Dreams Live and Die

New York Times. January 1, 2007
As we reflect on the life and love of Charles we cannot help but imagine the many lives this war touches.
Tens of thousands more men and women perished in this battle royale.

Foreign-born troops and innocent civilians lose their lives daily in the combative countryside of the Middle East. Even those that survive are scarred badly. Physical wounds run deep; emotional pain runs deeper.

Those that never traveled to Iraq are affected by this war. Yet, the troops are perhaps more profoundly torn.
They want to support their Commander-In-Chief; they need to justify their actions.

If they do not, cognitive dissonance might drive them crazy. Currently, many service men and women have resolved the conflicts in their own minds. Finally, the force of a rising death toll has put things into perspective.

Soldiers are no longer justifying an unjustifiable war; nor are they siding with the Bush Administration.

The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll..

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war.
When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely.

This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.
Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole.

In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While approval of the president’s war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.
Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.

S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

Professor David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland, was not surprised by the changing attitude within the military.
“They’re seeing more casualties and fatalities and less progress,” Segal said.
He added, “Part of what we’re seeing is a recognition that the intelligence that led to the war was wrong.

”
Whatever war plan the president comes up with later this month, it likely will have the replacement of American troops with Iraqis as its ultimate goal. The military is not optimistic that will happen soon. Only about one in five service members said that large numbers of American troops can be replaced within the next two years.

More than one-third think it will take more than five years. And more than half think the U.S.

will have to stay in Iraq more than five years to achieve its goals.
Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now. A surprising 13 percent said we should have no troops there.

As for Afghanistan force levels, 39 percent think we need more troops there. But while they want more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly three-quarters of the respondents think today’s military is stretched too thin to be effective.
The mail survey, conducted Nov.

13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey’s respondents are on average older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population.

Among the respondents, 66 percent have deployed at least once to Iraq or Afghanistan. In the overall active-duty force, according to the Department of Defense, that number is 72 percent.
The poll has come to be viewed by some as a barometer of the professional career military.

It is the only independent poll done on an annual basis. The margin of error on this year’s poll is plus or minus 3 percentage points..

That is no longer the case. Service men and women are more than slightly disillusioned.
Some say, the President lied to the public and to those that serve this nation.

Mister Bush claims he did not.
George W. Bush told us [citizens of the USA] Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

He declared Saddam Hussein an enemy of the state. He initially assured us that the tyrant was a threat and sponsored the death and destruction we witnessed on September 11, 2001.
Years later, though evidence calls his assertions into question, the President sticks to his guns.

He stays the course. However, many of his cohorts no longer stand beside him.
When considering this conflict, even those that once believed in the battle are beginning to question the viability of this action.

Yet, as recently as September 11, 2006 the President was working to convince a public that was no longer confident. Judge for yourself; how well does he state his case?

we learned that America must confront threats before they reach our shores, whether those threats come from terrorist networks or terrorist states.

I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat -- and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take.

The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. And now the challenge is to help the Iraqi people build a democracy that fulfills the dreams of the nearly 12 million Iraqis who came out to vote in free elections last December.

However, in that devastation.
The former Iraqi leader was executed days ago, captured years earlier, and the Individuals now more than ever, or at least they loathe our leaders. Terrorism against the US is on the rise.

All this is true. We witness these facts daily.
Americans do agree with Mister Bush in one respect; on September 11, 2001 close to three thousand of our fellow countrymen and women died.

Today Americans are still dying.
As of January 1, 2007, three thousand [3,000] American soldiers have lost their lives. Twenty-two thousand [22,000] more have lost their limbs, their eyesight, their friends, and family members.

Too many to mention have lost their sense of sanity. They saw too much.
Every soldier and every civilian affected by this traumatic war had or has a heart and soul as sensitive as that of Charles Monroe King.

All of them had a story to tell, a life to share. Iraqi civilians, service men, and women are legendary in the lives of their loved ones. Troops from all participating countries are.

Even in death, people are remembered, except by George W. Bush. For this man, this megalomaniac the troops are numbers on a piece of paper.

Some live and some die. If we need more service men or women we will find them. We have reserves and the retired.

The President believes we can always recruit. Offer the poor more money and they will sign up. For George W.

, all but his own babies are possible enlistees. President Bush displays his disconnected state daily.
Within days, George W.

Bush is expected to announce another Increased military forces will be sent to Iraq. No matter that the Iraq Study Group thought this unwise. It makes no difference that the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not endorse this strategy.

Now, that even the yeomen disagree with the President policy, he still moves "forward."
Mister Bush has proudly proclaimed he does not pay attention to polls. Apparently, this is true.

The President cares not for the individual soldiers or for the thoughts of the average American citizen. He only needs to honor the dead or the injured with decorum. That alone is his duty.

The Commander-In-Chief shows little compassion. He is not conservative with his dollars; nor does he hesitate to deliver more troops. Loss matters not to George W.

Bush. So hold on to your hats, your loved ones, and your life. You may be next.

You too may become a story, as is. Your life history may be safely tucked away on the front page of your local newspaper.

New York Times. January 1, 2007

January 1, 2007

New York Times. January 1, 2007

By Nancy Trejos. Washington Post. January 2, 2007

By Robert D. Novak. Washington Post.

?Monday, January 1, 2007; A13

Novak. Washington Post.?

Monday, January 1, 2007; A13

Couples, Communication and Caring ©

In a country where many are separated, where children are left alone, and families are not intact, the quality of relationships is a necessary consideration. This week, the New York Times addressed this concern in two articles, and . I, as many do, have an active interest in this matter.

Yesterday, I spoke with an acquaintance. She seems to be happy in her current relationship; she says she is. I remember when her beau was a source of great stress.

Jess was involved in his work and Lisa wanted him to be concerned with her. She tried and tried to change what was. Lisa turned to other men; Jess was upset.

Still, transformation was slow in coming. The relationship came and went, repeatedly. Now the two are one, or are they?

In my conversation with Lisa last evening, I learned Jess is planning to move in to Lisa's home. She is elated. They spend their night's together daily.

I was told, "All is well." Yet, Lisa is distressed. Work is her worry.

When with Jess, she does not mention her personal struggles. She pretends everything is just fine. Lisa labors long hours.

She is miserable in her job. Lisa took this position for money was a problem. It still is though she is surviving.

When with Jess, this lovely lady does not let on.
Every night, Lisa dashes to the grocery store immediately after she clocks out. All within a single hour, she drives home quickly, cooks, showers, dresses for dinner and then awaits her love.

He arrives promptly; they dine together and "talk." He knows her life is a whirlwind. She says nothing.

She is content to share his company.
I wonder; will his "caring" companionship be enough as time goes on. I acknowledge that life is made up of so much more than the little things.

My own experience tells me that what might seem small when left unattended swells.
I know this for I too have stayed silent when I needed or wanted to speak. I did not, do not wish to be known by those I was or am most intimate with.

The gentlemen I yearned to share my life with are or were the ones I feared most. There was nothing frightening about these men. Actually, they were each sensitive souls.

The reason for my apprehension, I am not fully comfortable when in a warm personal male/female relationship. I am anxious, thinking of the inevitable separations. I am concerned.

Will I lose myself?
There seem to be so many expectations and obligations. Additionally, on perhaps above all, I recall my parents' It occurred ten days after their twentieth anniversary.

I was eight at the time of their initial separation. The memory lives large. I can recount the conversation that seemingly caused my Mom to leave.

I remember it as though it took place minutes ago. My Mom attests to my account. that reality runs deep.

people aged 15 and over in the United States in 2000:

120.2 million, or 54.4 percent, were now married;

41.

0 million, or 18.5 percent, were widowed, divorced or separated; and

59.9 million, or 27.

1 percent, were never married.
From Census 2000. Source: U.

S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 questionnaire.

I was and am fortunate. The men in my life are extremely communicative and desirous of knowing who I am, what I think, feel, do, and want. They asked.

They listened to my answers. They accepted my thinking, and most of all they appreciated me. In the present, the same is true.

Caring, calm, complete communication; what a concept! It is a strange construct to many; perchance alien to most.
I recognize that when a problem exists it is because, I [or they] do not speak directly.

I or we hide what hurts or what we fear will prompt rejection. Consistently I am reminded that if I speak faithfully with sensitivity there is empathy and understanding. I have ample reason to believe communication and authentic care make a huge difference in the quality of what comes.

Still, I struggle, [as does Lisa.]
Much as I resist, the gents I have known encouraged me to speak of everything. The one in my life now does the same.

Typically, this is what I do; I tell all, unless the threat of a fully intimate rapport grabs me. Then I run, or at least I close my mouth.
For whatever reason, there are those that wish to be part of my daily life, just as I believe Jess wishes to be part of Lisa's life.

They accept me as I am, though I do not often truly appreciate myself. Might this be true in Lisa's relationship?
Recently, I was told I could be myself fully, be free to do as I already do.

I would not need to cater to the other and sacrifice my own time and efforts. Could this possibly be? Will the prospect last?

Conceivably, Lisa heard similar statements.
Might I again review what is truth for most and was for me? I recall Lisa was married once before.

She was braver than I. Lisa may be hesitant now. As an adult, she lived what I avoided.

I felt what she did as a child. We both suffered through our divorces,

More and more social scientists are concluding that divorce is hurting American society and devastating the lives of children.
American society may have erased the stigma that once accompanied divorce, but it can no longer ignore divorce's massive effects.

As social scientists track successive generations of American children whose parents have ended their marriages, the data are leading even some once-staunch supporters to conclude that divorce is hurting American society and devastating children's lives. Its effects are obvious in family life, educational attainment, job stability, income potential, physical, and emotional health, drug use, and crime.
Each year, over one million American children suffer as their parents divorce.

Moreover, half of all children born in wedlock this year will see their parents divorce before reaching their eighteenth birthday. This fact alone should give policymakers and those whose careers focus on children reason for pause.
Social science research is showing that the effects of divorce continue into adulthood and affect the next generation of children as well.

If the effects are indeed demonstrable, grave, and long lasting, then something must be done to protect children and the nation from these consequences. Reversing the effects of divorce will entail nothing less than a cultural shift in attitude, if not a cultural revolution, because society still embraces divorce in its laws and popular culture, sending out myriad messages that "it's okay."
It is not.

Mounting evidence in the annals of scientific journals details the plight of the children of divorce. It clearly indicates that divorce has lasting effects which spill over into every aspect of life.

Some say counseling is the cure for what may ail a couple. Premarital therapy will quell the rising trend. Others think prenuptial agreements will counter that oft expressed quandary of financial concerns.

Many think sex before the wedding will indicate whether or not a couple is compatible.
I believe what is a concern does not occur only during matrimony. I observe that numerous individuals do as I sometimes do.

They speak indirectly, if at all. What causes people the greatest pain is not knowing, not feeling understood, being ignored, or ignorance of feelings. Those we are fond of are frequently the last to know what is within us.

For me, caring, calm, casual, clear, and complete is the only treatment for what troubles today's couples.
I recall an essay I read in Psychology Today as a child. The authors focused on how well we truly know the ones we claim to love.

They noted how little was said, how much went unspoken. I never forgot the treatise. However, it seems obvious, many failed to memorize the authors' message, or they never read it.

Since my youth, the permanency of partnerships plummets. People physically unite; yet, they do not allow themselves to be together. They talk and never say much.

The New York Times realizes that this topic is no less a concern than it was decades ago. This periodical appeals to its readers. Please peruse this short and sweet article.

Those that need this offering most may have missed it. I share it here for your assessment, Questions Couples Should Ask (Or Wish They Had) Before Marrying.
I invite you to comment, to tell your story, and express your experience.

We all have much to learn.

Relationship experts report that too many couples fail to ask each other critical questions before marrying. Here are a few key ones that couples should consider asking:
1) Have we discussed whether to have children, and if the answer is yes, who is going to be the primary care giver?

2) Do we have a clear idea of each other’s financial obligations and goals, and do our ideas about spending and saving mesh?
3) Have we discussed our expectations for how the household will be maintained, and are we in agreement, on who will manage the chores?
4) Have we fully disclosed our health histories, both physical and mental?

5) Is my partner affectionate to the degree that I expect?
6) Can we comfortably and openly discuss our sexual needs, preferences, and fears?
7) Will there be a television in the bedroom?

8) Do we truly listen to each other and fairly consider one another’s ideas and complaints?
9) Have we reached a clear understanding of each other’s spiritual beliefs and needs, and have we discussed when and how our children will be exposed to religious/moral education?
10) Do we like and respect each other’s friends?

11) Do we value and respect each other’s parents, and is either of us concerned about whether the parents will interfere with the relationship?
12) What does my family do that annoys you?
13) Are there some things that you and I are NOT prepared to give up in the marriage?

14) If one of us were to be offered a career opportunity in a location far from the other’s family, are we prepared to move?
15) Do each of us feel fully confident in the other’s commitment to the marriage and believe that the bond can survive whatever challenges we may face?

Have you discussed these issues with your mate, your partner, the person you call your pal. Do you dare? What will happen if you authentically?

Might the dynamics of your relationship change? Oh no, could divorce be on the horizon!?

I wonder, why do so few of us share sincerely with those we sleep with?
Meeting of the Minds, Bodies, Heart and Soul, Sources . .

.

New York Times. December 17, 2006

From Census 2000. Source: U.S.

Census Bureau, Census 2000 questionnaire.

New York Times. November 14, 2004

Angert on December 20, 2006 at 05:40 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

" 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.

December 10, 2006

Utopia. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Lives and Dies ©

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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 propose that if we practice what we preach strength, solidarity, safety, security, and sanity will exist for everyone on Earth.
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.

December 10, 2006