia, Syria, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, Angola, Chile, Netherlands, Kazakhstan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Niger, Malawi, Guatemala, Zimbabwe, Ecuador, Senegal, Mali, Zambia
The complete list of sovereign states and self-governing dependencies contains 222 countries. Of those countries 175 have lower populations than the number of legal and illegal immigrants in the US.
Considering just illegal immigrants, 149 countries have a lower population.
Consider that fact... we could absorb the entire population of any of those countries and the number would be less than the number of illegals we currently have.
The figures for population for sovereign states and self-governing dependencies comes from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
Some of you may have a problem with the term illegal immigrant, may I point out that the definition of illegal is 'forbidden by law or statute' and/or 'contrary to or forbidden official rules, regulations, etc.' The term is not used to describe their motives or behavior outside of their immigration status... they are in this country contrary to law or statute, they did not follow the rules to get here.
Just a small dose of perspective
~Finntann~
Monday, April 21, 2008
'Illiterate peasants' ruin modern democracy
Well the headline may be tongue in cheek, but Colorado state representative Douglas Bruce (R-El Paso County) is in the news again, this time for calling seasonal workers 'illiterate peasants'. The exact quote was "I would like to get the opportunity to say at the microphone why I don't think we need 5,000 more illiterate peasants in Colorado".
Needless to say, Rep. Bruce didn't get to say why he thought that way, as he was immediately cutoff by Chairwoman Kathleen Curry and immediately barred from speaking further on the bill. Reaction to Bruce's remarks was negative and no member of the Republican caucus defended Bruce or challenged Curry. The bill, which was expected to provoke a lengthy debate, was passed quickly with minimal opposition.
Read the whole story here: http://www.gazette.com/articles/workers_35510___article.html/bruce_rep.html
Not to defend Rep. Bruce's remarks, but one must question the validity of a participatory democracy in which people with unpopular viewpoints are silenced. I for one would like to know why Bruce thinks we don't need another 5,000 more illiterate peasants in Colorado.
House Bill 1325, by Rep. Marsha Looper, would create a five-year pilot program to expedite approval of temporary seasonal foreign workers to help harvest crops that have sometimes rotted in the fields because of a labor shortage. Given the nation's current crisis regarding illegal immigration, one must wonder how much incentive to leave the withholding of 20% of earnings would be. How much would you pay to stay in the United States? Under this bill the employer would pay for the visa, transportation, housing, wages, workers comp, meals...etc. At the end of the term when the employee returned to his home country he would get the 20% withheld, or if he did not return it would be turned over to the local law enforcement of the employer. Certainly sounds like a better deal than most of the "coyotes" (people-smugglers) are offering.
The actual legislation may be found here:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2008A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/611BF939B7A81E72872573A80065E651?Open&file=1325_eng.pdf
Bruce is one of those people always at the center of controversy and has earned the distinction of being the first representative in the history of Colorado formally censured by the house. Bruce was censured, and justly so, for kicking a photographer taking his picture (praying) during the morning prayer session, the morning before he was sworn in (Bruce is a vacancy appointee).
Bruce is an opponent of attaching 'safety clauses' (declaring a bill "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety") to change the date of enactment or to prohibit challenge to the legislation via petition. Bruce is the subject of much personal hostility and animosity from the other legislators and on one occasion an amendment submitted by him (on a safety clause) was voted down, only to be immediately passed when submitted by another member. One is forced to wonder what kind of games are being played in our statehouse.
While Rep. Bruce does not seem to get along well with others, at issue here is not the 'political correctness' of his comments, but of the people's right to be heard through their representative. In theory at least each member of the house represents approximately 71,000 people. 71,000 people silenced by the angry clap of the hammer in the hands of the Chairwoman.
I am in favor of many of the ideas put forth by Rep. Bruce, in many ways he seems a true Reagan Republican advocating limited government and limited taxation. He is the author of the Colorado TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights) limiting growth in government to inflation and population growth unless approved by the taxpayers via ballot (The term for getting around it is called 'de-Brucing'). He was against mail ballot elections, opposed county interference in the incorporation of the town of Falcon (although he was also opposed to the incorporation of the town). He donates his state salary to charity, introduced a bill to mandate classroom education on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and he is opposed to 'resolutions' that have no legal or binding effect as being pointless and a waste of the taxpayers time and money.
Despite the fact the Rep. Bruce seems completely inept at the art of politics, I am opposed to the legislature gagging any member, no matter how controversial his remarks. The actions of the Colorado house in this incident are a disservice to the people of Colorado. Silencing any representative silences the people they represent, no matter how much we disagree with his choice of words and his methods, he has the right and represents the right of the people to be heard. I personally am opposed to the legislation, it is not the government's job to provide migrant workers to our agricultural industry at taxpayers expense, nor am I happy that the bill seems to have been passed with little or no debate either out of spite or embarrassment at Rep. Bruce. While not in the print article, it was mentioned on our evening news that Bruce was advised by the Republican leadership not to make this an immigration issue, may I inquire why? It certainly seems relevant to the discussion, at least in my humble opinion. While this may not seem a national issue, the importation of 5,000 foreign migrant works into our country certainly is.
Already people are trying to make this a 'race' issue, the fact that the majority of our illegal immigrants are from Latin America makes it a race issue. I no more want 5000 migrant workers from Britain, Canada, Ireland, or Romania then Mexico, Haiti, Brazil, Chad, or Taiwan. The US unemployment rate is 5.1%... out of our 300 million population that is some 15 million people out of work. The population of Colorado is some 4.7 million people and it's unemployment rate is 4.4%, that leaves 206,800 people unemployed in the state of Colorado. Let the state and agricultural employers provide them with transportation, housing, wages, workman's comp, meals...etc. You can't convince me that we can't come up with 5,000 able-bodied workers from the number quoted above, if you provide to them what the state proposes we provide to migrants along with a legal wage. Refuse, and it's a concept unfortunately becoming alien to American society... no work...no pay.
To paraphrase an oft misattributed quote:
Let them pick fruit!
~Finntann~
Needless to say, Rep. Bruce didn't get to say why he thought that way, as he was immediately cutoff by Chairwoman Kathleen Curry and immediately barred from speaking further on the bill. Reaction to Bruce's remarks was negative and no member of the Republican caucus defended Bruce or challenged Curry. The bill, which was expected to provoke a lengthy debate, was passed quickly with minimal opposition.
Read the whole story here: http://www.gazette.com/articles/workers_35510___article.html/bruce_rep.html
Not to defend Rep. Bruce's remarks, but one must question the validity of a participatory democracy in which people with unpopular viewpoints are silenced. I for one would like to know why Bruce thinks we don't need another 5,000 more illiterate peasants in Colorado.
House Bill 1325, by Rep. Marsha Looper, would create a five-year pilot program to expedite approval of temporary seasonal foreign workers to help harvest crops that have sometimes rotted in the fields because of a labor shortage. Given the nation's current crisis regarding illegal immigration, one must wonder how much incentive to leave the withholding of 20% of earnings would be. How much would you pay to stay in the United States? Under this bill the employer would pay for the visa, transportation, housing, wages, workers comp, meals...etc. At the end of the term when the employee returned to his home country he would get the 20% withheld, or if he did not return it would be turned over to the local law enforcement of the employer. Certainly sounds like a better deal than most of the "coyotes" (people-smugglers) are offering.
The actual legislation may be found here:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2008A/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/611BF939B7A81E72872573A80065E651?Open&file=1325_eng.pdf
Bruce is one of those people always at the center of controversy and has earned the distinction of being the first representative in the history of Colorado formally censured by the house. Bruce was censured, and justly so, for kicking a photographer taking his picture (praying) during the morning prayer session, the morning before he was sworn in (Bruce is a vacancy appointee).
Bruce is an opponent of attaching 'safety clauses' (declaring a bill "necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety") to change the date of enactment or to prohibit challenge to the legislation via petition. Bruce is the subject of much personal hostility and animosity from the other legislators and on one occasion an amendment submitted by him (on a safety clause) was voted down, only to be immediately passed when submitted by another member. One is forced to wonder what kind of games are being played in our statehouse.
While Rep. Bruce does not seem to get along well with others, at issue here is not the 'political correctness' of his comments, but of the people's right to be heard through their representative. In theory at least each member of the house represents approximately 71,000 people. 71,000 people silenced by the angry clap of the hammer in the hands of the Chairwoman.
I am in favor of many of the ideas put forth by Rep. Bruce, in many ways he seems a true Reagan Republican advocating limited government and limited taxation. He is the author of the Colorado TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights) limiting growth in government to inflation and population growth unless approved by the taxpayers via ballot (The term for getting around it is called 'de-Brucing'). He was against mail ballot elections, opposed county interference in the incorporation of the town of Falcon (although he was also opposed to the incorporation of the town). He donates his state salary to charity, introduced a bill to mandate classroom education on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and he is opposed to 'resolutions' that have no legal or binding effect as being pointless and a waste of the taxpayers time and money.
Despite the fact the Rep. Bruce seems completely inept at the art of politics, I am opposed to the legislature gagging any member, no matter how controversial his remarks. The actions of the Colorado house in this incident are a disservice to the people of Colorado. Silencing any representative silences the people they represent, no matter how much we disagree with his choice of words and his methods, he has the right and represents the right of the people to be heard. I personally am opposed to the legislation, it is not the government's job to provide migrant workers to our agricultural industry at taxpayers expense, nor am I happy that the bill seems to have been passed with little or no debate either out of spite or embarrassment at Rep. Bruce. While not in the print article, it was mentioned on our evening news that Bruce was advised by the Republican leadership not to make this an immigration issue, may I inquire why? It certainly seems relevant to the discussion, at least in my humble opinion. While this may not seem a national issue, the importation of 5,000 foreign migrant works into our country certainly is.
Already people are trying to make this a 'race' issue, the fact that the majority of our illegal immigrants are from Latin America makes it a race issue. I no more want 5000 migrant workers from Britain, Canada, Ireland, or Romania then Mexico, Haiti, Brazil, Chad, or Taiwan. The US unemployment rate is 5.1%... out of our 300 million population that is some 15 million people out of work. The population of Colorado is some 4.7 million people and it's unemployment rate is 4.4%, that leaves 206,800 people unemployed in the state of Colorado. Let the state and agricultural employers provide them with transportation, housing, wages, workman's comp, meals...etc. You can't convince me that we can't come up with 5,000 able-bodied workers from the number quoted above, if you provide to them what the state proposes we provide to migrants along with a legal wage. Refuse, and it's a concept unfortunately becoming alien to American society... no work...no pay.
To paraphrase an oft misattributed quote:
Let them pick fruit!
~Finntann~
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Texas CPS: The New Gestapo
There was an old fellow of Lyme
Who lived with three wives at one time.
When asked, 'Why the third?' He replied,
'One’s absurd, and bigamy, sir, is a crime.'
Putting aside the issue of child abuse and underage marriage (both legal issues that need to be enforced and prosecuted), one must wonder why in this enlightened age we still have laws making polygamy a crime. As John Turley, Professor of Law at Georgetown university said in a recent USA Today article, the difference between a polygamist and the practitioner of an 'alternative lifestyle' is religion.
It is perfectly acceptable (legally) to cohabitate with more than one woman or one man, but bring god and marriage into the picture and you are a felon! The pictures in the news of women in long conservative dresses with their children (139 women, 416 children) being herded onto buses under the watchful eyes of the law are reminiscent of Nazi Germany, is the Texas CPS the new gestapo?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24195958/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/10/
Strong words, but this fiasco is an embarrassment to a nation founded on the principles of freedom and liberty. I have even read articles putting forth the position that the teaching of FLDS principles is in and of itself 'child abuse'. Might I remind these people that the teaching of 'creationism' in schools has been ruled illegal... shall the CPS now seize all the fundamentalist home-schooled children on the grounds of 'child abuse'? It is a very dangerous path that we tread upon.
The court also orders genetic testing to begin Monday, this should fit in quite nicely with the new federal rules authorizing DNA testing of federal arrestees. Currently only the DNA of convicted felons is kept in the CODIS database, with the new rules you don't even need to be convicted of a crime to have your DNA seized (Although I fully expect to see a constitutional challenge to these new rules).
The rules to implement provisions of the 2005 Violence Against Women Act are expected to boost law enforcements ability to combat crime. I can see that, but so would allowing unreasonable search and seizure... I mean we can't have any criminals slipping through the cracks now can we? Why don't we just perform DNA testing at birth and file the results away, just in case the baby commits a crime twenty years hence. Of course, Orchid Cellmark, the leading provider in DNA services applauds the act... won't that be good for their bottom line to get an extra 1.2 million samples to process. I wonder how much they charge per sample. Heck, I'm sure random drug testing of people on the street would provide a nice boost to the scientific lab communities bottom line too, and help cut down on crime.
Even more appalling is the article I read in the Arizona Republic concerning the alleged 'hoax' phone call prompting this entire fiasco. "Phoenix child-protection advocate Flora Jessop said she was duped by a Colorado woman who pretended to be the victim of abuse in a polygamist sect and whose arrest Friday raises questions about the recent seizure of more than 400 children from a church compound in Texas." The fact that Ms Jessop is a critic and former member of the FLDS church couldn't possibly give her an axe to grind, wasn't all this such a convenient happenstance. But I'll leave this subject with her most disturbing quote, "Jessop said she had to maintain the pretense that her caller was real so that Texas police could continue investigating."
You can find the article here: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0419flora0419.html
I would venture to guess that removed from a religious context, the liberal left would be leaping to defend the rights of men and women to live in a polygamist lifestyle, as they defend the rights of gays and lesbians to engage in their lifestyles. It is the introduction of a religious aspect that makes these people unpalatable to the left, if they simply wanted to do it, that would be fine, that they want to do it in association with God is not. The right has also abandoned these people, as in their eyes the sexual aspects of such a relationship are taboo, despite the fact that in principle their conservative values align nicely with the religious right. Being orphaned by both the left and right, and falling far outside anything that could be defined as centrist, these people are an easy mark. This is a win-win situation for the authorities in Texas, they score points with the right for stomping out sin and points with the left for their social concern for the poor children.
The laws as they exist today enable the abuses alleged in Texas. Being hidden behind high walls, isolated from society, is what enables those like Warren Jeffs to manipulate the faithful for his own ends. His racist self-serving preachings are an anathema to a free and just society. It is not the beliefs of the faithful that are the problem, it is the isolation and power of the church that stems from such isolation. I do not believe in the principles or lifestyle advocated by the FLDS, yet despite that fact, I must defend in principle their right to live it.
~Finntann~
Who lived with three wives at one time.
When asked, 'Why the third?' He replied,
'One’s absurd, and bigamy, sir, is a crime.'
Putting aside the issue of child abuse and underage marriage (both legal issues that need to be enforced and prosecuted), one must wonder why in this enlightened age we still have laws making polygamy a crime. As John Turley, Professor of Law at Georgetown university said in a recent USA Today article, the difference between a polygamist and the practitioner of an 'alternative lifestyle' is religion.
It is perfectly acceptable (legally) to cohabitate with more than one woman or one man, but bring god and marriage into the picture and you are a felon! The pictures in the news of women in long conservative dresses with their children (139 women, 416 children) being herded onto buses under the watchful eyes of the law are reminiscent of Nazi Germany, is the Texas CPS the new gestapo?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24195958/displaymode/1107/s/2/framenumber/10/
Strong words, but this fiasco is an embarrassment to a nation founded on the principles of freedom and liberty. I have even read articles putting forth the position that the teaching of FLDS principles is in and of itself 'child abuse'. Might I remind these people that the teaching of 'creationism' in schools has been ruled illegal... shall the CPS now seize all the fundamentalist home-schooled children on the grounds of 'child abuse'? It is a very dangerous path that we tread upon.
The court also orders genetic testing to begin Monday, this should fit in quite nicely with the new federal rules authorizing DNA testing of federal arrestees. Currently only the DNA of convicted felons is kept in the CODIS database, with the new rules you don't even need to be convicted of a crime to have your DNA seized (Although I fully expect to see a constitutional challenge to these new rules).
The rules to implement provisions of the 2005 Violence Against Women Act are expected to boost law enforcements ability to combat crime. I can see that, but so would allowing unreasonable search and seizure... I mean we can't have any criminals slipping through the cracks now can we? Why don't we just perform DNA testing at birth and file the results away, just in case the baby commits a crime twenty years hence. Of course, Orchid Cellmark, the leading provider in DNA services applauds the act... won't that be good for their bottom line to get an extra 1.2 million samples to process. I wonder how much they charge per sample. Heck, I'm sure random drug testing of people on the street would provide a nice boost to the scientific lab communities bottom line too, and help cut down on crime.
Even more appalling is the article I read in the Arizona Republic concerning the alleged 'hoax' phone call prompting this entire fiasco. "Phoenix child-protection advocate Flora Jessop said she was duped by a Colorado woman who pretended to be the victim of abuse in a polygamist sect and whose arrest Friday raises questions about the recent seizure of more than 400 children from a church compound in Texas." The fact that Ms Jessop is a critic and former member of the FLDS church couldn't possibly give her an axe to grind, wasn't all this such a convenient happenstance. But I'll leave this subject with her most disturbing quote, "Jessop said she had to maintain the pretense that her caller was real so that Texas police could continue investigating."
You can find the article here: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0419flora0419.html
I would venture to guess that removed from a religious context, the liberal left would be leaping to defend the rights of men and women to live in a polygamist lifestyle, as they defend the rights of gays and lesbians to engage in their lifestyles. It is the introduction of a religious aspect that makes these people unpalatable to the left, if they simply wanted to do it, that would be fine, that they want to do it in association with God is not. The right has also abandoned these people, as in their eyes the sexual aspects of such a relationship are taboo, despite the fact that in principle their conservative values align nicely with the religious right. Being orphaned by both the left and right, and falling far outside anything that could be defined as centrist, these people are an easy mark. This is a win-win situation for the authorities in Texas, they score points with the right for stomping out sin and points with the left for their social concern for the poor children.
The laws as they exist today enable the abuses alleged in Texas. Being hidden behind high walls, isolated from society, is what enables those like Warren Jeffs to manipulate the faithful for his own ends. His racist self-serving preachings are an anathema to a free and just society. It is not the beliefs of the faithful that are the problem, it is the isolation and power of the church that stems from such isolation. I do not believe in the principles or lifestyle advocated by the FLDS, yet despite that fact, I must defend in principle their right to live it.
~Finntann~
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Good Money Bad Politics
The 110th Congress of the United States has been seated since Jan 3rd, 2007, our esteemed congress members are paid $169,300 a year for their efforts and labors. Now we all understand that there is a presidential race going on, but here are some interesting statistics.
John McCain has missed 57.6% of the votes and is currently the #1 senator not there.
Barack Obama has missed 39.3% of the votes putting him at #3
Hillary Clinton has missed 29% of the votes putting her at #6
Tim Johnson has missed 57.1% of the votes, but then again he has a good excuse, having had a brain hemorrhage, he has since returned to work. One must also wonder why #4 Joe Biden (32.8%) and #5 Chris Dodd (31.2%) who have dropped out of the race are beating out Hillary Clinton on missed votes, when she's still in it. Sam Brownback #7 who also dropped out of the race is close behind her at 25% but we'll look to see his numbers improve. That leaves only Daniel Inouye (10.6%) at number 8 who's not there more than 90% of the time.
One could argue that all the free time off to run is an undocumented campaign contribution funded by the American taxpayer. Since the seating of the 110th congress the salaries paid thus far (through April) should be about $225,000 thus the missed votes (not based on hours worked) work out as being worth what follows:
John McCain $129,600
Barack Obama $88,425
Hillary Clinton $65,250
I understand that the Senators are theoretically working all the time, and that when missing a vote could be working on something at least just as important, but these folks are paid to vote...to guide the country in the direction it should be going, representing not only the interests of their constituents and their states, but all of us. One wonders what took place the 10% of the time Daniel Inouye wasn't there.
Looking at the senators, specifically from the perspective of the current election, got me wondering what else was going on. I found the following statistics on our congress, which got me wondering even more.
Barbara Cubin (R-WY) has missed 50.3% of the votes in congress, and she's not running, not even for reelection.
Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has missed 29% of the votes
Ray La Hood (R-IL) has missed 18.7% of the votes, and he's not running again either.
Don Young (R-AK) has missed 17.5% of the votes.
Eddie Johnson (D-TX) has missed 17.1% of the votes.
Deborah Pryce (R-OH) has missed 16.5% of the votes, and has announced her retirement. (Sounds kinda like she already started it)
In defense of the current candidates, a look at the 109th Congress gives a slightly better picture:
John McCain missed only 9% of the votes
Hillary Clinton missed only 2.5% of the votes
Barack Obama missed only 1.7% of the votes.
But one wonders where Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) at 22.2%, and Daniel Inouye (D-HI) at 11% were. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) missed 37.2% of the vote, but he was running for governor of NJ.
Wouldn't we all like to take 2 or 3 days off a week to look for other employment while remaining on salary at our current job, no questions asked.
Really... we need to establish at least some minimum standard for our representatives to vote... say 5% barring extraordinary circumstances? I am not so naive to think that our elected representatives need to make all the votes, but there does need to be some rational level of participation. Perhaps in the near future we can take a look at what votes were missed and by whom.
Good sources of data for voting records are:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/
For information on what votes were missed and how each candidate voted on each issue you can go to:
Hillary Clinton: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
Barack Obama: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
John McCain: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270
So you can find out how they all voted on the HR 2082 The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.
Obama: NV (Not Voting, Excused, Absent, or Present)
Clinton: NV
McCain: N
~Finntann~
John McCain has missed 57.6% of the votes and is currently the #1 senator not there.
Barack Obama has missed 39.3% of the votes putting him at #3
Hillary Clinton has missed 29% of the votes putting her at #6
Tim Johnson has missed 57.1% of the votes, but then again he has a good excuse, having had a brain hemorrhage, he has since returned to work. One must also wonder why #4 Joe Biden (32.8%) and #5 Chris Dodd (31.2%) who have dropped out of the race are beating out Hillary Clinton on missed votes, when she's still in it. Sam Brownback #7 who also dropped out of the race is close behind her at 25% but we'll look to see his numbers improve. That leaves only Daniel Inouye (10.6%) at number 8 who's not there more than 90% of the time.
One could argue that all the free time off to run is an undocumented campaign contribution funded by the American taxpayer. Since the seating of the 110th congress the salaries paid thus far (through April) should be about $225,000 thus the missed votes (not based on hours worked) work out as being worth what follows:
John McCain $129,600
Barack Obama $88,425
Hillary Clinton $65,250
I understand that the Senators are theoretically working all the time, and that when missing a vote could be working on something at least just as important, but these folks are paid to vote...to guide the country in the direction it should be going, representing not only the interests of their constituents and their states, but all of us. One wonders what took place the 10% of the time Daniel Inouye wasn't there.
Looking at the senators, specifically from the perspective of the current election, got me wondering what else was going on. I found the following statistics on our congress, which got me wondering even more.
Barbara Cubin (R-WY) has missed 50.3% of the votes in congress, and she's not running, not even for reelection.
Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has missed 29% of the votes
Ray La Hood (R-IL) has missed 18.7% of the votes, and he's not running again either.
Don Young (R-AK) has missed 17.5% of the votes.
Eddie Johnson (D-TX) has missed 17.1% of the votes.
Deborah Pryce (R-OH) has missed 16.5% of the votes, and has announced her retirement. (Sounds kinda like she already started it)
In defense of the current candidates, a look at the 109th Congress gives a slightly better picture:
John McCain missed only 9% of the votes
Hillary Clinton missed only 2.5% of the votes
Barack Obama missed only 1.7% of the votes.
But one wonders where Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) at 22.2%, and Daniel Inouye (D-HI) at 11% were. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) missed 37.2% of the vote, but he was running for governor of NJ.
Wouldn't we all like to take 2 or 3 days off a week to look for other employment while remaining on salary at our current job, no questions asked.
Really... we need to establish at least some minimum standard for our representatives to vote... say 5% barring extraordinary circumstances? I am not so naive to think that our elected representatives need to make all the votes, but there does need to be some rational level of participation. Perhaps in the near future we can take a look at what votes were missed and by whom.
Good sources of data for voting records are:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/
For information on what votes were missed and how each candidate voted on each issue you can go to:
Hillary Clinton: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463
Barack Obama: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
John McCain: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270
So you can find out how they all voted on the HR 2082 The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.
Obama: NV (Not Voting, Excused, Absent, or Present)
Clinton: NV
McCain: N
~Finntann~
Friday, April 18, 2008
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Thomas Jefferson
I find several things in the news today rather disturbing, indicative of the the gradual erosion of our rights and liberties, most given up without the merest whimper on our part. First is the Orthodox Jewish man removed from a flight for not taking his seat when requested to, since he was praying the Amidah, a prayer that is supposed to be said three times a day, not interrupted, and is only 3-4 minutes long. My understanding from the various articles I have read is that this incident took place during boarding, the man apologized at the end of his prayer, and that even with the time it took to remove the man from the flight, it arrived on time.
My problem here is not with removing passengers for failing to comply with flight attendants instructions, but in my frequent experience passengers often stand in the aisles or in the back of the plane for various reasons, presumably thinking that they are 'out of the way'. I have never seen a businessman on his cell phone asked to sit while standing back near the lavatories during boarding, and it is very hit or miss whether or not a person standing in the aisle talking with friends before take off will be asked to sit down, as I have been forced to squeeze past them on many occasions. This appears to me to be a selective enforcement of the rules which is a dangerous step down the road to tyranny. You can stand up so long as you look 'normal' and aren't acting 'weird'. What has not been reported in the accounts is how close to take-off the flight actually was, as this could have transpired anywhere from a few minutes to half an hour prior to the closing of the doors.
Undoubtedly, the orthodox practice of praying the Amidah, which means 'standing prayer' was probably an unfamiliar act to the crew involved, one must wonder if an Irish Roman Catholic priest standing in the back of the plane reciting the rosary would have been interrupted. There is a good description of the Amidah here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/amidah.html
Have we become so intolerant that we can not accommodate the simplest of requests? Has religion become such an 'anti-social' politically incorrect behavior as to be banished from public sight? Or has fear become the overriding concern in this post 9/11 era. Has the herd mentality become so predominant that we viciously attack anything that is different? I participated in an online chat last night on this very subject and there seemed to be three predominant schools of thought.
1. The guy was a religious nut forcing his religion on everyone else, that he did this on purpose to either make a statement or force the airline to remove him in order to pursue legal action. And that religious expression has no place on an airplane or in any public place.
2. That everyone must follow the rules, no matter what, and that in this post 9/11 world blind obedience is a prerequisite to order. That even if singled out, one must comply for the sake of the public good. I suppose, by that logic, that we ought to resume payment of the tea tax to the British.
3. That the airline and/or the crew were completely wrong, that the man was out of the way, harming no one, and that the crew had been told he would be done in 1 or 2 minutes. They were on a power trip, forcing this poor man to comply for nothing more than their own egos.
I would venture that the man's activities were unfamiliar to the crew involved and made them nervous. Not sure of what he was doing or why, they requested the man take his seat, and when he did not comply it turned into something of a 'power' issue for them. I find it odd that the crew summoned a customer service agent to remover the man, and not the Port Authority or TSA. If he was such a risk, and this was such a significant incident the airline was derelict in it's duty by not involving the proper authorities.
Of curious note, this is not the first time that this has happened. This also occurred on 1 September 2006 when Air Canada removed a Hasidic Jew began praying in his seat while rocking back and forth, an activity called ’shokeling’, as the plane began its roll out to the runway. The flight attendant told him that he was making the other passengers nervous and would have to leave, and had the gall to announce to the other passengers 'that it was all right, he wasn't Muslim'. The airlines response was to offer crews 'sensitivity training'.
The evolving issue in Texas is also of some concern, the latest seems to be that the phone call prompting the raid was the result of a 'hoax' phone call from a woman in Colorado. I haven't seen it in the national news, but the local Colorado news is reporting that the call was actually traced to the woman by the FBI. Regardless of our personal feelings on the religious beliefs of these people, I am astounded that the authorities rounded up all the children from the 'ranch' which is larger in population than many Texas towns. I could understand removing the children from the household of the alleged threat, but imagine if the police in your town received an anonymous call about abuse... would they round up everyone in the neighborhood if they could not determine which house it was occurring in?
What is most disturbing is how the public at large readily accepts such incidents and the official explanations for them at face value. What would our founding fathers have to say? The state psychiatrist Dr Bruce Perry testified that " the girls he interviewed said they freely chose to marry young. But he said those choices were based on lessons drilled into them from birth." Well DUH? Can't that be said of anyone? Is not the fact that good Catholic, or Jewish, or Amish girls marry within their faith due to lessons drilled into them from birth. As long as the girls are over 16 and marry with the consent of their parents Dr Perry's personal beliefs are irrelevant. I am not saying that I agree with the Texas law, only that that is what it is... if the parents are okay with their 16 year olds marrying 49, 59, or even 69 year olds the states position outside the law is completely irrelevant as well. I firmly believe that any violations of Texas law should be prosecuted, but that outside the law the personal beliefs of the sheriff, social workers, or any expert witnesses they care to produce are meaningless.
One must question what the underlying motivations of the authorities in Texas are... are they really concerned about the children, or is this a convenient time and excuse to rid their community of an embarrassment, a religious community that exists in violation of their own beliefs? As one must question the motives of the airline in removing the praying man from he plane. I was amazed at how often people quoted Matthew 6:6 'that condemns people who pray only so that people might see them do so', in association with this incident. It would be funny if they weren't so darn serious, really... quoting the New Testament as an example of behavior for a Jew to follow. Are we so narrow minded?
It is amazing how willing we are give up our hard earned freedoms, be it for the sake of political correctness or for the false illusion of security. I heard repeatedly that while the man had the right to pray, we must give that right up in this post 9/11 world in order to obtain security. Might I offer the advice of a few of our founding fathers on this subject:
THOMAS JEFFERSON: I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
JOHN ADAMS: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
JAMES MADISON: I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
And while he is not considered one of our founding fathers, his advice is certainly appropriate:
JUDGE GIDEON J. TUCKER: No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.
Just food for thought, and the advice to defend your rights and liberties vehemently and without pause.
~Finntann~
My problem here is not with removing passengers for failing to comply with flight attendants instructions, but in my frequent experience passengers often stand in the aisles or in the back of the plane for various reasons, presumably thinking that they are 'out of the way'. I have never seen a businessman on his cell phone asked to sit while standing back near the lavatories during boarding, and it is very hit or miss whether or not a person standing in the aisle talking with friends before take off will be asked to sit down, as I have been forced to squeeze past them on many occasions. This appears to me to be a selective enforcement of the rules which is a dangerous step down the road to tyranny. You can stand up so long as you look 'normal' and aren't acting 'weird'. What has not been reported in the accounts is how close to take-off the flight actually was, as this could have transpired anywhere from a few minutes to half an hour prior to the closing of the doors.
Undoubtedly, the orthodox practice of praying the Amidah, which means 'standing prayer' was probably an unfamiliar act to the crew involved, one must wonder if an Irish Roman Catholic priest standing in the back of the plane reciting the rosary would have been interrupted. There is a good description of the Amidah here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/amidah.html
Have we become so intolerant that we can not accommodate the simplest of requests? Has religion become such an 'anti-social' politically incorrect behavior as to be banished from public sight? Or has fear become the overriding concern in this post 9/11 era. Has the herd mentality become so predominant that we viciously attack anything that is different? I participated in an online chat last night on this very subject and there seemed to be three predominant schools of thought.
1. The guy was a religious nut forcing his religion on everyone else, that he did this on purpose to either make a statement or force the airline to remove him in order to pursue legal action. And that religious expression has no place on an airplane or in any public place.
2. That everyone must follow the rules, no matter what, and that in this post 9/11 world blind obedience is a prerequisite to order. That even if singled out, one must comply for the sake of the public good. I suppose, by that logic, that we ought to resume payment of the tea tax to the British.
3. That the airline and/or the crew were completely wrong, that the man was out of the way, harming no one, and that the crew had been told he would be done in 1 or 2 minutes. They were on a power trip, forcing this poor man to comply for nothing more than their own egos.
I would venture that the man's activities were unfamiliar to the crew involved and made them nervous. Not sure of what he was doing or why, they requested the man take his seat, and when he did not comply it turned into something of a 'power' issue for them. I find it odd that the crew summoned a customer service agent to remover the man, and not the Port Authority or TSA. If he was such a risk, and this was such a significant incident the airline was derelict in it's duty by not involving the proper authorities.
Of curious note, this is not the first time that this has happened. This also occurred on 1 September 2006 when Air Canada removed a Hasidic Jew began praying in his seat while rocking back and forth, an activity called ’shokeling’, as the plane began its roll out to the runway. The flight attendant told him that he was making the other passengers nervous and would have to leave, and had the gall to announce to the other passengers 'that it was all right, he wasn't Muslim'. The airlines response was to offer crews 'sensitivity training'.
The evolving issue in Texas is also of some concern, the latest seems to be that the phone call prompting the raid was the result of a 'hoax' phone call from a woman in Colorado. I haven't seen it in the national news, but the local Colorado news is reporting that the call was actually traced to the woman by the FBI. Regardless of our personal feelings on the religious beliefs of these people, I am astounded that the authorities rounded up all the children from the 'ranch' which is larger in population than many Texas towns. I could understand removing the children from the household of the alleged threat, but imagine if the police in your town received an anonymous call about abuse... would they round up everyone in the neighborhood if they could not determine which house it was occurring in?
What is most disturbing is how the public at large readily accepts such incidents and the official explanations for them at face value. What would our founding fathers have to say? The state psychiatrist Dr Bruce Perry testified that " the girls he interviewed said they freely chose to marry young. But he said those choices were based on lessons drilled into them from birth." Well DUH? Can't that be said of anyone? Is not the fact that good Catholic, or Jewish, or Amish girls marry within their faith due to lessons drilled into them from birth. As long as the girls are over 16 and marry with the consent of their parents Dr Perry's personal beliefs are irrelevant. I am not saying that I agree with the Texas law, only that that is what it is... if the parents are okay with their 16 year olds marrying 49, 59, or even 69 year olds the states position outside the law is completely irrelevant as well. I firmly believe that any violations of Texas law should be prosecuted, but that outside the law the personal beliefs of the sheriff, social workers, or any expert witnesses they care to produce are meaningless.
One must question what the underlying motivations of the authorities in Texas are... are they really concerned about the children, or is this a convenient time and excuse to rid their community of an embarrassment, a religious community that exists in violation of their own beliefs? As one must question the motives of the airline in removing the praying man from he plane. I was amazed at how often people quoted Matthew 6:6 'that condemns people who pray only so that people might see them do so', in association with this incident. It would be funny if they weren't so darn serious, really... quoting the New Testament as an example of behavior for a Jew to follow. Are we so narrow minded?
It is amazing how willing we are give up our hard earned freedoms, be it for the sake of political correctness or for the false illusion of security. I heard repeatedly that while the man had the right to pray, we must give that right up in this post 9/11 world in order to obtain security. Might I offer the advice of a few of our founding fathers on this subject:
THOMAS JEFFERSON: I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
JOHN ADAMS: But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
JAMES MADISON: I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
And while he is not considered one of our founding fathers, his advice is certainly appropriate:
JUDGE GIDEON J. TUCKER: No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.
Just food for thought, and the advice to defend your rights and liberties vehemently and without pause.
~Finntann~
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Justice-Texas Style
What in the world is going on in Texas? Currently ongoing is a custody hearing involving 416 children, who are being housed in a domed coliseum. The hearing is so large, involving hundreds of lawyers, that it is being held not only in the courtroom but over closed circuit in a nearby auditorium as well. The proceedings can only be characterized as a circus, I can not comprehend what the authorities were thinking in proceeding in this fashion, unless of course a media circus was their intent.
So far the only arrests made in connection with this raid were for interfering with the investigation. The whereabouts of the 16-year old, whose allegations of being beaten and raped, are unknown. State authorities have named Dale Barlow as the man suspected of raping the 16 year old girl, he has met with the Texas Rangers but has not been arrested. We are still trying to sort out if it's the correct person or not," said Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety. "Things are not matching up as we expected they would."
First let me state that any violations of Texas law ought to be prosecuted to the full extent and letter of the law. I must admit that I am conflicted on this issue between the need for the state to protect minors and the rights of the parents, however much I disagree with their beliefs.
But seizing 416 children on the words of an anonymous caller who can not be produced by the authorities seems to be a grave omen. I hope, for the sake of our principles, that the authorities have indisputable evidence that has yet to be produced.
A sixteen year old girl married to a 49 year old man is a reprehensible concept to many, however, under Texas law one must be 18 to marry, 16 with the consent of the parents, or if under 16 must have the concurrence of the court. We may disagree with a parent consenting to a 16 year old marrying a 49 year old man, yet from what I can see it is legal under Texas law with the consent of the parents of the minor.
One then must wonder how much 'legal' consent is involved on the part of the 16 year old and how much familial and social pressure could be applied to result in such consent. On the other hand, the sixteen year old could, at least theoretically, consent willingly based upon her beliefs.
What I find suspicious in all the circumstances of this nature is that you seldom hear of a 16 year old boy marrying a 49 year old woman.
Still, we must set aside our prejudices based on our personal belief systems and grant these people the benefit of the doubt. It seems instead we have set aside our belief in the presumption of innocence.
Self-isolated communities always receive our suspicion, warranted or not. Given many of the problems of society today, the desire to withdraw can be understood, but self-isolated communities can be Utopian or nightmarish, depending on the circumstance and the leadership. One need look no further than the Amish and the Peoples Temple (Jim Jones) to see the same contrast in real life.
Undoubtedly most will sympathize with the state, with the children, possibly with the mothers, but not the Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints. I would venture to guess that in a community of the size we are dealing with there are good people and there are bad, I can not venture to guess the alignment of the institution.
The question that remains is should we be cheering the state? Or outraged?
I for one would err on the side of caution, as would have our founding fathers. Always be suspicious of the powers and actions of the state, defend your liberties most vehemently.
Remember the presumption of innocence is a founding principle of our legal system. The case presented by the authorities in the court of public opinion should always be suspect, as should the case presented by the media, everything and everyone is biased, even me. If you believe otherwise you are either naive or a fool, and I have a lovely piece of property with a view of NYC, Brooklyn, and the river to sell you.
I am always suspicious of big brother, or perhaps a more apt description is Momma government. The analogy of Uncle Sam to the United States is a good one, for government should always be the kindly uncle... it should never assume the role of parent.
~Finntann~
So far the only arrests made in connection with this raid were for interfering with the investigation. The whereabouts of the 16-year old, whose allegations of being beaten and raped, are unknown. State authorities have named Dale Barlow as the man suspected of raping the 16 year old girl, he has met with the Texas Rangers but has not been arrested. We are still trying to sort out if it's the correct person or not," said Tela Mange, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Public Safety. "Things are not matching up as we expected they would."
First let me state that any violations of Texas law ought to be prosecuted to the full extent and letter of the law. I must admit that I am conflicted on this issue between the need for the state to protect minors and the rights of the parents, however much I disagree with their beliefs.
But seizing 416 children on the words of an anonymous caller who can not be produced by the authorities seems to be a grave omen. I hope, for the sake of our principles, that the authorities have indisputable evidence that has yet to be produced.
A sixteen year old girl married to a 49 year old man is a reprehensible concept to many, however, under Texas law one must be 18 to marry, 16 with the consent of the parents, or if under 16 must have the concurrence of the court. We may disagree with a parent consenting to a 16 year old marrying a 49 year old man, yet from what I can see it is legal under Texas law with the consent of the parents of the minor.
One then must wonder how much 'legal' consent is involved on the part of the 16 year old and how much familial and social pressure could be applied to result in such consent. On the other hand, the sixteen year old could, at least theoretically, consent willingly based upon her beliefs.
What I find suspicious in all the circumstances of this nature is that you seldom hear of a 16 year old boy marrying a 49 year old woman.
Still, we must set aside our prejudices based on our personal belief systems and grant these people the benefit of the doubt. It seems instead we have set aside our belief in the presumption of innocence.
Self-isolated communities always receive our suspicion, warranted or not. Given many of the problems of society today, the desire to withdraw can be understood, but self-isolated communities can be Utopian or nightmarish, depending on the circumstance and the leadership. One need look no further than the Amish and the Peoples Temple (Jim Jones) to see the same contrast in real life.
Undoubtedly most will sympathize with the state, with the children, possibly with the mothers, but not the Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints. I would venture to guess that in a community of the size we are dealing with there are good people and there are bad, I can not venture to guess the alignment of the institution.
The question that remains is should we be cheering the state? Or outraged?
I for one would err on the side of caution, as would have our founding fathers. Always be suspicious of the powers and actions of the state, defend your liberties most vehemently.
Remember the presumption of innocence is a founding principle of our legal system. The case presented by the authorities in the court of public opinion should always be suspect, as should the case presented by the media, everything and everyone is biased, even me. If you believe otherwise you are either naive or a fool, and I have a lovely piece of property with a view of NYC, Brooklyn, and the river to sell you.
I am always suspicious of big brother, or perhaps a more apt description is Momma government. The analogy of Uncle Sam to the United States is a good one, for government should always be the kindly uncle... it should never assume the role of parent.
~Finntann~
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
European Guilt vs Free Speech
The holocaust never occurred, it is a hoax arising from a Jewish conspiracy... Now I don't believe that at all, but at least I can say it, here in America.
I can not legally make that statement in: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland. I can not make that statement even though the European Convention on Human Rights Article 10, Paragraph 1. would seem to give me that right:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
Were I French, with it's 5 million Muslim immigrants, I would be unable to say that I believed that they were ruining our country, that I lamented the Islamization of France.
See the Brigitte Bardot article at: http://foutsc.blogspot.com/2008/04/finally-brave-frenchman-er-woman.html
In addition, the Council of Europe and UN Human Rights Committee have rejected arguments that such speech is protected free speech.
I may not like the current immigration policy of the French government regarding former Muslim colonial possessions, but I dare not voice my opinion lest I be fined and thrown in jail.
This is the danger in the restriction of free speech, and our rights in general.
The authors (one of whom was Jewish) of a Le Monde article were tried and given token fines (1 euro each) for an article critical of Israel that condemned Mr. Sharon for ''oppressing and asphyxiating the Palestinian population.'' One of the passages cited by the court:
''One finds it hard to imagine that a nation of fugitives descended from the people which has been persecuted the longest in the history of humanity, having been subjected to the worst humiliations and the deepest contempt, would be capable of transforming itself in two generations into a 'dominating and self-assured people' and, with the exception of an admirable minority, a contemptuous people taking satisfaction in humiliating others.''
Apparently the court took exception to the phrase 'dominating and self assured people', which ironically came from a speech by Charles De Gaulle following the 1967 war.
While the intent of such 'hate speech' laws is admirable, their effect is not to reduce hate but freedom. They stifle free and democratic debate of the issues, lest anyone 'offend' someone.
It is absurd to operate on the presumption that speech is going to produce irreparable psychological damage to the subjects, or that freedom from 'offense' is a basic human right. I am Irish Catholic... say what you will about the Irish or about Catholics, while I may be offended by your words, I promise your speech lacks the capability to 'incite' me to riot. Be forewarned that I will undoubtedly reply and you will certainly be offended.
Or perhaps I should just sue to get all those darned 'clergy sex abuse' stories out of the news. They are after all denigrating to the vast majority of non-pedophile Catholics and an unworthy stereotype.
So when will I be unable to say that the large numbers of illegal Mexican immigrants have a negative impact on our country and our culture? I certainly couldn't say it in France. When will you be unable to say George Bush or Bill Clinton are criminals?
How much do you value your free speech? Enough to stand up for it? Enough to stand up for the rights of others? Who say things you don't like?
It is easy to defend free speech you agree with. It is honorable to defend free speech you despise.
~Finntann~
I can not legally make that statement in: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland. I can not make that statement even though the European Convention on Human Rights Article 10, Paragraph 1. would seem to give me that right:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
Were I French, with it's 5 million Muslim immigrants, I would be unable to say that I believed that they were ruining our country, that I lamented the Islamization of France.
See the Brigitte Bardot article at: http://foutsc.blogspot.com/2008/04/finally-brave-frenchman-er-woman.html
In addition, the Council of Europe and UN Human Rights Committee have rejected arguments that such speech is protected free speech.
I may not like the current immigration policy of the French government regarding former Muslim colonial possessions, but I dare not voice my opinion lest I be fined and thrown in jail.
This is the danger in the restriction of free speech, and our rights in general.
The authors (one of whom was Jewish) of a Le Monde article were tried and given token fines (1 euro each) for an article critical of Israel that condemned Mr. Sharon for ''oppressing and asphyxiating the Palestinian population.'' One of the passages cited by the court:
''One finds it hard to imagine that a nation of fugitives descended from the people which has been persecuted the longest in the history of humanity, having been subjected to the worst humiliations and the deepest contempt, would be capable of transforming itself in two generations into a 'dominating and self-assured people' and, with the exception of an admirable minority, a contemptuous people taking satisfaction in humiliating others.''
Apparently the court took exception to the phrase 'dominating and self assured people', which ironically came from a speech by Charles De Gaulle following the 1967 war.
While the intent of such 'hate speech' laws is admirable, their effect is not to reduce hate but freedom. They stifle free and democratic debate of the issues, lest anyone 'offend' someone.
It is absurd to operate on the presumption that speech is going to produce irreparable psychological damage to the subjects, or that freedom from 'offense' is a basic human right. I am Irish Catholic... say what you will about the Irish or about Catholics, while I may be offended by your words, I promise your speech lacks the capability to 'incite' me to riot. Be forewarned that I will undoubtedly reply and you will certainly be offended.
Or perhaps I should just sue to get all those darned 'clergy sex abuse' stories out of the news. They are after all denigrating to the vast majority of non-pedophile Catholics and an unworthy stereotype.
So when will I be unable to say that the large numbers of illegal Mexican immigrants have a negative impact on our country and our culture? I certainly couldn't say it in France. When will you be unable to say George Bush or Bill Clinton are criminals?
How much do you value your free speech? Enough to stand up for it? Enough to stand up for the rights of others? Who say things you don't like?
It is easy to defend free speech you agree with. It is honorable to defend free speech you despise.
~Finntann~
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
WOW....The other candidates
Gloria La Riva, Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL)
PSL is a Marxist party and advocates building a revolutionary workers party in the United States, and believes in the validity of Marxism and Leninism.
Rational social & economic planning, rather than "market". Pay reparations, with interest, for slavery. Full rights and equality for all undocumented immigrants. Raise minimum wage to $15 an hour. Exit Iraq immediately, and pay reparations.
http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AboutUs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Moore, Socialist Party USA and Liberty Union Party
Eliminate corporate welfare, then eliminate corporations. Socialize all financial & insurance institutions. Decriminalize drug use; de-fund war on drugs. Large-scale transfer of technology to developing countries. Give sanctuary to illegal immigrants & full social services. 30-hour work week with 6-weeks annual paid vacation.
http://www.sp-usa.org/ , http://www.libertyunionparty.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gravel, Libertarian Party, seeking nomination.
US schools fail because we're yoked by military. Recognize Cuba; open up to Chavez in Venezuela. Americans are getting fatter & dumber; must get empowered! Military culture causes more gun violence. Make whole country a sanctuary city.
http://www.lp.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia McKinney, Green Party, seeking nomination.
Reparations for former slaves, as promised & never delivered. Police take communities of color as rampaging ground. Leave the oil in the soil. we have not had truth about September 11. Gainful employment at a guaranteed income for every family. Criminal penalties for e-mail spamming.
http://www.gp.org/index.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And people wonder why we are basically a two-party system.
I found the Libertarian view of banning smoking and legalizing marijuana worthy of a chuckle.
Marxist/Leninist? Are you kidding me?
Reparations with interest? Not with my tax dollars... my ancestors were quietly minding their own business while being oppressed by the British in Ireland when all that was going on, then came here for 'no Irish need apply'.
Open up to Chavez? Must be the 'kiss ass for oil' program.
Illegal immigrants? keyword there is illegal, deport them when you catch them.
For an interesting read: http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
PSL is a Marxist party and advocates building a revolutionary workers party in the United States, and believes in the validity of Marxism and Leninism.
Rational social & economic planning, rather than "market". Pay reparations, with interest, for slavery. Full rights and equality for all undocumented immigrants. Raise minimum wage to $15 an hour. Exit Iraq immediately, and pay reparations.
http://www.pslweb.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AboutUs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Moore, Socialist Party USA and Liberty Union Party
Eliminate corporate welfare, then eliminate corporations. Socialize all financial & insurance institutions. Decriminalize drug use; de-fund war on drugs. Large-scale transfer of technology to developing countries. Give sanctuary to illegal immigrants & full social services. 30-hour work week with 6-weeks annual paid vacation.
http://www.sp-usa.org/ , http://www.libertyunionparty.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gravel, Libertarian Party, seeking nomination.
US schools fail because we're yoked by military. Recognize Cuba; open up to Chavez in Venezuela. Americans are getting fatter & dumber; must get empowered! Military culture causes more gun violence. Make whole country a sanctuary city.
http://www.lp.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia McKinney, Green Party, seeking nomination.
Reparations for former slaves, as promised & never delivered. Police take communities of color as rampaging ground. Leave the oil in the soil. we have not had truth about September 11. Gainful employment at a guaranteed income for every family. Criminal penalties for e-mail spamming.
http://www.gp.org/index.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And people wonder why we are basically a two-party system.
I found the Libertarian view of banning smoking and legalizing marijuana worthy of a chuckle.
Marxist/Leninist? Are you kidding me?
Reparations with interest? Not with my tax dollars... my ancestors were quietly minding their own business while being oppressed by the British in Ireland when all that was going on, then came here for 'no Irish need apply'.
Open up to Chavez? Must be the 'kiss ass for oil' program.
Illegal immigrants? keyword there is illegal, deport them when you catch them.
For an interesting read: http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
Monday, April 14, 2008
Small towns, Guns, and Religion: What's the problem?
What's the problem? The problem isn't that the response from both sides of the democratic campaign is patronizing and demeaning, the problem is that the issue, for the most part, is completely irrelevant. It is a distraction from the issues at hand.
We are debating not over the loss of American jobs, the flight of industry overseas and the loss of our manufacturing base, but are debating semantics. We argue over the sound bite and whether or not the remarks were 'elitist', we argue over the choice of words 'bitter' and 'cling'.
Recognize this for what is is... a distraction, the opportunistic politics of the circling shark sensing blood in the water, and we are in a frenzy.
I listened to Obama's speech, there is a longer excerpt than what I had previously seen available on Huffingtonpost
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html
as well as a the full 51 minute recording, here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-exclusive-audio-on_b_96333.html
What I found most striking was that this was not the well rehearsed and eloquent speaker I had heard in the more widely televised speeches, but seemed far more off the cuff, with Obama struggling for the appropriate words or phrase to convey his thoughts.
I found other portions of the speech far more disconcerting than the "bitter and clinging" parts... specifically his comment that "foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."
It gives me pause, and causes me to wonder if he has an accurate self-assessment of his strengths and weaknesses.
Focus on the issues, not the sound bites. The issue is not whether or not a particular candidate is elitist or demeaning, they all are, these are not the issues that will make or break America. The issues are not a stark black and white, good and evil, although many try and make them out to be so. The issue is which candidate has the best overall platform, that in its totality will be best for the country.
And that, I will leave to you to decide.
~Finntann~
We are debating not over the loss of American jobs, the flight of industry overseas and the loss of our manufacturing base, but are debating semantics. We argue over the sound bite and whether or not the remarks were 'elitist', we argue over the choice of words 'bitter' and 'cling'.
Recognize this for what is is... a distraction, the opportunistic politics of the circling shark sensing blood in the water, and we are in a frenzy.
I listened to Obama's speech, there is a longer excerpt than what I had previously seen available on Huffingtonpost
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html
as well as a the full 51 minute recording, here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-exclusive-audio-on_b_96333.html
What I found most striking was that this was not the well rehearsed and eloquent speaker I had heard in the more widely televised speeches, but seemed far more off the cuff, with Obama struggling for the appropriate words or phrase to convey his thoughts.
I found other portions of the speech far more disconcerting than the "bitter and clinging" parts... specifically his comment that "foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."
It gives me pause, and causes me to wonder if he has an accurate self-assessment of his strengths and weaknesses.
Focus on the issues, not the sound bites. The issue is not whether or not a particular candidate is elitist or demeaning, they all are, these are not the issues that will make or break America. The issues are not a stark black and white, good and evil, although many try and make them out to be so. The issue is which candidate has the best overall platform, that in its totality will be best for the country.
And that, I will leave to you to decide.
~Finntann~
Sunday, April 13, 2008
The McCain Controversy
The Constitution states: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The argument is that John McCain born at the US military base at Coco Solo in the Panama Canal Zone is not eligible to be President of the United States under the Article II of the Constitution.
The State Department's official position outlined in Acquisition and Retention of US Citizenship and Nationality 7 FAM 1116,1-4 Not included in the meaning of "In the United States", paragraph c. ""Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
In contrast to that, the US Supreme Court has already ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen.
So now we have people arguing that the children of US military members born 'under orders' overseas on a US military base are not eligible to be President, but the child of illegal immigrants born while illegally in the US are.
Fortunately Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) introduced a bill clarifying that children born to US military personnel serving overseas can indeed grow up to be President and Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have signed on as sponsors of the bill.
Unfortunately the bill, for reasons unknown, seems to be stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
So McCaskill has tried again, introducing a a resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen, again Obama and Clinton have signed on as sponsors.
It is virtually guaranteed that if elected someone will file a legal challenge against McCain on this basis.
My question is simply "HAVE WE LOST ALL COMMON SENSE?"
One might as well argue that "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"... means that if you weren't a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, on September 17th, 1787 you are not eligible. It does after all say "at the time of"...not "on or after"
~Finntann~
The argument is that John McCain born at the US military base at Coco Solo in the Panama Canal Zone is not eligible to be President of the United States under the Article II of the Constitution.
The State Department's official position outlined in Acquisition and Retention of US Citizenship and Nationality 7 FAM 1116,1-4 Not included in the meaning of "In the United States", paragraph c. ""Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
In contrast to that, the US Supreme Court has already ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen.
So now we have people arguing that the children of US military members born 'under orders' overseas on a US military base are not eligible to be President, but the child of illegal immigrants born while illegally in the US are.
Fortunately Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) introduced a bill clarifying that children born to US military personnel serving overseas can indeed grow up to be President and Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have signed on as sponsors of the bill.
Unfortunately the bill, for reasons unknown, seems to be stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
So McCaskill has tried again, introducing a a resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen, again Obama and Clinton have signed on as sponsors.
It is virtually guaranteed that if elected someone will file a legal challenge against McCain on this basis.
My question is simply "HAVE WE LOST ALL COMMON SENSE?"
One might as well argue that "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"... means that if you weren't a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, on September 17th, 1787 you are not eligible. It does after all say "at the time of"...not "on or after"
~Finntann~
Saturday, April 12, 2008
POT CALLS KETTLE BLACK!
Barack Obama says that in many small towns in the Midwest, jobs had been gone for 25 years and the federal government had failed to replace them. It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
“Now like some of you have been, I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Sen. Obama made about people in small-town America,” Clinton said during a campaign stop. “Sen. Obama’s remarks are elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans.”
So now, isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle black, considering that in the 2000-2007 time frame the Clinton's have a declared income of over $109 million while the Obamas earned just a little over $3.8 million from 2000-2006. On average from 2000-2004 the Obamas earned just under $250,000 a year.
Hillary went to Wellesley and then attended Yale Law School.
Barack attended Occidental College in LA for two years before transferring to Columbia in NYC to obtain his B.A in 1983. He then attended Harvard Law starting in 1988.
What's most entertaining is the foolishness of a Yale grad calling a Harvard grad elitist.
Let's take another look at what Obama said:
It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Okay... so people in small town America are bitter about the loss of jobs, pro-second amendment, religious, supportive of our social and cultural norms, and are frustrated over the loss of American jobs due to unfettered immigration and a disadvantaged trade policy. I can understand the liberal left's fear of this sentiment but wouldn't call it demeaning... Hell, it's a fairly decent description of my beliefs and that of my friends.
Looking closer at what Hillary said: Senator Obama's remarks are out of touch and not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans? Come on Hillary, it seems to me that you are the one who is out of touch.
Being pro-gun is demeaning? Not an American value or belief?
Being religious is demeaning? Not an American value or belief?
Being anti-immigrant is demeaning? (are we talking legal or illegal immigration here anyway?)
Being anti-trade is demeaning? Not an American value or belief?
I suppose we are left to wonder exactly what Obama meant by "antipathy to people not like them". It is possible to celebrate cultural diversity yet still be antipathetic towards those who refuse to learn our language or adapt to our culture in any way while expecting us to accommodate their refusal.
I found Obama's remarks poorly phrased and not typical of his general ability to communicate effectively, but I did not find them demeaning or elitist.
I am, however, left wondering what the heck Hillary is thinking?
~Finntann~
“Now like some of you have been, I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Sen. Obama made about people in small-town America,” Clinton said during a campaign stop. “Sen. Obama’s remarks are elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans.”
So now, isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle black, considering that in the 2000-2007 time frame the Clinton's have a declared income of over $109 million while the Obamas earned just a little over $3.8 million from 2000-2006. On average from 2000-2004 the Obamas earned just under $250,000 a year.
Hillary went to Wellesley and then attended Yale Law School.
Barack attended Occidental College in LA for two years before transferring to Columbia in NYC to obtain his B.A in 1983. He then attended Harvard Law starting in 1988.
What's most entertaining is the foolishness of a Yale grad calling a Harvard grad elitist.
Let's take another look at what Obama said:
It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Okay... so people in small town America are bitter about the loss of jobs, pro-second amendment, religious, supportive of our social and cultural norms, and are frustrated over the loss of American jobs due to unfettered immigration and a disadvantaged trade policy. I can understand the liberal left's fear of this sentiment but wouldn't call it demeaning... Hell, it's a fairly decent description of my beliefs and that of my friends.
Looking closer at what Hillary said: Senator Obama's remarks are out of touch and not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans? Come on Hillary, it seems to me that you are the one who is out of touch.
Being pro-gun is demeaning? Not an American value or belief?
Being religious is demeaning? Not an American value or belief?
Being anti-immigrant is demeaning? (are we talking legal or illegal immigration here anyway?)
Being anti-trade is demeaning? Not an American value or belief?
I suppose we are left to wonder exactly what Obama meant by "antipathy to people not like them". It is possible to celebrate cultural diversity yet still be antipathetic towards those who refuse to learn our language or adapt to our culture in any way while expecting us to accommodate their refusal.
I found Obama's remarks poorly phrased and not typical of his general ability to communicate effectively, but I did not find them demeaning or elitist.
I am, however, left wondering what the heck Hillary is thinking?
~Finntann~
Friday, April 11, 2008
Islam and the West
I was recently pointed in this direction by an old friend of mine... check out the story, and be sure to click on the links at:
http://foutsc.blogspot.com/2008/04/free-speech-religion-and-fed-up-british.html
I, until recently, was completely unaware of Pat Condell.
Now, you will either love or hate Pat... he is completely honest and outspoken, yet his views on Islam, however right, are certainly not politically correct.
It is refreshing to see someone stand up and speak out for the West, for Western Civilization, our values, and our way of life. Kind of makes me want to run off and join the Knights Templar. Pat points out in his videos that our very civilization is under assault and we are active participants in that assault.
Pat's speech is harsh, raw, controversial, and completely on target. There is no mollycoddling here, no patronizing political correctness, just straight talk and he doesn't care who he offends. Be forewarned, Pat is a secular atheist and Christians will be as offended by his views on Christianity as Muslims are on his views of Islam. This is free speech at its purest.
Bravo! Pat, my hat is off to you.
Makes me proud to be Irish
It was my intent to post once a day, but I couldn't pass this one up.
http://foutsc.blogspot.com/2008/04/free-speech-religion-and-fed-up-british.html
I, until recently, was completely unaware of Pat Condell.
Now, you will either love or hate Pat... he is completely honest and outspoken, yet his views on Islam, however right, are certainly not politically correct.
It is refreshing to see someone stand up and speak out for the West, for Western Civilization, our values, and our way of life. Kind of makes me want to run off and join the Knights Templar. Pat points out in his videos that our very civilization is under assault and we are active participants in that assault.
Pat's speech is harsh, raw, controversial, and completely on target. There is no mollycoddling here, no patronizing political correctness, just straight talk and he doesn't care who he offends. Be forewarned, Pat is a secular atheist and Christians will be as offended by his views on Christianity as Muslims are on his views of Islam. This is free speech at its purest.
Bravo! Pat, my hat is off to you.
Makes me proud to be Irish
It was my intent to post once a day, but I couldn't pass this one up.
Carter, Hamas, and Khaled Mashaal
According to Al Jazeera Hamas has confirmed that former President Jimmy Carter will meet with Khaled Mashaal the leader of Hamas sometime between April 13th and 21st.
All the Carter Center will confirm is that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter will lead a study mission to Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan April 13-21, 2008, as part of the Carter Center's ongoing effort to support peace, democracy, and human rights in the region.
So far this has been met with criticism from a wide variety of sources both left and right.
The US state department has urged Carter not to violate foreign policy by meeting Hamas's political leader.
Condoleezza Rice has criticised the reported plans.
According to his campaign "Senator Obama does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements..."
Phil Singer, a spokesman for the campaign of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Hamas is a terrorist organization who is responsible for the deaths of countless innocents and almost daily rocket attacks against Israel, Hillary respects former President Carter but disagrees with his decision."
According to an anonymous Israeli official, "Israel is very angry about the idea of former President Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Syria next week."
All the Carter Center will confirm is that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter will lead a study mission to Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan April 13-21, 2008, as part of the Carter Center's ongoing effort to support peace, democracy, and human rights in the region.
So far this has been met with criticism from a wide variety of sources both left and right.
The US state department has urged Carter not to violate foreign policy by meeting Hamas's political leader.
Condoleezza Rice has criticised the reported plans.
According to his campaign "Senator Obama does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements..."
Phil Singer, a spokesman for the campaign of U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Hamas is a terrorist organization who is responsible for the deaths of countless innocents and almost daily rocket attacks against Israel, Hillary respects former President Carter but disagrees with his decision."
According to an anonymous Israeli official, "Israel is very angry about the idea of former President Jimmy Carter meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Syria next week."
First let me recognize and praise President Carter's humanitarian and international electoral work.
In the field of international diplomacy he seems to have a much more mixed record. President Carter has often been accused of meddling in affairs of state, operating against the interests and policies of our nation.
It is US policy to isolate Hamas, an organization, reasonably placed, on the state departments list of terrorist organizations. Carter's plans to meet with the leader of Hamas would seem counter-productive to that stated goal.
Former President Carter is a member of the Elders and this was originally supposed to be a visit by Carter, Nelson Mandela, and Kofi Annan (all members of the Elders), but according to the Carter Center the others have decided "that the timing was wrong".
For a look at a real interesting curiosity (I haven't decided what I think about this yet), go to:
http://www.theelders.org/elders/
It is curious that despite widespread advice against this meeting Carter continues to persist with his plans.
I would urge President Carter to reconsider and not to meet with Khaled Mashaal.
However, and I have poked around a bit doing some research, I can find no legitimate reason to actually stop him. He may be misguided and completely off-base, but he has the right to travel to Syria and meet with whoever he pleases as a private citizen, so long as he doesn't provide financial or material aid to the organization it all seems completely legal.
The administration should publicly and loudly avow that President Carter is neither a representative of the US government nor can he speak as such.
Finntann
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Whose election is it anyway?
Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that a foreign national just raised $2.5 million for an American presidential candidate?
Elton John played a benefit concert for Hilary Clinton last night at Radio City Music Hall raising $2.5 million: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6074098
Am I wrong? I'm not a lawyer, so correct me if I'm misguided, but I think the law says:
11CFR110.20 7b Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to: (1) A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or (2) An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.
I'm sure there is a loophole, as those donating were the concert goers, not Sir Elton John, but...
Could one not argue that his performance was an indirect contribution that would fall into the category of "other thing of value"?
I can't say that a violation of election law occurred, still it strikes me as not complying with the spirit and intent of the law at the least.
Still this bothers me, with all due respect to Sir Elton John, but I thought we settled the issue of those of British title being involved in American politics in 1783.
My honest opinion is that who gets elected president of these United States is none of his damn business! As who gets elected prime minister in his country is none of ours.
Given the 1996 campaign finance controversy one might expect a little more sensitivity to foreign involvement in our political process.
Some quotes attributed to Elton John:
“ I’ve always been a Hillary supporter, there is no one more qualified to lead America."
“I’m amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them .... I love you Hillary, I’ll be there for you.”
As the saying goes "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I lived in Swindon, England for a while, frequented their pubs and nightclubs, and in my experience Americans have nothing over the English when it comes to misogyny.
The story doesn't begin with Elton John though:
Elvis Costello netted Hilary more than $1.5 million at a birthday fundraiser last October:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/elvis-costello-sings-to-clinton/1900702162
How much foreign involvement do we need in our political process?
Personally, legal or not, I find endorsements by foreign nationals extremely distasteful and that they produce the exact opposite of the intended effect. While I grant that Sir Elton John has a musical gift, I fail to see how his musical abilities qualifies him to comment on American politics or recommend to us "the candidate most qualified to lead us" nor do I find someone with a English grammar school education to the age of 15, overly competent to judge.
But I'll save the fame equals intelligence debate for another day.
Finntann
Elton John played a benefit concert for Hilary Clinton last night at Radio City Music Hall raising $2.5 million: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6074098
Am I wrong? I'm not a lawyer, so correct me if I'm misguided, but I think the law says:
11CFR110.20 7b Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
(c) Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political committees and organizations of political parties. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to: (1) A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or (2) An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.
I'm sure there is a loophole, as those donating were the concert goers, not Sir Elton John, but...
Could one not argue that his performance was an indirect contribution that would fall into the category of "other thing of value"?
I can't say that a violation of election law occurred, still it strikes me as not complying with the spirit and intent of the law at the least.
Still this bothers me, with all due respect to Sir Elton John, but I thought we settled the issue of those of British title being involved in American politics in 1783.
My honest opinion is that who gets elected president of these United States is none of his damn business! As who gets elected prime minister in his country is none of ours.
Given the 1996 campaign finance controversy one might expect a little more sensitivity to foreign involvement in our political process.
Some quotes attributed to Elton John:
“ I’ve always been a Hillary supporter, there is no one more qualified to lead America."
“I’m amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them .... I love you Hillary, I’ll be there for you.”
As the saying goes "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I lived in Swindon, England for a while, frequented their pubs and nightclubs, and in my experience Americans have nothing over the English when it comes to misogyny.
The story doesn't begin with Elton John though:
Elvis Costello netted Hilary more than $1.5 million at a birthday fundraiser last October:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/elvis-costello-sings-to-clinton/1900702162
How much foreign involvement do we need in our political process?
Personally, legal or not, I find endorsements by foreign nationals extremely distasteful and that they produce the exact opposite of the intended effect. While I grant that Sir Elton John has a musical gift, I fail to see how his musical abilities qualifies him to comment on American politics or recommend to us "the candidate most qualified to lead us" nor do I find someone with a English grammar school education to the age of 15, overly competent to judge.
But I'll save the fame equals intelligence debate for another day.
Finntann
Contrast
Two headlines in the news today make a striking contrast:
Compare "DEMS: America can not afford endless war" to "Marine who lost leg returns to combat in Iraq"
I'd like to start by offering a salute to Gunnery Sergeant William Gibson
Two years ago he lost his leg to a sniper's bullet in Iraq. Today he is back in the combat zone by his own choice.
Read the whole story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24029144/
Meanwhile, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi whine about the cost to taxpayers and keep asking are we safer.
To address the cost issue, we are spending 2% less of our GDP on defense now then we were under Ronald Reagan during the cold war.
Are we safer? That is an interesting question. To the best of my recollection we haven't had any major or minor terrorist attacks lately. I could leave it at that... seems a simple answer to a simple question, but what are they really asking and what do they mean by safer? Obviously they are aware of the facts regarding enemy action on US soil, so it would seem what they are asking is "do you feel safer". This is kind of a loaded question, not concerned with the facts but with your feelings. I'd go so far as to suggest that everyone felt pretty safe on September 10th, 2001... and as events proved, this feeling was pretty far off the mark. So, do you feel safer today? Your perception of threat might be higher in this post 9/11 world, but are you in any more danger? An avowed enemy has sworn to strike at this 'heart of Satan' we live in and has not successfully been able to do so. The suggestion, which is probably true, is that the evil is out there, plotting and planning, waiting to strike at the most opportune time. They are playing on your fears of attack, not the actual threat of attack itself.
Nancy Pelosi described this as a 'failed war', what I wonder is her criteria for assessing victory? One might have argued towards the end of 1942 that the war was a 'failed war' having lost most of south east Asia, Burma, The Philippines, Malaya, The Dutch East Indies, and Singapore. We were suffering significant naval losses in the South China Sea, The Java Sea, The Indian Ocean, and were losing ships along the Atlantic Seaboard to the Germans. In the desert the British had been pushed back by the Germans, and the Soviet Union looked ready to fall. Perhaps, then, from the perspective of a 'failed war' we should have sued for peace. We most likely would have gotten off rather easily, abandoning our European allies, and perhaps suffering at most the demilitarization of Hawaii. 'Failed War'! Where would we be now?
All indications are that the situation in Iraq is improving, might as well cut our losses now and withdraw. Might I point our esteemed leadership in the general direction of a good dictionary, in particular the entry on defeatist, "showing a tendency to expect failure or accept it too readily".
The debate about whether we should invade Iraq is over, Factum est... it is done.
Before we start the debate about when to withdrawal troops we really ought to consider and debate the repercussions of such an action. I keep hearing "out, out, out", but nothing about the consequences of withdrawing. Will our withdrawal result in genocide of a proportion to put Darfur to shame? Will our withdrawal result in an Iranian hegemony over the entire region? Having committed ourselves to action in Iraq we are now directly responsible for what happens there, no longer can we sit on the sidelines content or at least tolerant of our sins of omission. Like it or not each and every one of us has a responsibility and obligation to the people of Iraq. Whether you consider them our friends, enemies, or are simply indifferent to their fate whatever happens, happens as a result of our actions, past, current, and future.
Might we pause and consider the actions and motivation of Gunnery Sgt Gibson?
“This is where we were 232 years ago as a new nation,” he once said. “Now they're starting a new nation, and that's one of my big reasons for coming back here.”
Most people would consider the sacrifice that Sgt Gibson has made sufficient, all obligations have been met, no debt is owed, anything else is pure nobility.
Compare "DEMS: America can not afford endless war" to "Marine who lost leg returns to combat in Iraq"
I'd like to start by offering a salute to Gunnery Sergeant William Gibson
Two years ago he lost his leg to a sniper's bullet in Iraq. Today he is back in the combat zone by his own choice.
Read the whole story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24029144/
Meanwhile, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi whine about the cost to taxpayers and keep asking are we safer.
To address the cost issue, we are spending 2% less of our GDP on defense now then we were under Ronald Reagan during the cold war.
Are we safer? That is an interesting question. To the best of my recollection we haven't had any major or minor terrorist attacks lately. I could leave it at that... seems a simple answer to a simple question, but what are they really asking and what do they mean by safer? Obviously they are aware of the facts regarding enemy action on US soil, so it would seem what they are asking is "do you feel safer". This is kind of a loaded question, not concerned with the facts but with your feelings. I'd go so far as to suggest that everyone felt pretty safe on September 10th, 2001... and as events proved, this feeling was pretty far off the mark. So, do you feel safer today? Your perception of threat might be higher in this post 9/11 world, but are you in any more danger? An avowed enemy has sworn to strike at this 'heart of Satan' we live in and has not successfully been able to do so. The suggestion, which is probably true, is that the evil is out there, plotting and planning, waiting to strike at the most opportune time. They are playing on your fears of attack, not the actual threat of attack itself.
Nancy Pelosi described this as a 'failed war', what I wonder is her criteria for assessing victory? One might have argued towards the end of 1942 that the war was a 'failed war' having lost most of south east Asia, Burma, The Philippines, Malaya, The Dutch East Indies, and Singapore. We were suffering significant naval losses in the South China Sea, The Java Sea, The Indian Ocean, and were losing ships along the Atlantic Seaboard to the Germans. In the desert the British had been pushed back by the Germans, and the Soviet Union looked ready to fall. Perhaps, then, from the perspective of a 'failed war' we should have sued for peace. We most likely would have gotten off rather easily, abandoning our European allies, and perhaps suffering at most the demilitarization of Hawaii. 'Failed War'! Where would we be now?
All indications are that the situation in Iraq is improving, might as well cut our losses now and withdraw. Might I point our esteemed leadership in the general direction of a good dictionary, in particular the entry on defeatist, "showing a tendency to expect failure or accept it too readily".
The debate about whether we should invade Iraq is over, Factum est... it is done.
Before we start the debate about when to withdrawal troops we really ought to consider and debate the repercussions of such an action. I keep hearing "out, out, out", but nothing about the consequences of withdrawing. Will our withdrawal result in genocide of a proportion to put Darfur to shame? Will our withdrawal result in an Iranian hegemony over the entire region? Having committed ourselves to action in Iraq we are now directly responsible for what happens there, no longer can we sit on the sidelines content or at least tolerant of our sins of omission. Like it or not each and every one of us has a responsibility and obligation to the people of Iraq. Whether you consider them our friends, enemies, or are simply indifferent to their fate whatever happens, happens as a result of our actions, past, current, and future.
Might we pause and consider the actions and motivation of Gunnery Sgt Gibson?
“This is where we were 232 years ago as a new nation,” he once said. “Now they're starting a new nation, and that's one of my big reasons for coming back here.”
Most people would consider the sacrifice that Sgt Gibson has made sufficient, all obligations have been met, no debt is owed, anything else is pure nobility.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Washington's Farewell
Washington's farewell address was written to the American people and appeared in newspapers in 1796, although it existed in draft form as early as 1792. Americans, not Washington gave it the title "Farewell Address". Paragraphs 20-25 are a warning on the dangers of political parties, the entire text of the letter can be found here: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
The excerpts of the content of Washington's letter will appear in bold, hopefully holding true to the context of the original, my commentary interspersed throughout will appear in yellow.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
One can hardly argue against the fact that our political parties seem to be lining up along geographical lines, although not in the manner foreseen by our founding fathers who were mainly concerned with north/south, east/west divisions. Our current geographical discrimination seems to be one of urban liberal versus rural conservatives, with the suburbs varying allegiance regionally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.
The bitterness and venom in the right/left debate gives proof to this assessment, enter any public chat room regardless of subject to witness the degeneration of American political differences to an ugly schoolyard brawl of vicious name calling and downright irrational and sometimes fanatical screaming. I find it particularly irksome to watch live chat rooms on subjects completely apolitical devolve into vehement diatribes against the current administration and in answer, against former administrations. Although the number of 'Cheney' hunting mishap posts to a log at the Denver Post on the killing of 30 bison was somewhat amusing, it was in a 'what are these people thinking' way. Are we now incapable of rationale dialog?
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
Alas, we seem to have arrived at this destination in the worst manner possible. The axe both parties constantly grind against the 'spinning' wheel of the press advances not our national interests but the agenda of only the parties themselves. While we were once a nation of Americans it seems that we are now only a nation of Democrats and Republicans (No offense to the other parties, but unfortunately, in reality we are a two-party state). Matters of national security are leaked to the press in the furtherance of party agendas and items not necessarily of national security are classified so, only in the furtherance or protection of party agendas.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
How true this rings! Would anyone care to disagree?
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
Who can argue that the fire of our political scene is warming not consuming? I assert that we are ablaze and instead of grabbing the water we are reaching for the gasoline every time one of our number posts a "**** Bush or **** Clinton " comment instead of dousing the fire with the water of rational debate. The political discourse of the enlightenment has devolved into the totally irrational Bush=Hitler Clinton=Marx arguments prevalent in the anonymous (and sometimes not so anonymous) political discourse of the web.
Far too many align themselves with the extremes of thought seeing things in the stark contrast of black and white. American involvement in Iraq is either utterly evil or consummately good instead of the grey of a well-intentioned effort with significant problems requiring innovative thought and action to resolve. As long as we are screaming good and evil at one another we shall make no progress, to continue the debate of whether or not we should have gone there in the first place is moot, we are there and that is the subject we must deal with, and hopefully resolve in an intelligent manner avoiding the distinct possibility of factional genocide as the result of our activities.
Iraq, Iran, China, Venezuela... these are the foremost issues on the world stage, as Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying at the signing of the Declaration of Independence in response to John Hancock about hanging together... " "Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately". Have we lost sight of the de facto motto of the United States? Pull a coin out of your pocket and look for E pluribus unum, it is on them all. Out of many, one!
Lately, E PLURIBUS DUO might seem a more apt description.
Don't get me wrong, I am not vehemently opposed to a two-party system, however I urge you all to take Washington's advice to heart: "the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it". Be wise, discourage and restrain partisanship and encourage focused and rationale debate on the issues confronting us.
~Finntann~
Who was Finntann? According to Irish legend Finntann was the only survivor of the biblical flood who was not on the boat with Noah. Finntann had kept afloat during the flood and lived on afterwards seemingly immortal, at Dun Tulcha in southwestern Kerry. He reappears now and then through the course of Irish history at times of great importance to bear witness to events.
As the legend goes Finntann reappeared some thousands of years later in the sixth century during the reign of Diarmuid MacCarroll to settle, by testimony taken from his long memory, a dispute about the limits of the Royal Demesne. Great was the awed wonder at the King's palace, when the old man arrived, preceded by nine companies of his own descendants, and followed by another nine.
I first came across this story in "The Story of the Irish Race" by Seumas MacManus, a longer excerpt for those interested can be found here, under 'Irish Legend of the Flood":
http://www.carnahanclan.com/Default.aspx?tabid=60&g=profile&u=5
A seemingly Irish lesson in Winston Churchill's adage "That those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it", although Sir Winston being English is much more concise.
And as the length of this post attests, like most American-Irish I am endowed with the gift of gab, and yes... the word order is a political statement, American first and foremost!
The excerpts of the content of Washington's letter will appear in bold, hopefully holding true to the context of the original, my commentary interspersed throughout will appear in yellow.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
One can hardly argue against the fact that our political parties seem to be lining up along geographical lines, although not in the manner foreseen by our founding fathers who were mainly concerned with north/south, east/west divisions. Our current geographical discrimination seems to be one of urban liberal versus rural conservatives, with the suburbs varying allegiance regionally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.
The bitterness and venom in the right/left debate gives proof to this assessment, enter any public chat room regardless of subject to witness the degeneration of American political differences to an ugly schoolyard brawl of vicious name calling and downright irrational and sometimes fanatical screaming. I find it particularly irksome to watch live chat rooms on subjects completely apolitical devolve into vehement diatribes against the current administration and in answer, against former administrations. Although the number of 'Cheney' hunting mishap posts to a log at the Denver Post on the killing of 30 bison was somewhat amusing, it was in a 'what are these people thinking' way. Are we now incapable of rationale dialog?
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
Alas, we seem to have arrived at this destination in the worst manner possible. The axe both parties constantly grind against the 'spinning' wheel of the press advances not our national interests but the agenda of only the parties themselves. While we were once a nation of Americans it seems that we are now only a nation of Democrats and Republicans (No offense to the other parties, but unfortunately, in reality we are a two-party state). Matters of national security are leaked to the press in the furtherance of party agendas and items not necessarily of national security are classified so, only in the furtherance or protection of party agendas.
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
How true this rings! Would anyone care to disagree?
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
Who can argue that the fire of our political scene is warming not consuming? I assert that we are ablaze and instead of grabbing the water we are reaching for the gasoline every time one of our number posts a "**** Bush or **** Clinton " comment instead of dousing the fire with the water of rational debate. The political discourse of the enlightenment has devolved into the totally irrational Bush=Hitler Clinton=Marx arguments prevalent in the anonymous (and sometimes not so anonymous) political discourse of the web.
Far too many align themselves with the extremes of thought seeing things in the stark contrast of black and white. American involvement in Iraq is either utterly evil or consummately good instead of the grey of a well-intentioned effort with significant problems requiring innovative thought and action to resolve. As long as we are screaming good and evil at one another we shall make no progress, to continue the debate of whether or not we should have gone there in the first place is moot, we are there and that is the subject we must deal with, and hopefully resolve in an intelligent manner avoiding the distinct possibility of factional genocide as the result of our activities.
Iraq, Iran, China, Venezuela... these are the foremost issues on the world stage, as Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying at the signing of the Declaration of Independence in response to John Hancock about hanging together... " "Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately". Have we lost sight of the de facto motto of the United States? Pull a coin out of your pocket and look for E pluribus unum, it is on them all. Out of many, one!
Lately, E PLURIBUS DUO might seem a more apt description.
Don't get me wrong, I am not vehemently opposed to a two-party system, however I urge you all to take Washington's advice to heart: "the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it". Be wise, discourage and restrain partisanship and encourage focused and rationale debate on the issues confronting us.
~Finntann~
Who was Finntann? According to Irish legend Finntann was the only survivor of the biblical flood who was not on the boat with Noah. Finntann had kept afloat during the flood and lived on afterwards seemingly immortal, at Dun Tulcha in southwestern Kerry. He reappears now and then through the course of Irish history at times of great importance to bear witness to events.
As the legend goes Finntann reappeared some thousands of years later in the sixth century during the reign of Diarmuid MacCarroll to settle, by testimony taken from his long memory, a dispute about the limits of the Royal Demesne. Great was the awed wonder at the King's palace, when the old man arrived, preceded by nine companies of his own descendants, and followed by another nine.
I first came across this story in "The Story of the Irish Race" by Seumas MacManus, a longer excerpt for those interested can be found here, under 'Irish Legend of the Flood":
http://www.carnahanclan.com/Default.aspx?tabid=60&g=profile&u=5
A seemingly Irish lesson in Winston Churchill's adage "That those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it", although Sir Winston being English is much more concise.
And as the length of this post attests, like most American-Irish I am endowed with the gift of gab, and yes... the word order is a political statement, American first and foremost!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
