On 4th April 1967, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was already a world famous Nobel Prize winner when he delivered an important speech at Riverside Church, New York City. Rather than resting on his laurels, Dr. King spoke out - "A time comes when silence is betrayal."
He spoke about war and violence and the need to work for a better world. Forty years later his words still resonate; the same violence continues, fueled by greed and ignorance. (A year after this speech, Dr. King was murdered).
Excerpt:
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway.
True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."
from
Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence
full text and audio at:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Cooking War Criminals
Recent awakenings among US Democrats (and others) claim they were blindsided by government assurances over Iraq and its dangers. It was clear from way back, however, that the Bush regime were peddling stinky fish.
British MP Robin Cook had just resigned as Leader of the House of Commons in protest over the planned invasion of Iraq when he delivered a well-reasoned and impassioned speech to Parliament on 17 March 2003. Cook is clear in his speech (which received a standing ovation from both sides of the House) that invading Iraq was being planned with no clear & present danger, and without multilateral agreement - Britain and the USA were embarking on an illegal war.
Here is an mp3 version of that famous speech:
Robin Cook resigns over Iraq attack plan 2003-03-17.mp3
and a transcript:
Robin Cook resignation speech
This was not a tiny voice from the fringe, but a mainstream warning against unilateralism, bullying and wielding war in doubtful circumstances (Robin Cook had been Foreign Secretary for more than four years under PM Tony Blair). Those who ignored his warnings might yet be convicted for criminal acts. The death, destruction & huge costs they've sown are tragedy for all.
British MP Robin Cook had just resigned as Leader of the House of Commons in protest over the planned invasion of Iraq when he delivered a well-reasoned and impassioned speech to Parliament on 17 March 2003. Cook is clear in his speech (which received a standing ovation from both sides of the House) that invading Iraq was being planned with no clear & present danger, and without multilateral agreement - Britain and the USA were embarking on an illegal war.
Here is an mp3 version of that famous speech:
Robin Cook resigns over Iraq attack plan 2003-03-17.mp3
and a transcript:
Robin Cook resignation speech
This was not a tiny voice from the fringe, but a mainstream warning against unilateralism, bullying and wielding war in doubtful circumstances (Robin Cook had been Foreign Secretary for more than four years under PM Tony Blair). Those who ignored his warnings might yet be convicted for criminal acts. The death, destruction & huge costs they've sown are tragedy for all.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Illegal Foreigners
Immigrants have a hard time in making their lives in a new nation. And immigrants have helped many nations in fundamental ways. We can celebrate the immigrant. But illegal foreigners should not be encouraged. Let's reserve the term immigrant for those who properly follow legal immigration procedures. Hiking across a border should not confer the title 'immigrant' -- an honorable word.
The United States of America confers citizenship on people born within US territory. This is the law of jus soli (also lex soli). Citizenship is granted to a child born in the USA; parent nationality or legal status is immaterial (with the exception of children born to foreign embassy or consular officials posted to the USA, or the offspring of occupying enemy soldiers).
This system should be revised. When citizenship is granted to the babies of illegal foreigners, or to the offspring of tourists or short-term visitors, great confusion arises. The parents may soon need to leave, or already illegally resident (the legal status of parents is unchanged) but the infant has a citizen's right to stay. This condition is sometimes called 'birth tourism' or having an anchor baby...
Nutty! Little American children without the right to keep their parents with them. Of course we feel something is odd & unfair.
Revision of jus soli is complex because of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, (excerpt): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The law has been upheld on challenge: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
This anomaly can and should be fixed.
The United States of America confers citizenship on people born within US territory. This is the law of jus soli (also lex soli). Citizenship is granted to a child born in the USA; parent nationality or legal status is immaterial (with the exception of children born to foreign embassy or consular officials posted to the USA, or the offspring of occupying enemy soldiers).
This system should be revised. When citizenship is granted to the babies of illegal foreigners, or to the offspring of tourists or short-term visitors, great confusion arises. The parents may soon need to leave, or already illegally resident (the legal status of parents is unchanged) but the infant has a citizen's right to stay. This condition is sometimes called 'birth tourism' or having an anchor baby...
Nutty! Little American children without the right to keep their parents with them. Of course we feel something is odd & unfair.
Revision of jus soli is complex because of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, (excerpt): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The law has been upheld on challenge: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
This anomaly can and should be fixed.
Friday, June 29, 2007
"Immigration reform" in the USA
Perhaps US immigration rules are flawed in fundamental ways. The long delay in processing spouse visas for US citizen family members is terrible. The bureaucracy of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) often seems deliberately oppressive & unfriendly. Giving citizenship under jus soli rights to children born in the US to foreign students and visitors (yet not to their parents) seems illogical -- in some ways unduly liberal, in another sense regressive.
Should foreigners be given amnesty after criminally entering the USA? I think not.
Of course they have contributed. Their illegal work has received compensation. Most are nice people. Private parties may be satisfied, but the social contract is damaged by these illegal operations.
Americans should be encouraged to invest in their communities and nation. Allowing unrestricted entry is costly. Providing services to new arrivals subtracts something from the common wealth. Perhaps future contributions by immigrants might offset many such costs. Yet who is to be "welcome in" should be a decision for the citizenry. Otherwise there is little incentive to invest in society.
Many Americans may believe that kindness and charity should guide such policies. But the world's people outnumber Americans 20 to 1. Too many to integrate. Darwinist competition and raw untrammeled dog-eat-dog capitalism grow closer with unrestricted immigration.
I know there are many nice, hardworking and friendly people everywhere in the world. But those who force their way into my home and demand feeding at my table are abusive and should be strongly discouraged.
Should foreigners be given amnesty after criminally entering the USA? I think not.
Of course they have contributed. Their illegal work has received compensation. Most are nice people. Private parties may be satisfied, but the social contract is damaged by these illegal operations.
Americans should be encouraged to invest in their communities and nation. Allowing unrestricted entry is costly. Providing services to new arrivals subtracts something from the common wealth. Perhaps future contributions by immigrants might offset many such costs. Yet who is to be "welcome in" should be a decision for the citizenry. Otherwise there is little incentive to invest in society.
Many Americans may believe that kindness and charity should guide such policies. But the world's people outnumber Americans 20 to 1. Too many to integrate. Darwinist competition and raw untrammeled dog-eat-dog capitalism grow closer with unrestricted immigration.
I know there are many nice, hardworking and friendly people everywhere in the world. But those who force their way into my home and demand feeding at my table are abusive and should be strongly discouraged.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Who's the bigger Jerk?
The USA is endangering East Asia and wasting huge resources jerking around with North Korea. Why?
The US agreed many months ago to return $24 million in frozen North Korean funds they'd demanded confiscated in September 2005 due to what the USA considers irregularities.
North Korea is fundamentally irregular. They wish to be irregular (examine juche ideology to somewhat understand). They're part of the "Axis of Evil" according to President Bush.
But returning those funds was a clear condition for dismantling North Korea's nuclear program. Weeks and months have passed; numerous news reports have cited progress; but the North Koreans still don't have their money.
Now US$24 million may seem like a lot of money to you or me, but to nations it ain't much at all. The South Koreans are forced to remain on alert with 650,000 troops: the North keeps 1,000,000 troops, while US deployment in South Korea is 30,000 troops. How much does that cost? Let's be silly and make a very conservative estimate: for a US soldier, $100 each day: for South Korean soldiers (most under mandatory conscription) $10 per day; and let's say a soldier's maintenance in North Korea costs $1 each day. Thus pure costs are (3,000,000 + 6,500,000 + 1,000,000) well upward of US$10 million each day. How much damage will a nuclear accident do to East Asia? How much would military intervention cost? The USA now spends $195 million every day on the Iraq conflict. And how much are the lives of soldiers and civilians worth? The agreements were reached in so-called "Six Party Talks" requiring great coordination. A one-off $24 million is clearly cheap. But some plump jerks in Washington are stringing this along, and angering close allies in the process.
C'mon USA - you said you'd return North Korea's money. It's clearly more a matter of principle than the funds themselves. Fix it. Cough up. Don't endanger us all with dumbass brinkmanship.
The US agreed many months ago to return $24 million in frozen North Korean funds they'd demanded confiscated in September 2005 due to what the USA considers irregularities.
North Korea is fundamentally irregular. They wish to be irregular (examine juche ideology to somewhat understand). They're part of the "Axis of Evil" according to President Bush.
But returning those funds was a clear condition for dismantling North Korea's nuclear program. Weeks and months have passed; numerous news reports have cited progress; but the North Koreans still don't have their money.
Now US$24 million may seem like a lot of money to you or me, but to nations it ain't much at all. The South Koreans are forced to remain on alert with 650,000 troops: the North keeps 1,000,000 troops, while US deployment in South Korea is 30,000 troops. How much does that cost? Let's be silly and make a very conservative estimate: for a US soldier, $100 each day: for South Korean soldiers (most under mandatory conscription) $10 per day; and let's say a soldier's maintenance in North Korea costs $1 each day. Thus pure costs are (3,000,000 + 6,500,000 + 1,000,000) well upward of US$10 million each day. How much damage will a nuclear accident do to East Asia? How much would military intervention cost? The USA now spends $195 million every day on the Iraq conflict. And how much are the lives of soldiers and civilians worth? The agreements were reached in so-called "Six Party Talks" requiring great coordination. A one-off $24 million is clearly cheap. But some plump jerks in Washington are stringing this along, and angering close allies in the process.
C'mon USA - you said you'd return North Korea's money. It's clearly more a matter of principle than the funds themselves. Fix it. Cough up. Don't endanger us all with dumbass brinkmanship.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Unlamented (a poem by Genki)
The lineup marches forward
Unlamented
Surging broken & gristly
Optimism mutilated
America
Taste distant desert sand
Final finest service.
It happened slowly; Unlamented
A tragedy. A hero.
The President himself repeats.
A loss to all who knew her
Family beyond recovering
That last understanding
of dust
LaVena Johnson
Major Gloria D. Davis
Two names, among many
Heroes. Enlisted to serve.
But systematically outmaneuvered.
Pray gone to heaven
Not lost to blackness
White bones wonder why.
Unlamented
Surging broken & gristly
Optimism mutilated
Taste distant desert sand
Final finest service.
It happened slowly; Unlamented
A tragedy. A hero.
The President himself repeats.
A loss to all who knew her
Family beyond recovering
That last understanding
of dust
LaVena Johnson
Major Gloria D. Davis
Two names, among many
Heroes. Enlisted to serve.
But systematically outmaneuvered.
Pray gone to heaven
Not lost to blackness
White bones wonder why.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Withdraw from Iraq? Don't hold your breath...
The US government is under pressure from a wide range of interests, both foreign & domestic, to withdraw military forces from Iraq. This is unlikely to happen - here's why:
The USA, with close ally Israel behind & urging them forward, needs the military bases now commandeered/occupied/rented in Iraq. Most US resources have now been withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, esp. Prince Sultan Air Base. (This gave a key victory to Osama Bin Laden -- as forcing US withdrawal from Saudi Arabia was a central focus for 9/11 terrorism, where 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian).
The new US embassy compound in Iraq will be the world's largest embassy by far. On 104 acres (42 hectare) in the heart of Baghdad, the riverside site would fit three Pentagon buildings (that building is 29 acres plus a 5 acre central plaza) - and the Pentagon is one damn big building; the US Capitol building footprint is just four acres. How many visas they plan to issue?
US claims for staying in Iraq to install democracy seem poppycock. The duly-elected lawmakers of Iraq themselves asked for a US withdrawal timetable (8 May 2007), and have been thus far ignored. As with Guantanamo and many other US bases around the world, "y'all Irakis'd best prepare 4 permanent Aw-Q-Pay-Shun."
The USA, with close ally Israel behind & urging them forward, needs the military bases now commandeered/occupied/rented in Iraq. Most US resources have now been withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, esp. Prince Sultan Air Base. (This gave a key victory to Osama Bin Laden -- as forcing US withdrawal from Saudi Arabia was a central focus for 9/11 terrorism, where 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian).
The new US embassy compound in Iraq will be the world's largest embassy by far. On 104 acres (42 hectare) in the heart of Baghdad, the riverside site would fit three Pentagon buildings (that building is 29 acres plus a 5 acre central plaza) - and the Pentagon is one damn big building; the US Capitol building footprint is just four acres. How many visas they plan to issue?
US claims for staying in Iraq to install democracy seem poppycock. The duly-elected lawmakers of Iraq themselves asked for a US withdrawal timetable (8 May 2007), and have been thus far ignored. As with Guantanamo and many other US bases around the world, "y'all Irakis'd best prepare 4 permanent Aw-Q-Pay-Shun."
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Haiku by Genki
One skinny lawyer
Truth Quest leveraged: Gandhi
Lead by example
-- 2007-05-27 Seoul
Outside traffic sounds
4 AM; slumber beckons
Enough Now for now
-- 2007-05-27 Seoul
Truth Quest leveraged: Gandhi
Lead by example
-- 2007-05-27 Seoul
Outside traffic sounds
4 AM; slumber beckons
Enough Now for now
-- 2007-05-27 Seoul
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Colin Powell: A Murderous Duck
Colin Powell is no longer the U.S. Secretary of State. Where is he? As Powell's deception and the multiple lies of Bush White House unravel, Powell is playing duck-and-cover. Doing a bit of charity work, trying to hunker down and wait until the day seems right for rehabilitation.
Forget it Colin. You are worse than bankrupt. You were trusted as a voice of reason and balance. Now thousands of Americans & tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead, the killing continues, and it is largely due to you. Your complicit absence with empty near quotes -- "according to statements from an associate" or "a former colleague of Powell explains" -- only compound your crimes. Months pass, taxpayer dollars in the hundreds of billions are poured into Iraq (and denied to US domestic needs), yet from you we hear only very quiet whimpers of "i didn't know..."
Yet you told the United Nations, and the entire world, "WE KNOW..." 32 times. It was baloney. You spoke also of obligations; now you duck all codes of honor.
Forget it Colin. You are worse than bankrupt. You were trusted as a voice of reason and balance. Now thousands of Americans & tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead, the killing continues, and it is largely due to you. Your complicit absence with empty near quotes -- "according to statements from an associate" or "a former colleague of Powell explains" -- only compound your crimes. Months pass, taxpayer dollars in the hundreds of billions are poured into Iraq (and denied to US domestic needs), yet from you we hear only very quiet whimpers of "i didn't know..."
Yet you told the United Nations, and the entire world, "WE KNOW..." 32 times. It was baloney. You spoke also of obligations; now you duck all codes of honor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
