The headlines scream. America is not the land of the free or the home of the brave. Moments ago, I came online and opened my Internet connection.
The New York Times banner read, The caption below stated, what the public has long known and apathetically accepted, our Commander-In-Chief does not represent the people of America. He does not care for its citizens. Mister Bush ignores the founding fathers concept of "checks and balances.
" George W. Bush governs as dictators do, with an iron fist.
President Bush insisted that he has the authority to send more troops to Iraq even without the approval of Congress.I read further and found greater reason for my indignation.
"I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it,” he said in a taped interview for the CBS News program “60 Minutes” that is to be broadcast this evening. “But I’ve made my decision.And were going forward.”
Yes, we must admit, there is little difference between Bush Junior and other bullies. Iraq may have had Saddam Hussein.
Osama Bin Laden may have taken many lives; however, so too has the belligerent browbeater that leads America today.
The Bush/Cheney coalition aggressively declares itself "righteous." This Administration needs no endorsement from Congress or the American citizenry.
They repeatedly retort, we will "stay the course." Controversy changes nothing where this couple is concerned. They continue to "move forward" or remain
six in 10 respondents said the war is not worth fighting, three-quarters disapproved of how Bush has handled the situation, and there was no consensus about how the United States should adjust its policies in Iraq.Pronouncements of peace or an official declaration stating the need for diplomacy cannot and will not deter the plans this White House promotes. This neoconservative union believes that they need not seek accord with the people of the United States of America. The infamous clan and their cronies can and will go it alone.Only 17 percent called for an increase in U.S. forces, the "surge" believed to be a centerpiece of the new Bush plan.
Mister Bush does not confer with members of his own party. He tells them what to think.
is passé in this President's mind.
He is not compelled to agree with citizens, Congress, or even his fellow Sadly, as a whole, Congress is unwilling to cut the purse strings for this failed mission. They fear that would show a lack of support for the troops. George and Dick know this.
Just below this heading was one I saw earlier in the day, again Americans are reminded, under the auspices of Mister Bush, privacy is no longer a privilege. This article was equally jarring, though I am unsure why. One would think that I had accepted the loss of civil liberties.
This policy has endured since September 11, 2001. It is not a surprise.
As I read today's headlines I can only shake my head and wonder. Why did our countrymen not throw up their arms a week ago when You may recall, on January 5, 2007 we learned
January 14, 2007
WASHINGTON, Jan.13 — The Pentagon has been using a little-known power to obtain banking and credit records of hundreds of Americans and others suspected of terrorism or espionage inside the United States, part of an aggressive expansion by the military into domestic intelligence gathering.
The C.I.A. has also been issuing what are known as national security letters to gain access to financial records from American companies, though it has done so only rarely, intelligence officials say.
Banks, credit card companies, and other financial institutions receiving the letters usually have turned over documents voluntarily, allowing investigators to examine the financial assets and transactions of American military personnel and civilians, officials say.
The F.B.I., the lead agency on domestic counterterrorism and espionage, has issued thousands of national security letters since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, provoking criticism and court challenges from civil liberties advocates who see them as unjustified intrusions into Americans’ private lives.
But it was not previously known, even to some senior counterterrorism officials, that the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have been using their own “noncompulsory” versions of the letters.
President Bush signed a little-noticed statement last month asserting the authority to open U.S.Do I dare bother to recount the numerous forty-three? Can I squeal any louder?mail without judicial warrants in emergencies or foreign intelligence cases, prompting warnings yesterday from Democrats and privacy advocates that the administration is attempting to circumvent legal restrictions on its powers.
A "signing statement" attached to a postal reform bill on Dec. 20 says the Bush administration "shall construe" a section of that law to allow the opening of sealed mail to protect life, guard against hazardous materials or conduct "physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."
White House and U.S. Postal Service officials said the statement was not intended to expand the powers of the executive branch but merely to clarify existing ones for extreme cases.
"This is not a change in law, this is not new, it is not . . .a sweeping new power by the president," spokesman Tony Snow told reporters. "It is, in fact, merely a statement of present law and present authorities granted to the president of the United States."
But some civil liberties and national-security law experts said the statement's language is unduly vague and appears to go beyond long-recognized limits on the ability of the government to open letters and other U.S. mail without approval from a judge.
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, said the government has long been able to legally open mail believed to contain a bomb or other imminent threat.But authorities are generally required to seek a warrant from a criminal or special intelligence court in other cases, Martin and other experts said.
"The about warrants," Martin said. "If they are not claiming new powers, then why did they need to issue a signing statement?"
I have shared this snippet many times in the last year.
Nevertheless, I think it bears repeating.
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.Someone, please tell me, why are we as a nation willing to impeach a President for a scandalous sexual digression and unwilling to prosecute a Commander-In-Chief for criminal offenses. Is the Constitution so weak that a government, supposedly of, by, and for the people has no power to institute law?
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty ''to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to ''execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
Former administration officials contend that just because Bush reserves the right to disobey a law does not mean he is not enforcing it: In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.
But with the disclosure of Bush's domestic spying program, in which he ignored a law requiring warrants to tap the phones of Americans, many legal specialists say Bush is hardly reluctant to bypass laws he believes he has the constitutional authority to override.
Far more than any predecessor, Bush has been aggressive about declaring his right to ignore vast swaths of laws -- many of which he says infringe on power he believes the Constitution assigns to him alone as the head of the executive branch or the commander in chief of the military.
Many legal scholars say they believe that Bush's theory about his own powers goes too far and that he is seizing for himself some of the law-making role of Congress and the Constitution-interpreting role of the courts.
I do not understand. I only know, that each day, as I scan the headlines, I am reminded that Americans are not free to speak, or congregate. Religious practices are monitored, just as the mail is.
The right to privacy is gone. Barnes and Noble, Borders and the local I sadly accept that we the people have resigned our power. We are not strong; we are submissive.
Please, tell me; when will we be able to believe again; 'America is the land of the free and the home of the brave.'
Washington Post. Monday, January 1, 2007; Page A13
Novak. Washington Post. Monday, January 1, 2007; Page A13
MarketWatch. January 9, 2007
By Dan Eggen. Washington Post. Friday, January 5, 2007; Page A03
By Charlie Savage. Boston Globe. April 30, 2006
By Charlie Savage. Boston Globe. April 30, 2006
Posted by Betsy L.
Angert on January 14, 2007 at 06:00 PM in , , , , , , , , , , | Please view the video,
"Deescalate, Investigate; Troops Home Now!"
Speaking with vigor and revulsion on the O'Reilly Factor, of confronts the fact that even the Democrats refuse to stand up to our Emperor, George W. Bush.
The Democrats have expressed they will not do as they claimed they would. Members of Congress are declining the task they were elected to perform. They will not work for the people, the majority of which oppose our occupation in Iraq.
Democrats, the new members and those incumbents that remain in office, are not calling for an immediate withdrawal in Iraq, though they campaigned saying they would! They are only willing to fight against further escalation.
Ms.
Taylor, a member of World Can't Wait's advisory board and writer for Revolution newspaper, declares, "The United States is involved in a criminal war in Iraq. It [the war] has been codified into place. [we have an] institutionalization of torture .
. . these are war crimes and crimes against humanity.
"
Sunsara Taylor reminds Bill O'Reilly that Americans do not want this war fought in their names. Taylor mentions the midterm election to support her contention. She explains the majority of the American people disagree with George W.
Bush and they do not back this illegal war.
O'Reilly disputes that charge. He apparently believes the change in Congress is separate from the issue of war in Iraq.
Taylor rejects that notion; perhaps she thinks the idea is silly, though she does not offer barbarous statements in retort as O'Reilly rants.
Bill O'Reilly, in all his glory sits barely composed as Ms. Taylor notes that American citizens do not wish to be complicit in this combative exchange.
O'Reilly gathers his wits only long enough to tell Sunsara Taylor she is an idiot.
The etiquette of this act demonstrates the wisdom of an aggressor. For those that believe in battle, hand-to-hand or gun-to-gun, their way with words is as their mindset.
Mister O'Reilly as many neoconservatives do defines a massacre as a win. When he has the opportunity to inform the public, he chooses insults instead.
Can the World Wait?
Can You . . .
Please forgive the prologue advertisement.
Please select the link and view CBS News. Among the present peace activist, we might include former Though are muffled and very difficult to hear, the transcripts are clear,
"Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said.Gerald Ford spoke openly with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in 2004. The two agreed; the text of this conversation would not be released until esteemed author Bob Woodward released a book he was planning, or perchance upon the former President's passing."And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
The initial interview took place in 2004. Conversations continued into the following year. The irony is not lost on many.
President Bush initiated the invasion; he found support among his advisers, prominent veterans of the Ford administration.
In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.The former President stated the conflict and the Administration's plan to attack was not just; he continued, ""I don't think I would have gone to war." The President, often considered the only Commander-In-Chief to an idea that he vehemently disputed, stated, he "very strongly" disagreed with the current administrations "justifications" for battle. President Ford proclaimed,
n a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.National security, that is another perplexing issue. Now, even Republicans such as the renowned President Ford seem to accept, we are not safer since President Bush decisively chose to "spread democracy." Ford expressed his belief, there were other solutions.
"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."
Being is not and would not have been the chosen style of this
Washington Post. Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 27, 2006 at 09:11 PM in , , , , , , , , , , , | Tonight, Condoleezza Rice clarified the terms, trials, and tribulations. Secretary Rice spoke of a transformative energy.
She discussed the questionable "Civil War" in Iraq. The Secretary of State noted the President's continued "conviction" and "commitment." Miss Rice was a featured speaker on the Margaret Warner interviewed the honorable Secretary, Condoleezza Rice.
This esteemed Cabinet member, known for being "closer to the President" than the rest of his staff declared
There is no doubt that the president went into this phase with the same conviction and the same commitment that he's held throughout this war.Pray tell Miss Rice how secure are we as the violence escalates in Iraq and travels beyond Middle Eastern borders.
And that is that the decision to go into Iraq was because it was in the interest and the security interests of the United States to do so, and that failure in Iraq would have grave circumstances, grave consequences for American interests, for the interests of our friends and allies in the region, and, indeed, for global security.
Since the invasion of this Persian Gulf nation, terrorism has been on the rise. Occupying the country furthered the strife. Currently, throughout the world anti-American sentiments, thrive.
Globally, the United States is considered the enemy. Those in many countries, including our own, do not think we are truly working towards world peace. I ask, is this embattled endeavor in our best interest or in the best interest of our allies?
I feel safe in saying, evidence shows we are not acting in the interest of Iraqis. Thousands of innocents are have lost their lives, limbs, and sight. More are maimed daily.
Miss Rice, you and your compassionate leader, our Commander-In-Chief say that we are moving "forward," the strategy has changed; we will not stay the course. Yet, you profess
So that's not going to change; that conviction, that commitment is not going to change.Open and closed to submissions that conflict with his steadfast dictums. According to an in the Washington Post, the President "expressed little enthusiasm for the central ideas of a bipartisan commission." Mr.
The president has been very open to all kinds of suggestions as to how to meet the commitment to help an Iraqi government be able to sustain itself and defend itself and govern.
Bush let it be known he has no desire to reduce military forces in Iraq; nor does he intend to introduce new avenues for a diplomatic approach in this region. He remains steadfast. Mr.
Bush will not speak to those that do not do as he deems correct.
Secretary Rice, you state
And I would just note: It's very interesting, when the came out, that was the same conviction that that very illustrious group of Americans held, that we can't afford to have a failure in Iraq.Oh, Miss Rice I interpret the words of the Baker and Hamilton differently.
Again, referring to published on December 7, 2006, in the Washington Post, I discern words of warning. Apparently, each of the co-chairs of the Iraq Study Group declared "success in Iraq would not be guaranteed even if all their 79 recommendations were adopted by Congress and the administration." The Baker-Hamilton Commission actually wrote in the final submission
is grave and deteriorating.It seems to me the Commission concludes that, thus far we have failed. Our actions have created a chaos that is unsurpassed and unimaginable. I agree; the Baker Hamilton report suggests there are other options that we may need to consider.Violence is increasing in scope and lethality. Attacks on U.S.
forces and U.S. casualties continue at an alarming rate.
The Iraqi people are suffering great hardship.
The democratically-elected government that replaced Saddam Hussein is not adequately advancing the key issues of national reconciliation, providing basic security, or delivering essential services. Economic development is hampered.The current approach is not working. And the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing.
The United States has committed staggering resources.Our country has lost almost 2,900 Americans; 21,000 more have been wounded. The United States has spent an estimated $400 billion in Iraq, and costs could rise well over $1 trillion. Many Americans are, understandably, dissatisfied.
Our ship of state has hit rough waters. It must now chart a new way forward. No course of action in Iraq is guaranteed to stop a slide toward chaos.
However, it seems clear, Mr. Bush is not truly considering these; nor are you Secretary Rice,
was yesterday considering an even deeper military commitment in Iraq, with a short-term deployment of 20,000 extra forces to Baghdad, a day after the US army chiefs warned that the force could break under the strain of the war.Surge is on the horizon.
Meanwhile, the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, ruled out a diplomatic overture to Syria and Iran to enlist their support in stemming the chaos in Iraq.
The two developments reinforce reports that the White House is leaning towards a broad rejection of the recommendations from the Iraq Study Group for a withdrawal of US combat forces by early 2008, and for the opening of talks with Tehran and Damascus.
Miss Rice, as you sat calmly addressing the nation or at least the Nightly News Hour audience the new Secretary of Defense was laying out the strategy, presenting an image of moving forward.
Since the Joint Chiefs of Staff and many high-ranking military officials oppose the Bush strategy of "surge,' justification needed to be found elsewhere. Support was sought and realized among the lowly service men and women. The Whitehouse turned to the humble, the hurt, those in need and asked, 'would you welcome some help?
' they want more troops.
Perhaps, misery loves company. There is lots of agony amongst our service persons.
I've noticed, Margaret [Warner of the News Hour] that, really, the Baker-Hamilton commission, but also since the elections, a renewed spirit by Americans, whatever their views of the decision to go to war, a renewed spirit in the Congress, among outside experts that the real issue is: How do we succeed under the circumstances?Miss Rice the spirit is not "renewed" in defense of the war; people here want US [the United Sates] out of Iraq. The citizens of Iraq wanted us to leave "their" country long ago.
The recent midterm elections gave us, and them a sense of hope! Our countrymen imagined that our message would be heard. We, worldwide, those outside of the White House, want no war!
If there was a spirit to be renewed it was in the direction of peace, not war. Citizens of and want no surge!
Secretary Rice, you mention "commitment" and "conviction" in relationship to Iraq.
I see that you and the President have a particular dedication to mass murder and mayhem. People around the globe, including many among the military brass, have another agenda. If there is a "win" to be had, and most of us believe this war is a lost cause.
We hope the solution will be focused on achieving a peaceful, diplomatic, and deliberate end to this tragic situation. We want no more protracted and poorly planned missions.
Sources for a renewed spirit or surge!
' By Peter Baker and Robin Wright. Washington Post. Friday, December 8, 2006; A01
' By Peter Baker and Robin Wright. Washington Post. Friday, December 8, 2006; A01
S. Military, By Michael Abramowitz and Robin Wright. Washington Post.
Thursday, December 7, 2006; Page A01
Washington Post. Thursday, December 7, 2006; Page A01
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 21, 2006 at 09:15 PM in , , , , , , , , , |
Surge of Soldiers to Iraq, Rush To Power ©
Surge.over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.Surge.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.
pushed internally by officials in the National Security Council, and advocated in public by Sen. John McCain, the "surge" has become the hot tactical idea of the season. The debate over a surge is now under way — both about how big to make it and about whether to do it at all.Surge!Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said over the weekend that he was not convinced a surge in troops would work, while Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said his party would support a limited, short-term jump in troop levels.
Let's send more U.The airwaves are filled with talk of a surge.S. troops to Iraq. The generals say it's way too late to even think about resurrecting Colin Powell's "overwhelming force" doctrine, so let's send over a modest "surge" in troop strength that has almost no chance of making any difference -- except in the casualty count.
Oh, and let's not give these soldiers and Marines any sort of well-defined mission. Let's just send them out into the bloody chaos of Baghdad and the deadly badlands of Anbar province with orders not to come back until they "get the job done."
I don't know about you, but that strikes me as a terrible idea, arguably the worst imaginable "way forward" in Iraq.So of course this seems to be where George W. Bush is headed.
What does the term mean or more accurately, what will it mean for our troops, their families, their friends, and for our country. Perhaps we might consider the significance of a surge for those living and dying in Iraq. After all, that nation and its people that will feel the greatest impact.
Nevertheless, we do not or at least our President does not. He has his own mission.
Typically, when we speak of a surge, we are referring to electrical power systems, not administrative antics.
However, this is a New World and the Order differs. An aggressive attack is termed "spreading democracy." A brutal "regime change" is now righteous.
A few rapidly fleeing allies are considered a "broad coalition." Innocent civilians are killed routinely and the public is told they are merely collateral damage. Doublespeak seems too much in recent years.
Since the war in Iraq began, Americans are unsure whether they are coming or going, winning or losing. Perchance they are merely locked in. We were told we broke it; we need to fix it.
Reluctantly Americans decided to do so.
In frustration, voters in the United States voiced their concern. They expressed their distress and requested a return of the troops.
The Iraq Study Commission declared there is no hope. We cannot stay the course; a win is not in our future. We must seek alternatives.
Diplomacy is the best option.
However, the President is unwilling to push back. He only wants to move "forward.
" Thus, the planned surge!
Many disagree with the "decider;" yet, he presses on.
that the United States should expand the size of its armed forces, acknowledging that the military has been strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would need to grow to cope with what he suggested would be a long battle against Islamic extremism.As the President speaks we can only accept, this man is proud of his ignorance, or "mindful" of his decision to ignore the polls. The gave him no reason to pause. Military advisors that disagree with his plan did not sway him.“I’m inclined to believe it’s important and necessary to do,” Mr. Bush said. “The reason why is, it is a accurate reflection that this ideological war we’re in is going to last for a while, and that we’re going to need a military that’s capable of being able to sustain our efforts and help us achieve peace.
”
Mr. Bush, a man unfamiliar with battle, is our Commander-In-Chief. We must acknowledge this.
The people of this nation [supposedly] elected George W. Bush. He is our leader.
However, in our heart of hearts we know to our core, he does not represent us [the United States of America.] Still, we are stuck. He is the "decider.
" He has determined are best. Peace be with us all as we power up and surge on.
The Washington Post. Chicago Tribune News. December 19, 2006
The Washington Post. Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Barnes. Los Angeles Times. December 13, 2006
New York Times. December 19, 2006
Posted by Betsy L.
Angert on December 19, 2006 at 07:00 PM in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Written December 9, 2006 Yesterday was a day in memorial. Many remembered and honored the life and passing of musician, composer John Lennon. Throughout the day, I found myself singing the Lennon tune "Imagine.
" I often do "Imagine all the people living life in peace." I speak of this vision. I write of it faithfully.
Many think my thoughts are silly and they say so. I might remark as John Lennon himself did, "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one.
" Thus, a committee was formed. In 1946, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights composed of 18 Member States was developed. Former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the congregation.
This group of dignitaries set out to craft a doctrine that addressed human rights concerns. Two years later, they completed and adopted Mrs. Roosevelt stated, "It is not a treaty.
..[In the future, it] may well become the international Magna Carta.
" Ah, were this so.
Since its inception, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been in dispute. The United States has been among its greatest critics.
This nation refuses to ratify this document. American leaders resist the connection between rights and responsibilities. The articles of this nonbinding "law" allow for the following provisions.
Actually, they offer more "power to the people." In this treatise, I will focus on the first articles of the declaration and contrast these with what is occurring in America. There is so much more to assess; I could write a tomes.
There are volumes worthy of presenting. However, in this essay I offer only a flavor. Taste what we as a nation do, and ask yourself, are these deeds palatable.
~ The freedom of all. Children are born as equals. They are free and should be treated in the same way.
Humans have reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a friendly manner.
Associated Press. MSNBC. May 9, 2006. America may be the world's superpower, but its survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than Latvia.
Among 33 industrialized nations, the United States is tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly 5 per 1,000 babies, according to a new report.Latvia's rate is 6 per 1,000.
"We are the wealthiest country in the world, but there are still pockets of our population who are not getting the health care they need," said Mary Beth Powers, a reproductive health adviser for the U.S.-based Save the Children, which compiled the rankings based on health data from countries and agencies worldwide.
"Every time I see these kinds of statistics, I'm always amazed to see where the United States is because we are a country that prides itself on having such advanced medical care and developing new technology ... and new approaches to treating illness. But at the same time not everybody has access to those new technologies," said Dr.
Mark Schuster, a Rand Co. researcher and pediatrician with the University of California, Los Angeles.
~ a different sex
Why women are still paid less than men.By Evelyn Murphy and E.J. Graff.
Boston Globe. October 9, 2005. If you are a woman working full time, you will lose between $700,000 and $2 million over your working lifetime -- just because of your sex.
Is that fair? No. Can it be stopped?
Absolutely.
But today, 40 years later, the wage gap stands at 23 cents. Women working full time -- not part-time, not on maternity leave, not as consultants -- still earn only 77 cents to a full-time workingman's dollar.That's an enormous gap, and it has been stalled in place for more than a decade. It's not closing on its own. It affects women at every economic level, from waitresses to lawyers, from cashiers to CEOs.
~ a different skin colour
ZNet Magazine. January 19, 2004. Although the information, taken mostly from the US Census and the Federal Reserve, has been publicly available for years, few reports have pulled all the disparate pieces together."The State of the Dream 2004," released last week by United for a Fair Economy, challenges traditional notions about the success of the civil rights movement in the past 30 years. United for a Fair Economy is a nonprofit organization that focuses on highlighting income and other economic disparities in American society.
Among the more disturbing findings: Unemployment among blacks is more than double that for whites, 10.8 percent versus 5.2 percent in 2003 -- a wider gap than in 1972. Black infant mortality is also greater today than in 1970.
In 2001, the black infant mortality rate was 14 deaths per 1,000 live births, 146 percent higher than the white rate. The gap in infant mortality rates was 37 percent less in 1970.
Black Americans have also made little progress compared to whites in terms of income.According to the report, for every dollar of white income, African Americans had 55 cents in 1968. Thirty-three years later, in 2001, the gap had only closed by two cents. The report notes that, at this pace, it would take 581 years to achieve income parity.
According to the report, the average black college graduate will earn $500,000 less in his or her lifetime than an average white college graduate. Black high school graduates working full-time from age 25 to 64, will earn $300,000 less on average.
~ speaking a different language
Official English and anti-bilingual education bills introduced.By James Crawford. November 11, 2006. English Only legislation first appeared in 1981 as a constitutional English Language Amendment.
This proposal, if approved by a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate and ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures, would have banned virtually all uses of languages other than English by federal, state, and local governments. But the measure has never come to a Congressional vote, even in committee.
Since 1981, 22 states have adopted various forms of Official English legislation, in addition to four that had already done so.Subtracting Hawaii's (which is officially bilingual) and Alaska (whose English-only initiative has been declared unconstitutional) leaves a total of 24 states with active Official English laws.
~ thinking different things
Cable News Network. April 20, 2005.For example, under the act the government can monitor an individual's Web surfing records. It can use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped. It can access Internet service provider records.
And it can even monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.
After September 11, 2001, when the act was passed, the executive argued that these broader powers would be used to put terrorists behind bars. In fact, several of the act's provisions can be used to gain information about Americans in the context of investigations with no demonstrated link to terrorism.
~ believing in another religion
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. May 11, 2006. The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds.An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
~ owning more or less
By Lisa Schlein. Voice of America. December 10, 2006 The United Nations chose poverty as this year's theme for Human Rights day because, it says, poverty is both a cause and a product of human rights violations. It says the poor are more likely to have their rights denied, and to be victims of discrimination and persecution.
Mac Darrow, of the U.N. Human Rights Office, says that over the last decade, poverty has come to be seen as a human rights issue, rather than just an economic issue. He says, research shows poor people suffer from a wide-range of civil and political rights violations.
"Lack of access to adequate schooling. Lack of personal security. Lack of ability to participate in public affairs or community level decision-making bodies - really, a very integrated and multi-faceted vision of dis-empowerment.
And, this and like research has driven international development agencies to understand poverty as precisely that, as about social exclusion, about issues of access to political power, economic power and discrimination," he said.
~ being born in another social group
A Guide Through the American Status System. By Paul Fussell.Public Broadcasting Service [PBS]. Despite our public embraces of political and judicial equality, in individual perception and understanding - much of which we refrain from publicizing - we arrange things vertically and insist on crucial differences in value. Regardless of what we say about equality, I think everyone at some point comes to feel like the Oscar Wilde who said, "The brotherhood of man is not a mere poet's dream: it is a most depressing and humiliating reality.
" It's as if in our hear of hearts we don't want agglomerations but distinctions. Analysis and separation we find interesting, synthesis boring.
Although it is disinclined to designate a hierarchy of social classes, the federal government seems to admit that if in law we are all equal, in virtually all other ways we are not.Thus the eighteen grades into which it divides its civil-servant employees, from grade 1 at the bottom (messenger, etc.) up through 2 (mail clerk), 5 (secretary), 9 (chemist), to 14 (legal administrator), and finally 16, 17, and 18 (high level administrators). In the construction business there's a social hierarchy of jobs, with "dirt work," or mere excavation, at the bottom; the making of sewers, roads, and tunnels in the middle; and work on buildings (the taller, the higher) at the top.
Those who sell "executive desks" and related office furniture know that they and their clients agree on a rigid "class" hierarchy. Desks made of oak are at the bottom, and those of walnut are next. Then, moving up, mahogany is, if you like, "upper middle class," until we arrive, finally, at the apex: teak.
In the army, at ladies' social functions, pouring the coffee is the prerogative of the senior officer's wife because, as the ladies all know, coffee outranks tea.
~ coming from another country
USA Today. December 15, 2005.The House acted Friday to stem the tide of illegal immigration by taking steps to tighten border controls and stop unlawful immigrants from getting jobs. But lawmakers left for next year the tougher issue of what to do with the 11 million undocumented people already in the country.
The House legislation, billed as a border protection, anti-terrorism and illegal immigration control act, includes such measures as enlisting military and local law enforcement help in stopping illegal entrants and requiring employers to verify the legal status of their workers.It authorizes the building of a fence along parts of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Oh, I could go on. Suffice to say America has problems endorsing what it chooses not to practice. According to U.
S. ambassador to the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is "a letter to
Kirkpatrick states, "Neither nature, experience, nor probability informs these lists of 'entitlements', which are subject to no constraints except those of the mind and appetite of their authors." Apparently to her and to many, preventing illness by providing preventative medicine is not a universal responsibility.
Medical services are not a right. In a world, or a nation of equals, we are not. Affluent persons such as Kirkpatrick claim, a person either has the means to fend for him or herself, or they do not.
This former Socialist has concluded we each need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, whether we can afford them or not.
For me, Former Attorney General, As you read of Iraq, please notice, Ramsey Clark is not discussing our more recent decision to obliterate this nation with bombs. He is speaking of the period prior to our unilateral attack.
When evaluating The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Clark declared,
The United States government pays lip service to the Declaration, but its courts have consistently refused to enforce its provisions reasoning it is not a legally binding treaty, or contract, but only a declaration. This ignores the fact that international law recognizes the provisions of the Declaration as being incorporated into customary international law, which is binding on all nations.
The most fundamental, dangerous, and harmful violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on its fifteenth birthday is economic sanctions imposed on entire populations.The United States alone blockades eleven million Cubans in the face of the most recent General Assembly resolution approved by 157 nations condemning the blockade, with only the United States and Israel in opposition. The entire population of Cuba and every Cuban has had the "right to a standard of living adequate for health and well being..
. including food, clothing, housing and medical care" deliberately violated by the United States blockade.
Security Council sanctions against Iraq, which are forced by the United States, have devastated the entire nation, taking the lives of more than 1,500,000 people, mostly infants, children, chronically ill and elderly, and harming millions more by hunger, sickness and sorrow.The sanctions destroy the "dignity and rights" of the people of Iraq and are the most extreme form of "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," which are prohibited by the Declaration.
Despite the cruelest destruction of the most basic human rights and liberties of all the people in Iraq, including rights to medicine, safe drinking water and sufficient food, the United States government, with the major mass media in near perfect harmony, proclaims itself the world's champion of liberty and human rights. The problem as Lincoln surely knew is not merely one of definitions.It is a problem of power, will, and accountability. The United States intends to have its way and serve its own interests, with Iraq, Cuba, Libya, Iran, the Sudan and many other countries whatever the consequences to the liberties and rights of those who live there.
At the same time, the United States increases its own staggeringly large prison industry, more than a million persons confined, including 40% of all African American males between 17 and 27 years old in the State of California.Simultaneously the U.S. spends more on its military than the ten largest military budgets of other nations combined, sells most of the arms and sophisticated weapons still increasing worldwide while rejecting an international convention to prohibit land mines and an international court of criminal justice.
And the U.S. maintains and deploys the great majority of all weapons of mass destruction existent on earth, nuclear, chemical, biological and the most deadly of all -- economic sanctions.
For me, my Mom practiced the philosophy of Universal Human Rights best. A woman that did not yell or scream would raise her voice in frustration when she felt violated. We knew she was hurting when she declared, "I have rights!
" Numerous individuals do. When we do not honor human rights, reactive behaviors persist.
Thus, I invite us to consider as my Mom lived.
She professed, "No one has the right to tell you what you should think, say, do, feel, or be;" and "Do what ever makes you happen as long as it does not hurt another." These principles work in tandem. They allow for a sense of community and connection.
There is an understanding that we are one; yet separate. The philosophy establishes an authentic equality. Our household beliefs bestow reciprocal reverence.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does the same. This document affords all beings in America and elsewhere what the Constitution and the courts do not. Unless or until we, the people, take an active stand.
Therefore, I invite you to consider what was novel to me, a canon of unity. Please consider that crime comes from chaos. People that are tired, hungry, ill, and hurting lash out.
They, just as my Mom did, seek the rights and privileges other have.
I invite you to envision as experts once did, a world where all people are truly equal and treated as such. Please contemplate a planet where the principle of free speech, due process, economic, and social rights are honored.
Conceive of a global village where the right to health care and housing are realities, not for a select few but for every human being. Visualize a place where the ability to organize is not shunned, but welcomed. Imagine receiving a living wage, no matter your race, religion, gender, educational expertise, or station in life.
It is possible to dream the impossible dream and then act on it? I think it is!
By Evelyn Murphy and E.J. Graff.
Boston Globe. October 9, 2005
By James Crawford. November 11, 2006
May 11, 2006.
Utopia. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Lives and Dies ©
Written December 9, 2006Yesterday was a day in memorial. Many remembered and honored the life and passing of musician, composer John Lennon.
Throughout the day, I found myself singing the Lennon tune "Imagine." I often do "Imagine all the people living life in peace." I speak of this vision.
I write of it faithfully. Many think my thoughts are silly and they say so. I might remark as John Lennon himself did, "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will be as one."
Today, I discovered others believed as I do long before I was born. Many post-World War II people were impelled to reflect on human rights and the atrocities individuals and groups imposed on one another.
It was determined poverty, such as that found in Germany prior to Hitler's rule, leaves people vulnerable and hurting. In such a state, they are likely to aggress. The recognized since we, worldwide live on one planet together, and with thanks to the advent of technological miracles we are no longer separate entities, the seas no longer divided us, we must work in unison to create global peace.
We as a civilization were mobile. We were and are connected worldwide. They concluded and I concur we must honor this reality.
Thus, a committee was formed. In 1946, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights composed of 18 Member States was developed. Former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the congregation.
This group of dignitaries set out to craft a doctrine that addressed human rights concerns. Two years later, they completed and adopted Mrs. Roosevelt stated, "It is not a treaty.
..[In the future, it] may well become the international Magna Carta.
" Ah, were this so.
Since its inception, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been in dispute. The United States has been among its greatest critics.
This nation refuses to ratify this document. American leaders resist the connection between rights and responsibilities. The articles of this nonbinding "law" allow for the following provisions.
Actually, they offer more "power to the people." In this treatise, I will focus on the first articles of the declaration and contrast these with what is occurring in America. There is so much more to assess; I could write a tomes.
There are volumes worthy of presenting. However, in this essay I offer only a flavor. Taste what we as a nation do, and ask yourself, are these deeds palatable.
~ The freedom of all. Children are born as equals. They are free and should be treated in the same way.
Humans have reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a friendly manner.
Associated Press. MSNBC. May 9, 2006. America may be the world’s superpower, but its survival rate for newborn babies ranks near the bottom among modern nations, better only than Latvia.
Among 33 industrialized nations, the United States is tied with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with a death rate of nearly 5 per 1,000 babies, according to a new report.Latvia’s rate is 6 per 1,000.
“We are the wealthiest country in the world, but there are still pockets of our population who are not getting the health care they need,” said Mary Beth Powers, a reproductive health adviser for the U.S.-based Save the Children, which compiled the rankings based on health data from countries and agencies worldwide.
The U.S.ranking is driven partly by racial and income health care disparities. Among U.S.
blacks, there are 9 deaths per 1,000 live births, closer to rates in developing nations than to those in the industrialized world.
“Every time I see these kinds of statistics, I’m always amazed to see where the United States is because we are a country that prides itself on having such advanced medical care and developing new technology ... and new approaches to treating illness. But at the same time not everybody has access to those new technologies,” said Dr.
Mark Schuster, a Rand Co. researcher and pediatrician with the University of California, Los Angeles.
~ a different sex
Why women are still paid less than men.By Evelyn Murphy and E.J. Graff.
Boston Globe. October 9, 2005. If you are a woman working full time, you will lose between $700,000 and $2 million over your working lifetime -- just because of your sex.
Is that fair? No. Can it be stopped?
Absolutely.
In 1964, when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act that banned workplace discrimination based on race or sex, women working full time made 59 cents to a full-time working man's dollar. That made sense at the time: As a group, women had less education, less experience, and less opportunity, in part because they were flatly banned from a wide range of occupations.At the time, many people thought the wage gap would close on its own, as the education, experience, and opportunity gaps went away.
But today, 40 years later, the wage gap stands at 23 cents. Women working full time -- not part-time, not on maternity leave, not as consultants -- still earn only 77 cents to a full-time workingman's dollar.That's an enormous gap, and it has been stalled in place for more than a decade. It's not closing on its own. It affects women at every economic level, from waitresses to lawyers, from cashiers to CEOs.
~ a different skin colour
ZNet Magazine. January 19, 2004. Although the information, taken mostly from the US Census and the Federal Reserve, has been publicly available for years, few reports have pulled all the disparate pieces together."The State of the Dream 2004," released last week by United for a Fair Economy, challenges traditional notions about the success of the civil rights movement in the past 30 years. United for a Fair Economy is a nonprofit organization that focuses on highlighting income and other economic disparities in American society.
"These findings contradict the basic values of our country," said report co-author Betsy Leondar-Wright, who called the disparities "shocking and unacceptable."
Among the more disturbing findings: Unemployment among blacks is more than double that for whites, 10.8 percent versus 5.2 percent in 2003 -- a wider gap than in 1972.Black infant mortality is also greater today than in 1970. In 2001, the black infant mortality rate was 14 deaths per 1,000 live births, 146 percent higher than the white rate. The gap in infant mortality rates was 37 percent less in 1970.
Black Americans have also made little progress compared to whites in terms of income. According to the report, for every dollar of white income, African Americans had 55 cents in 1968. Thirty-three years later, in 2001, the gap had only closed by two cents.The report notes that, at this pace, it would take 581 years to achieve income parity.
According to the report, the average black college graduate will earn $500,000 less in his or her lifetime than an average white college graduate. Black high school graduates working full-time from age 25 to 64, will earn $300,000 less on average.
~ speaking a different language
Official English and anti-bilingual education bills introduced. By James Crawford. November 11, 2006.English Only legislation first appeared in 1981 as a constitutional English Language Amendment. This proposal, if approved by a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate and ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures, would have banned virtually all uses of languages other than English by federal, state, and local governments. But the measure has never come to a Congressional vote, even in committee.
Since 1981, 22 states have adopted various forms of Official English legislation, in addition to four that had already done so. Subtracting Hawaii's (which is officially bilingual) and Alaska (whose English-only initiative has been declared unconstitutional) leaves a total of 24 states with active Official English laws.
~ thinking different things
Cable News Network. April 20, 2005. For example, under the act the government can monitor an individual's Web surfing records. It can use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped.It can access Internet service provider records. And it can even monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.
After September 11, 2001, when the act was passed, the executive argued that these broader powers would be used to put terrorists behind bars.In fact, several of the act's provisions can be used to gain information about Americans in the context of investigations with no demonstrated link to terrorism.
~ believing in another religion
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. May 11, 2006.The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
~ owning more or less
By Lisa Schlein.Voice of America. December 10, 2006 The United Nations chose poverty as this year's theme for Human Rights day because, it says, poverty is both a cause and a product of human rights violations. It says the poor are more likely to have their rights denied, and to be victims of discrimination and persecution.
Mac Darrow, of the U.N. Human Rights Office, says that over the last decade, poverty has come to be seen as a human rights issue, rather than just an economic issue.He says, research shows poor people suffer from a wide-range of civil and political rights violations. "Lack of access to adequate schooling. Lack of personal security.
Lack of ability to participate in public affairs or community level decision-making bodies - really, a very integrated and multi-faceted vision of dis-empowerment. And, this and like research has driven international development agencies to understand poverty as precisely that, as about social exclusion, about issues of access to political power, economic power and discrimination," he said.
~ being born in another social group
A Guide Through the American Status System.By Paul Fussell. Public Broadcasting Service [PBS]. Despite our public embraces of political and judicial equality, in individual perception and understanding - much of which we refrain from publicizing - we arrange things vertically and insist on crucial differences in value.
Regardless of what we say about equality, I think everyone at some point comes to feel like the Oscar Wilde who said, "The brotherhood of man is not a mere poet's dream: it is a most depressing and humiliating reality." It's as if in our hear of hearts we don't want agglomerations but distinctions. Analysis and separation we find interesting, synthesis boring.
Although it is disinclined to designate a hierarchy of social classes, the federal government seems to admit that if in law we are all equal, in virtually all other ways we are not. Thus the eighteen grades into which it divides its civil-servant employees, from grade 1 at the bottom (messenger, etc.) up through 2 (mail clerk), 5 (secretary), 9 (chemist), to 14 (legal administrator), and finally 16, 17, and 18 (high level administrators).In the construction business there's a social hierarchy of jobs, with "dirt work," or mere excavation, at the bottom; the making of sewers, roads, and tunnels in the middle; and work on buildings (the taller, the higher) at the top. Those who sell "executive desks" and related office furniture know that they and their clients agree on a rigid "class" hierarchy. Desks made of oak are at the bottom, and those of walnut are next.
Then, moving up, mahogany is, if you like, "upper middle class," until we arrive, finally, at the apex: teak. In the army, at ladies' social functions, pouring the coffee is the prerogative of the senior officer's wife because, as the ladies all know, coffee outranks tea.
~ coming from another country
USA Today. December 15, 2005. The House acted Friday to stem the tide of illegal immigration by taking steps to tighten border controls and stop unlawful immigrants from getting jobs. But lawmakers left for next year the tougher issue of what to do with the 11 million undocumented people already in the country.
The House legislation, billed as a border protection, anti-terrorism and illegal immigration control act, includes such measures as enlisting military and local law enforcement help in stopping illegal entrants and requiring employers to verify the legal status of their workers. It authorizes the building of a fence along parts of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Oh, I could go on. Suffice to say America has problems endorsing what it chooses not to practice.
According to U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is "a letter to Santa Claus.
"
Kirkpatrick states, "Neither nature, experience, nor probability informs these lists of 'entitlements', which are subject to no constraints except those of the mind and appetite of their authors." Apparently to her and to many, preventing illness by providing preventative medicine is not a universal responsibility. Medical services are not a right.
In a world, or a nation of equals, we are not. Affluent persons such as Kirkpatrick claim, a person either has the means to fend for him or herself, or they do not. This former Socialist has concluded we each need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, whether we can afford them or not.
She, in the Reagan tradition, ignores that people are not treated equally and therefore do not have equal opportunities.
For me, Former Attorney General, a href=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.
com/Human_Rights/RClark_50thAnnivUDHR.html>Ramsey Clark said it well. As you read of Iraq, please notice, Ramsey Clark is not discussing our more recent decision to obliterate this nation with bombs.
He is speaking of the period prior to our unilateral attack. When evaluating The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Clark declared,
The United States government pays lip service to the Declaration, but its courts have consistently refused to enforce its provisions reasoning it is not a legally binding treaty, or contract, but only a declaration. This ignores the fact that international law recognizes the provisions of the Declaration as being incorporated into customary international law, which is binding on all nations.
The most fundamental, dangerous, and harmful violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on its fifteenth birthday is economic sanctions imposed on entire populations. The United States alone blockades eleven million Cubans in the face of the most recent General Assembly resolution approved by 157 nations condemning the blockade, with only the United States and Israel in opposition. The entire population of Cuba and every Cuban has had the "right to a standard of living adequate for health and well being... including food, clothing, housing and medical care" deliberately violated by the United States blockade.
Security Council sanctions against Iraq, which are forced by the United States, have devastated the entire nation, taking the lives of more than 1,500,000 people, mostly infants, children, chronically ill and elderly, and harming millions more by hunger, sickness and sorrow. The sanctions destroy the "dignity and rights" of the people of Iraq and are the most extreme form of "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," which are prohibited by the Declaration.
Despite the cruelest destruction of the most basic human rights and liberties of all the people in Iraq, including rights to medicine, safe drinking water and sufficient food, the United States government, with the major mass media in near perfect harmony, proclaims itself the world's champion of liberty and human rights.The problem as Lincoln surely knew is not merely one of definitions. It is a problem of power, will, and accountability. The United States intends to have its way and serve its own interests, with Iraq, Cuba, Libya, Iran, the Sudan and many other countries whatever the consequences to the liberties and rights of those who live there.
The United States control over and its concerted action with the mass media enables it to demonize such countries, its victims, for "terrorism," threats to world peace and human rights violations at the very time it rains Tomahawk cruise missiles on them and motivates and finances armed insurrections and violence against them.
News RSS