When I began this blog in 2001, I was appalled by President Bush's headlong rush to an illegal war (we were not in fact under attack). As time wore on and Bush began his assault on the Constitution and any people bold enough to criticize, I believed that "the republic is endangered more by actions of our own government than by those of any terrorist." With the election of a high-minded, compassionate, intelligent man like Barack Obama, my fears have ceased.
"Honor them with peace, not war"
United for Peace
Saturday, December 28, 2002
For a little comic relief from the steady diet here of complaint and agonizing over what the world is coming to, check out Mike Thomas's report in the Orlando Sentinel on the vacation trip taken by members of the Bush clan on a Disney cruise ship.
It's a dizzy world
For a little comic relief from the steady diet here of complaint and agonizing over what the world is coming to, check out Mike Thomas's report in the Orlando Sentinel on the vacation trip taken by members of the Bush clan on a Disney cruise ship.
The gastrointestinal virus has people on edge. When the Secret Service detail saw George Bush about to take a bite of lukewarm cream soup, two agents hustled him out of the room while a third opened fire on the bowl.The tinier the terrorist, the bigger the bomb.
Palema
8:33 AM
Tuesday, December 24, 2002
I look for a little backbone in my Democratic candidate. Our next will need it, what with the Republican stranglehold on the House, Senate and Supreme Court. Liebermann is not the man for the job.
I read in the New York Times that Gore supporters would be happy to support him, especially since he deferred to Gore decision on whether to run or not. I would happily vote for Gore; but not for Liebermann-- he has lost my support. I consider him a self-seeking weasel.
I used to Like Liebermann pretty well. When he was majority leader of the Connecticut Senate, it was a liberal era and he was a liberal, as far as I could tell (and recall). I liked him when he was Attorney General also, an advocate for consumers and the environment.
It seemed to me that the minute he stepped up to the US Senate plate to run against Lowell Weicker, he seemed to become a lot more conservative. At the time, I viewed it as a ploy to capture the votes of all the many Republicans who were deeply annoyed at Weicker. It worked. But he kept on being conservative and hawkish.
It was only when he was in the Senate that I first read he was very religiious, and at that time, all it meant was that he didn't work on the Sabbath. Now it has come to mean, apparenlty, that he takes ethical questions very seriously, more seriously than the common man.
Some of the issues he has publically agonized over should have been no-brainers to a man with highly developed ethical sense. The issue of abortion, for example, is one that nearly everyone in America has a view on -- it wouldn't blindside Liebermann when it came up, who ought by now to have a highly develped view, deep thinker that he is. But no. 'Whoa, there's a new one! Have to mull that one over!'
I read in the Times:
I get the sense with Liebermann that he is not weighing the ethical choices so much as balancing his practical advantages against the unpleasant ethical choice. It takes him a long time to decide, not because he is more ethical than other men, but because he is so drawn to the practical side.
This seems to me to be the balancing act of one who normally would do no wrong- but would change his mind if the price were right.
Or perhaps that is an illusion. Maybe it is just that he is so self-satisfied that any view he holds, he considers must be the right view merely because he holds it. I have no objection to a religious man i the White House- I would just appreciate a bit more humility along with the spirituality.
The Hake's Progress
...overall, hakes have noticeably softer flesh and less flake than cod, haddock and pollock....bones, like the flesh, are soft and do not normally pose a problem.
I look for a little backbone in my Democratic candidate. Our next will need it, what with the Republican stranglehold on the House, Senate and Supreme Court. Liebermann is not the man for the job.
I read in the New York Times that Gore supporters would be happy to support him, especially since he deferred to Gore decision on whether to run or not. I would happily vote for Gore; but not for Liebermann-- he has lost my support. I consider him a self-seeking weasel.
I used to Like Liebermann pretty well. When he was majority leader of the Connecticut Senate, it was a liberal era and he was a liberal, as far as I could tell (and recall). I liked him when he was Attorney General also, an advocate for consumers and the environment.
It seemed to me that the minute he stepped up to the US Senate plate to run against Lowell Weicker, he seemed to become a lot more conservative. At the time, I viewed it as a ploy to capture the votes of all the many Republicans who were deeply annoyed at Weicker. It worked. But he kept on being conservative and hawkish.
It was only when he was in the Senate that I first read he was very religiious, and at that time, all it meant was that he didn't work on the Sabbath. Now it has come to mean, apparenlty, that he takes ethical questions very seriously, more seriously than the common man.
Some of the issues he has publically agonized over should have been no-brainers to a man with highly developed ethical sense. The issue of abortion, for example, is one that nearly everyone in America has a view on -- it wouldn't blindside Liebermann when it came up, who ought by now to have a highly develped view, deep thinker that he is. But no. 'Whoa, there's a new one! Have to mull that one over!'
I read in the Times:
Mr. Lieberman, who is an Orthodox Jew, is promising a campaign that would place more emphasis on values and spirituality than Democratic primary voters are accustomed to hearing. Democrats inside and outside the Lieberman camp suggest that could feed the perception of Mr. Lieberman as cloyingly sanctimonious, a view his allies say he needs to guard against. NYT 12-24-02. Cloyingly sanctimonious, yes that's it.
I get the sense with Liebermann that he is not weighing the ethical choices so much as balancing his practical advantages against the unpleasant ethical choice. It takes him a long time to decide, not because he is more ethical than other men, but because he is so drawn to the practical side.
This seems to me to be the balancing act of one who normally would do no wrong- but would change his mind if the price were right.
Or perhaps that is an illusion. Maybe it is just that he is so self-satisfied that any view he holds, he considers must be the right view merely because he holds it. I have no objection to a religious man i the White House- I would just appreciate a bit more humility along with the spirituality.
Palema
7:07 AM
Friday, December 20, 2002
Lies
I will make a bargain with the Republicans. If they will stop telling lies about Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them. -Adlai Stevenson (quoted on the Gore in 2004 website)
Palema
6:55 AM
Thursday, December 19, 2002
As he says, segregation was a horrible business and anyone who supported it was either a racist or an opportunist utterly devoid of values. It's one thing to have gone along with it, unable to see how to change it -- altogether another to have supsported and defended it as Strom Thurmond did Lott still does in the South
Segregation: separate, but never equal
...States enforced segregation in prisons and in homes for orphans, the deaf, the poor and -- my favorite -- the blind. People who could not even see color had to be separated by race.
It was always clear, as well, that this was not just about physical separation but about keeping one group constantly ostracized, always humiliated.--California history professor Robert Slayton, writing in the Washington Post 12-19-02
As he says, segregation was a horrible business and anyone who supported it was either a racist or an opportunist utterly devoid of values. It's one thing to have gone along with it, unable to see how to change it -- altogether another to have supsported and defended it as Strom Thurmond did Lott still does in the South
Palema
4:49 PM
Sunday, December 15, 2002
It may be time to start consciousness-raising among the nation's middle class. Those with a decent education, a good job, and a nice home will rapidly find their economic position eroding if today's national policies continue. Look at the scene in the comfortable town of Corvallis, Oregon:
Corvallis is cutting electives in its middle school and 13-year-old kids are telling them save the programs and let the kids do some of the janitorial work.
It's time for folks to wake up and realize that Bush's policies are killing the economy. Exorbitant military expenditures are a horrible drain on the federal budget, and being made just when he has been anxious to return wealth to those who skim it off the top.
In all the debates about tax cuts going mainly to the rich, did we hear it said that not only are the tax cuts unfair to the middle and lower classes, but they are overall bad economic policy.? No, we did not.
Bush claimed that putting money "back in the pockets" of the rich would stimulate a faltering economy, as the rich would invest. Please note that not even the rich have pockets big enough to contain the huge profits they take home after sending American jobs to low-paid South Americans or Chinese.
Bush was and is wrong. His policies are driven entirely by the profit motive and not the public interest at all. There is room for both of these to operate together, but i the Bush administration, the balance is gone. The public interest is utterly neglected. He thumbs his nose at environmental damage, at human costs.
Owners of corporations are making more and more, while the rest of the people are making less and less. Economic malaise, which started hitting the bottom of the economic pile 10 years ago, is creeping upward.
As more and more jobs are sent abroad, the nation's wealth (which is not diminishing) resides in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The first answer here is to greatly increase taxes on those huge profits. The second answer is to stop funding military exploits, which is investment that does not help the community at all, and instead have the government make investments that help us.
I believe the primary reason the economy soared during the Clinton years is not because of anything Clinton did,but because of the drop in military spending at the close of the Cold War. As the military stopped sucking off the best and brightest of engineers, other products begain improving. For example, cars made from about 93 onward are far better than their predecessors-- they rquire less maintenance and are less likely to break down on the road.
To recap, the two things that will get the economy back on its feet are for the miltary and the super-rich to tighten their belts:
1. Cut military spending sharply (and, of course, rein in the lust for war).
2. Sharply graduate the income tax for those earning over some modest amount like $200,000 a year - keep graduating it, dont stop at half a millon and make it a flat tax thereon up. Simultaneously, reduce the income tax on those making less than $200,000 a year, and eliminate it altogether for those making only enough to live on, approximately $40,000 a year.
After doing that, let's take a look and ses what adjustments might need to be made. We probably ought to start sharing our wealth with the rest of the world, and working to improve ecological balance of the planet before we destroy it all.
This might involve curbing the lust for profits as well - but oh, well. Life before profit, I say.
.
Time for consciousness-raising
It may be time to start consciousness-raising among the nation's middle class. Those with a decent education, a good job, and a nice home will rapidly find their economic position eroding if today's national policies continue. Look at the scene in the comfortable town of Corvallis, Oregon:
The effects of the national slump have tumbled to the biggest cities and smallest towns and places between, like Corvallis, where the abstractions of daunting budget numbers have become personal and concrete.
City Hall, in the core of Corvallis's lively downtown, made $482,000 in cuts this year from a $30 million budget, and $2.3 million in cuts are on the list for next year. Revenues are running $3 million less this year than last, largely because of nearly frozen property tax revenues. Cuts in revenues the state sends the city have just begun. The city's rainy-day fund, the savings that cover unexpected spending, had $15 million two years ago and has now all but disappeared.--N.Y. Times 12-15-02
Corvallis is cutting electives in its middle school and 13-year-old kids are telling them save the programs and let the kids do some of the janitorial work.
It's time for folks to wake up and realize that Bush's policies are killing the economy. Exorbitant military expenditures are a horrible drain on the federal budget, and being made just when he has been anxious to return wealth to those who skim it off the top.
In all the debates about tax cuts going mainly to the rich, did we hear it said that not only are the tax cuts unfair to the middle and lower classes, but they are overall bad economic policy.? No, we did not.
Bush claimed that putting money "back in the pockets" of the rich would stimulate a faltering economy, as the rich would invest. Please note that not even the rich have pockets big enough to contain the huge profits they take home after sending American jobs to low-paid South Americans or Chinese.
Bush was and is wrong. His policies are driven entirely by the profit motive and not the public interest at all. There is room for both of these to operate together, but i the Bush administration, the balance is gone. The public interest is utterly neglected. He thumbs his nose at environmental damage, at human costs.
Owners of corporations are making more and more, while the rest of the people are making less and less. Economic malaise, which started hitting the bottom of the economic pile 10 years ago, is creeping upward.
As more and more jobs are sent abroad, the nation's wealth (which is not diminishing) resides in the hands of fewer and fewer people. The first answer here is to greatly increase taxes on those huge profits. The second answer is to stop funding military exploits, which is investment that does not help the community at all, and instead have the government make investments that help us.
I believe the primary reason the economy soared during the Clinton years is not because of anything Clinton did,but because of the drop in military spending at the close of the Cold War. As the military stopped sucking off the best and brightest of engineers, other products begain improving. For example, cars made from about 93 onward are far better than their predecessors-- they rquire less maintenance and are less likely to break down on the road.
To recap, the two things that will get the economy back on its feet are for the miltary and the super-rich to tighten their belts:
1. Cut military spending sharply (and, of course, rein in the lust for war).
2. Sharply graduate the income tax for those earning over some modest amount like $200,000 a year - keep graduating it, dont stop at half a millon and make it a flat tax thereon up. Simultaneously, reduce the income tax on those making less than $200,000 a year, and eliminate it altogether for those making only enough to live on, approximately $40,000 a year.
After doing that, let's take a look and ses what adjustments might need to be made. We probably ought to start sharing our wealth with the rest of the world, and working to improve ecological balance of the planet before we destroy it all.
This might involve curbing the lust for profits as well - but oh, well. Life before profit, I say.
.
Palema
7:15 AM
Friday, December 13, 2002
The military is at it again (or still), going after the youth of America.
The goarmy.com (not .mil, interestingly) website offers a tantalizing bit with and instructions to contact your recruiter for more info. The "three paths" - six actually as I count it -- are listed a bit deeper in the site
Overt recruiting in schools is often met by resistance from anti-war activists and others [in 1996, for example, the CT high court upheld a UConn ban against recruiting on campus due to military bias against homosexuals and lesbians] .
Recruitment has become more covert over the years.
In 1997, the military began to put advertisements with links to their website on Channel One, the educational channel that is piped directly into many schools.
Now a provision slipped in to the educaton funding bill requires that high schools provide the names and addresses of all students in the target population of the recruiters. Any school district or other local educational agency that fails to comply risks the loss of federal funds. Parents may sign a form barring military mail to their child, if they know about it. Opposition groups are pressing to bar release of the information unless parents specifically approve it.
Young soldiers
The military is at it again (or still), going after the youth of America.
The goarmy.com (not .mil, interestingly) website offers a tantalizing bit with and instructions to contact your recruiter for more info. The "three paths" - six actually as I count it -- are listed a bit deeper in the site
Overt recruiting in schools is often met by resistance from anti-war activists and others [in 1996, for example, the CT high court upheld a UConn ban against recruiting on campus due to military bias against homosexuals and lesbians] .
Recruitment has become more covert over the years.
In 1997, the military began to put advertisements with links to their website on Channel One, the educational channel that is piped directly into many schools.
Now a provision slipped in to the educaton funding bill requires that high schools provide the names and addresses of all students in the target population of the recruiters. Any school district or other local educational agency that fails to comply risks the loss of federal funds. Parents may sign a form barring military mail to their child, if they know about it. Opposition groups are pressing to bar release of the information unless parents specifically approve it.
Palema
6:15 AM
Thursday, December 12, 2002
In unusual forthrightness and bravery, the Times has called for the ouster of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, who recently expressed chagrin that the election of 1948 was not won by Mississippi segregationist Strom Thurmond, who spent way too long in the Senate.
After noting that even conservative Republicans were appalled at Lott's remarks, the Times proceeds to weasle around and give Bush high marks for 'working for a multi-racial society.'
On the one hand they praise him: 'few can doubt Mr. Bush's commitment to a multiracial America' but on the other they admit underhandedly he is more concerned about image than reality: ' No one has put more effort than George W. Bush into ending the image of the Republican Party as a whites-only haven'.
Let me go on record as doubting Bush's commitment to equality of the races.
What about all that fooling around at the polls, keeping African American voters away? Has the Times forgotten already?
What about the school privatization movement fostered by Bush and his cronies? There's a way to let bigots send their children to white-only schools.
What about the end to affirmative action?
Read more about the state of integration in our nation's schools at the Black Commentator and dare the Times to say that again about Bush.
Who are they kidding?
If you would like more information about peace actions, one way to get it is to walk past peace demonstators and ask them about what they are doing and why. In any given group you are likely to find a variety of responses, so you will get a better flavor of what it's all about if you talk to several people.
Also, visit the web page of the War Resisters League
Fourteen of the group who blocked the entrance were arrested. Those arrested and the charges:
New York Times: Fire Trent Lott
In unusual forthrightness and bravery, the Times has called for the ouster of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, who recently expressed chagrin that the election of 1948 was not won by Mississippi segregationist Strom Thurmond, who spent way too long in the Senate.
After noting that even conservative Republicans were appalled at Lott's remarks, the Times proceeds to weasle around and give Bush high marks for 'working for a multi-racial society.'
On the one hand they praise him: 'few can doubt Mr. Bush's commitment to a multiracial America' but on the other they admit underhandedly he is more concerned about image than reality: ' No one has put more effort than George W. Bush into ending the image of the Republican Party as a whites-only haven'.
Let me go on record as doubting Bush's commitment to equality of the races.
What about all that fooling around at the polls, keeping African American voters away? Has the Times forgotten already?
What about the school privatization movement fostered by Bush and his cronies? There's a way to let bigots send their children to white-only schools.
What about the end to affirmative action?
Read more about the state of integration in our nation's schools at the Black Commentator and dare the Times to say that again about Bush.
Who are they kidding?
Palema
4:00 PM
Visit a peace vigil
- Some ongoing peace vigils:
- Hartford, CT — Vigil, every Saturday, 11:30 am - 12:30 pm, West Hartford Center (Farmington Avenue & Main Street); Ct Coalition for Peace & Justice, 860-521-0095, marlaludwig@yahoo.com.
- Willimantic, CT — N.E. CT Coalition for Peace & Justice holds a vigil every Thursday from 5 to 6 pm at the corner of Main and Jackson streets (opposite the Frog Bridge); contact Max, chrismax@galaxyinternet.net or Kate Donnelly at kate@donnellycolt.com
- Storrs/Mansfield, CT — N.E. CT Coalition for Peace & Justice holds a weekly vigil every Tuesday from 4 to 5 pm at the northwst corner of Route 195 (Storrs Road) and North Eagleville Road on the sidewalk in front of the Storrs Congregational Church; contact Marita McComisky
- New Haven, CT — Vigils Sunday afternoons, noon to 1 pm, Broadway and Elm organized by the CT Peace Coalition/New Haven, 203-777-3460, mvc@igc.org.
- Guilford, CT — Vigil, Guilford Green, every Saturday from 11-12; contact Cherie Williams, Guilford Peace Alliance
- New York City — WRL’s weekly vigil for peace, Saturdays, 12 noon to 2 pm, Union Square (14th St. and Broadway); call 212-228-0450 for more information.
If you would like more information about peace actions, one way to get it is to walk past peace demonstators and ask them about what they are doing and why. In any given group you are likely to find a variety of responses, so you will get a better flavor of what it's all about if you talk to several people.
Also, visit the web page of the War Resisters League
Palema
6:44 AM
I'm glad they're doing what they're doing.
It sort of reminds me of the Sixties. I don't know if what we're doing with Iraq is right or not. But I'm glad these people are doing what they're doing. It's their right. --Don DixonDixon, a Coventry resident who works in downtown Hartford, spoke with a reporter from the Hartford Courant as he observed 200 anti-war activists surround the Gold building, headquarters for United Technologies. It was a collaborative effort by college students, church groups and anti-war organizations to protest the Bush administration's stand on Iraq.
Fourteen of the group who blocked the entrance were arrested. Those arrested and the charges:
- Alexander Okrent, 19, of Evanston, Il.;
- Lois Smith, 63, of North Branford;
- Marcia Morris, 44, of Hartford;
- Emily Douglas, 18, of Greenfield, Mass.;
- Jaqueline Allen, 41, of Hartford;
- Christopher Carmody, 19, of Hartford;
- Zachary Goldstein, 19, of Rochester, N.Y.;
- Karisa Butler, 19, of Seattle.
- Alice Perry, 54, of New Haven;
- Mary McTigue, 46, of Durham;
- Roy Money, 57, of Hamden;
- Carolyn Shaw, 58, of Middletown;
- Naomi Goldenson, 19, of Pittsburgh.
- John Humphries, 38, of Waterbury
First-degree criminal trespass
First-degree criminal trespass and interfering with police:
Interfering with police:
Palema
6:17 AM
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
War toys contribute to a child's sense that it's a) okay to fight, b) there are few if any alternatives to solving problems or differences and c) it's okay to kill those who differ from us
Check out tolerance.org's list of 101 ways to enhance tolerance in yourself, your household, and your school and community.
Then check out the war toys sold at J.C.Penney - action figures for 5-year-olds! Click through Toys > action figures > military and check out the cute little house that's been destroyed by shelling and taken over by a soldier.
Then mull over what we could do differently to create a more peaceful society. [It's not just them, it's also us.]
Renounce War Toys!
War toys contribute to a child's sense that it's a) okay to fight, b) there are few if any alternatives to solving problems or differences and c) it's okay to kill those who differ from us
Check out tolerance.org's list of 101 ways to enhance tolerance in yourself, your household, and your school and community.
Then check out the war toys sold at J.C.Penney - action figures for 5-year-olds! Click through Toys > action figures > military and check out the cute little house that's been destroyed by shelling and taken over by a soldier.
Then mull over what we could do differently to create a more peaceful society. [It's not just them, it's also us.]
Palema
4:16 PM
Jimmy Carter: our best ex-president
|
Jimmy Carter far outclassed his contemporary ex-presidents. Unlike Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush Sr., Jimmy Carter used his position for good not simply to enrich himself. Like Carter, all the others but Reagan left the White House in defeat. But Carter picked himself up and began helping others- not in bitterness, but in humility. He worked for the poor and homeless in the United States and tried to equalize the huge disparity between rich and poor abroad, as well. I see this as the action of a man who lives his religion instead of using it for effect, as did Reagan and does Bush Jr. Carter was a fine president as well. Those of us who watch West Wing on TV with its fictional good-guy president, the man who though not always right in his decisions, nevertheless takes responsbility for them -- we yearn not for a fiction, but for a real person: we yearn for Jimmy Carter, the last president we could believe. The Nobel Peace Prize could not have gone to a better man. |
|
Palema
6:29 AM
Saturday, December 07, 2002
For Connecticut peace vigils and other activities, consult the crows.net/peace page, While you're there, check out the crows.net - very interesting material on crows with some excellentphotos and reader reports of interesting crow behavior seen.
The Berrigan brothers, a pair of anti-war Catholic priests, were an inspiration to me. Although in my youth in the '60s I did not understand much of what they were up to, I felt glad somehow that they were there, speaking up.
Marita McComiskey sent out word of his death Dec. 6, 2002 from cancer.
If you can get down to Baltimore, the wake and funeral will be held at St. Peter Claver Church in West Baltimore, (1546 North Fremont Avenue, Baltimore MD 21217); calling hours are 4-8 p.m. Sunday, Dec. 8 with a circle of sharing about Phil's life at 6 p.m.; funeral is Monday, December 9, 12 p.m.
I offer my condolences to his family and friends.
A columnist for the Hartford Courant wrote about the Willimantic peace vigil Friday 12-6-02.I hope to give comfort to those who doubt the President but are afraid to say so.
See Dennis Horgan: A Quiet Vigil Shouts Forth A Powerful Message
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I note in particular, the rights of free thought, free speech, and free assembly. The trouble with the Attorney General calling dissidents traitors is the dampening effect it may have on free thought - not to mention free speech.
peace notices
For Connecticut peace vigils and other activities, consult the crows.net/peace page, While you're there, check out the crows.net - very interesting material on crows with some excellentphotos and reader reports of interesting crow behavior seen.
Palema
11:17 AM
Philip Berrigan dies
The Berrigan brothers, a pair of anti-war Catholic priests, were an inspiration to me. Although in my youth in the '60s I did not understand much of what they were up to, I felt glad somehow that they were there, speaking up.
Marita McComiskey sent out word of his death Dec. 6, 2002 from cancer.
Baltimore, MD - Phil Berrigan died December 6, 2002 at about 9:30 PM, at Jonah House, a community he co-founded in 1973, surrounded by family and friends. He died two months after being diagnosed with liver and kidney cancer, and one month after deciding to discontinue chemotherapy. Approximately thirty close friends and fellow peace activists gathered for the ceremony of last rites on November 30, to celebrate his life and anoint him for the next part of his journey. Berrigan's brother and co-felon, Jesuit priest Daniel Berrigan officiated.--Voice4Change.org for further information and a retrospective of his life and work.
If you can get down to Baltimore, the wake and funeral will be held at St. Peter Claver Church in West Baltimore, (1546 North Fremont Avenue, Baltimore MD 21217); calling hours are 4-8 p.m. Sunday, Dec. 8 with a circle of sharing about Phil's life at 6 p.m.; funeral is Monday, December 9, 12 p.m.
I offer my condolences to his family and friends.
Palema
11:09 AM
Speak up!
A columnist for the Hartford Courant wrote about the Willimantic peace vigil Friday 12-6-02.I hope to give comfort to those who doubt the President but are afraid to say so.
See Dennis Horgan: A Quiet Vigil Shouts Forth A Powerful Message
Palema
10:30 AM
International Human Rights Day 12-10-02
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I note in particular, the rights of free thought, free speech, and free assembly. The trouble with the Attorney General calling dissidents traitors is the dampening effect it may have on free thought - not to mention free speech.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Palema
9:09 AM
Thursday, December 05, 2002
"There's no doubt in my mind that we should allow the world worst leaders to hold America hostageto threaten our peace, to threaten our friends and allies with the world's worst weapons." -- Pres. Bush campaigning in South Bend, Ind. last September.Read it again.Yep, that's what he said. Check out the speech on the White House website.
For more examples of so-called bushlexia, visit Bushwatch where readers send in the best and worst from our President. Read it and weep!
A California farm worker on his way home five years ago was grabbed by police in the midst of questioning a suspect and shot five times. Now he's paralyzed and blind in one eye and suing Oxnard police. Before the case was tried on the facts, an appeal as to the constitutional issues has gone up to the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Attorney General jumped in with an argument that observers say would overturn the Miranda rule (You have the right to remain silent) created by Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1966. A generation and a half has grown up with the right to an attorney.
Solicitor General Theodore Olsen, a Bush appointee, claims the government can coerce information from a witness, as long as the evidence obtained isn't used at trial against the witness, the LA Times article says.
An article on Common Dreams has a different take on the case than the LA Times. Writer Charles Sheehan-Miles states:
You can read the Department of Justice brief, which defends coersive police questioning in emergencies to protect the general public. Their argument seems compelling, but there was no emergency claimed in the Martinez case.
If the Supreme Court allows such sweeping reasoning for the Bush administration, they should equally allow the Martinez side to project the possiblity of police roundups of whole communities and wholesale torture. Usually the Supreme Court sticks pretty closely to the facts of a case in rendering a decision. With this court, however, there's no telling where they will go.
I'm old enough to recall the howl of outrage by police and their sympathizers when the Miranda rule was enunciated. Police claimed at the time they would never be able to bring criminals to justice without coersive testimony. At that time, use of the third degree was accepted practice. Use of beatings was accepted practice. It was accepted because it was assumed (often wrongly) that police would always get willing cooperation from innocent persons, and resistance only from guilty ones.
In the thirty-six years since Miranda, police have developed a host of other means of making their case. Forensic science has come into its own. Police do not need to beat or shoot people any more.
Quote-unquote
"There's no doubt in my mind that we should allow the world worst leaders to hold America hostageto threaten our peace, to threaten our friends and allies with the world's worst weapons." -- Pres. Bush campaigning in South Bend, Ind. last September.Read it again.Yep, that's what he said. Check out the speech on the White House website.
For more examples of so-called bushlexia, visit Bushwatch where readers send in the best and worst from our President. Read it and weep!
Palema
8:29 PM
No more strawberries for Oliverio Martinez
A California farm worker on his way home five years ago was grabbed by police in the midst of questioning a suspect and shot five times. Now he's paralyzed and blind in one eye and suing Oxnard police. Before the case was tried on the facts, an appeal as to the constitutional issues has gone up to the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Attorney General jumped in with an argument that observers say would overturn the Miranda rule (You have the right to remain silent) created by Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1966. A generation and a half has grown up with the right to an attorney.
Officers will be told Miranda is not a constitutional right. If there is no right, and you are not liable, why should you honor the right to silence.... I think it means you will see more police using threats and violence to get people to talk. Innocent people will be subjected to very unpleasant experiences --University of Texas law professor Susan Klein, quoted in the Los Angeles Times
Solicitor General Theodore Olsen, a Bush appointee, claims the government can coerce information from a witness, as long as the evidence obtained isn't used at trial against the witness, the LA Times article says.
An article on Common Dreams has a different take on the case than the LA Times. Writer Charles Sheehan-Miles states:
In other words, Olsen plans to argue the police can detain or arrest anyone for any reason and then beat you up or even shoot you to get information, even if there are no emergent circumstances.
In other countries, this is called torture. In our country, we have the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution designed to prevent such horrendous abuses by the police. --Shoot Citizens, ask questions, then get a lawyer (maybe)
You can read the Department of Justice brief, which defends coersive police questioning in emergencies to protect the general public. Their argument seems compelling, but there was no emergency claimed in the Martinez case.
If the Supreme Court allows such sweeping reasoning for the Bush administration, they should equally allow the Martinez side to project the possiblity of police roundups of whole communities and wholesale torture. Usually the Supreme Court sticks pretty closely to the facts of a case in rendering a decision. With this court, however, there's no telling where they will go.
I'm old enough to recall the howl of outrage by police and their sympathizers when the Miranda rule was enunciated. Police claimed at the time they would never be able to bring criminals to justice without coersive testimony. At that time, use of the third degree was accepted practice. Use of beatings was accepted practice. It was accepted because it was assumed (often wrongly) that police would always get willing cooperation from innocent persons, and resistance only from guilty ones.
In the thirty-six years since Miranda, police have developed a host of other means of making their case. Forensic science has come into its own. Police do not need to beat or shoot people any more.
Palema
6:31 AM
Wednesday, December 04, 2002
"If people did what businesses do, there wouldn't be prison cells enough." 9-15-00 Denis Horgan writing in South Coast Today
Murder, Inc. has a new face these days
"If people did what businesses do, there wouldn't be prison cells enough." 9-15-00 Denis Horgan writing in South Coast Today
Palema
9:13 PM
Sunday, December 01, 2002
Wow, I had heard it over the Thanksgiving and birthday dinner tables this holiday weekend, but it hit home when Fox network reported on it tonight. Connecticut Governor claims that multi thousand state workers must be laid off to cover the deficit! Outrageous!! Now, I know Rowland's wages probably wouldnt make up for it but someone's would. Do we really want to lose 2000 CT jobs I'd rather give $900 a year in taxes (along with all the other tech workers in CT) than have to find jobs for 2000 people! Now mind you, if those state workers are software programmers, webmasters, or certified in Microsoft Office products, PLEASE WRITE ME TODAY!! I might be able to get you a 10k raise!! But for your others, "God Bless you, Everyone!" (-Tiny Tim)
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
Flabergasted, State Layoffs!
Wow, I had heard it over the Thanksgiving and birthday dinner tables this holiday weekend, but it hit home when Fox network reported on it tonight. Connecticut Governor claims that multi thousand state workers must be laid off to cover the deficit! Outrageous!! Now, I know Rowland's wages probably wouldnt make up for it but someone's would. Do we really want to lose 2000 CT jobs I'd rather give $900 a year in taxes (along with all the other tech workers in CT) than have to find jobs for 2000 people! Now mind you, if those state workers are software programmers, webmasters, or certified in Microsoft Office products, PLEASE WRITE ME TODAY!! I might be able to get you a 10k raise!! But for your others, "God Bless you, Everyone!" (-Tiny Tim)
Anonymous
10:11 PM
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
|
|