Posts Tagged ‘independent’

IS OBAMA SMARTER THAN BUSH?

November 5, 2009

According to George W. Bush, we are fighting in Iraq to “secure the peace” and, to “secure freedom and democracy”.  Is there any historical or other rational reason to believe this?  If war can secure peace then why, after 10,000 years of war, isn’t there peace on earth by now?

War didn’t begin with the American Revolution, nor did it end there; many soldiers who fought against the British rose up in “Shay’s Rebellion” against wealthy colonists who were taking their land and throwing them into debtors prison.  Soon after, another war against the British erupted.

Then came the Mexican-American War, Civil War, Spanish-American War and War in the Philippines.  And then, the so-called “war to end all wars”, WWI, soon followed by WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War and now, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Spaced among this long sad bloody list of war after war after war, were several slave uprisings, a long drawn-out war against Native populations and many smaller wars and battles.  There have also been many “uprisings” within the U.S. population, including mob murder of African-Americans, Irish, Jews, Mormons, Chinese, Latinos, adult and even, child workers on strike.

Yet today, after all this bloodshed, we find ourselves at war, yet again.  In spite of the overwhelming historical evidence, a morally bankrupt American population remains quick on the trigger and very slow to understand, that war will never “secure the peace”.  Is President Obama acting any wiser than Bush by continuing to stay the course in Iraq and increase troop levels in Afghanistan?

Some people claim Gandhi was wrong because he ended up a martyr.  Yet, Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez and a great many others claim to have been inspired by him.  Did Gandhi lose in the great historical war between pro and anti-human rights forces, the only war that really matters?

According to Jesus, the solution to war is to put down our swords.  A small child can easily grasp this crystal clear logic of Jesus, yet we find people today pretending to follow him, who still promote war as the solution to somehow secure the peace.  The life of Jesus has inspired millions of people to promote peace and goodwill.  Thus, he won a far, far, far greater victory than all of the military generals in history combined.

It is entirely logical, that if I promote peace and goodwill, I will help humanity and leave a positive legacy for others to emulate.  It is likewise, entirely logical that if I promote war as a solution, I will hurt humanity and extend the trail of tears for others to emulate.

We as individuals have little choice what our leaders or other people do.  However, we each have a personal choice to make, to either stand up for peace and goodwill or, to bow to peer pressure and promote war and other violence.

It takes courage to stand up against one’s own society, which is why Isaiah and Jesus continue to be revered by millions.  It takes only a victim of societal pressure to promote war.  It is mature to promote peace and goodwill; it is childish, historically and patently absurd to promote anything else.

Is Obama any smarter than Bush?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Advertisements

DOES THE NRA DEFEND THE 2ND AMENDMENT?

October 17, 2009

According to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution,
“. . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.  The word “Arms” was deliberately capitalized, a common practice at the time used for emphasis.  Since Thomas Jefferson later owned a private cannon, the largest weapon in his day, the term “Arms” to the original framers clearly meant more than small arms one can easily “bear”; note, to “keep” and bear Arms.

The word “gun” is found nowhere in the Constitution, a very carefully worded document.  It should also be noted that in the Consitution’s pre-amble, one of the main purposes listed is to “insure domestic Tranquility” (also capitalized).  To honestly and correctly interpret the intentions of the framers, everything that follows the Preamble, including all ten original amendments soon added, must be viewed in light of the Constitution’s stated purpose.

For many years, the NRA has been guilty of drawing a non-existent, artificial line down the center of the 2nd Amendment, limiting the debate to guns, knives, grenades and similar small arms.  To contend that the 2nd Amendment permits unlimited unregulated private ownership of modern assault weapons, is no more Constitutionally rational than to pretend that the 2nd Amendment allows unlimited private ownership of chemical weapons, nuclear bombs and space-ray weapons, which are also modern “Arms” unknown to the framers.

In order to engage in an honest Constitutional debate, the NRA must admit that, according to their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, we have just as much right to own private nuclear bombs and Anthrax as we do to own a multi-round handgun, none of which existed when the 2nd Amendment was drafted.  If we wish to have a society at all, then the 21st Century question is not “if” we are going to restrict the NRA’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but rather, in what manner are we going to restrict it.

For the record, if any living Americans have the right to argue in favor of restricting the 2nd Amendment, it is Jim and Sarah Brady.  And, as the “founding fathers” wisely allowed for, we can always amend what they originally wrote down.  A perhaps better and much saner idea would be to amend the NRA, entirely and altogether, by forcing our reluctant media to point out their deceptive and entirely irrational position.

The NRA has no more rational or Constitutional right to limit the 2nd Amendment to an issue of small Arms ownership than the ACLU has a right to restrict the 1st Amendment to their Constitutionally, historically and scientifically irrational interpretation of the known evidence. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson’s re-write of the New Testament, while he was a sitting president, would today include the following wry observation:  If conservatives and liberals crawl into a similar dark bed of deception, they will likely both end up in the same bottomless black hole, accordingly.

Does the NRA really defend the 2nd Amendment?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for the above article.

CAN CONGRESS BE REFORMED?

October 17, 2009

Anyone with a thimble-full of political sense can readily determine there is no way to fix America unless the influence of big money is eliminated from the political process.  Any other plan is mainly a big waste of everyone’s time, if we don’t as all-partisan citizens, regardless of religious, political or other persuasion, rise up and demand the complete elimination of bribery from sea to once shining sea.

Nothing illustrates this need better than the current crop of malfeasant Democrats, who since regaining control of Congress in 2007, haven’t done a single thing we the people obviously want.  Other than passing a minimum wage law that was over ten years too late and as many dollars too low, lack of health care, education costs, poverty, infrastructure decay, joblessness and homelessness have all dramatically increased.

Rather than helping average Americans, Congress has engaged in endless bend-over political charades, increased rather than reduced troop levels and war funding and signed away even more of our quickly disappearing rights.  And since 2008, they have sold our children’s future down a no-strings-attached, golden-platter river of unprecedented corporate bailout malfeasance.

Because the Supreme Court will always otherwise, declare any and all manner of corruption-eliminating reform “unconstitutional”,  the only way to get rid of big money influence is by constitutional amendment.  Attempts at other methods of reform have left a long historical trail of tears of utter frustration and defeat.

We need an amendment making it punishable by life in prison without parole, for any organization or group of people of any kind, for any reason, to contribute one penny or anything of higher value, to one small-town city council office seeker on up to president of the United States.  And we need to limit individual contributions to 1% of the median income per candidate per year, including candidates themselves; approximately $480 in 2008 dollars.

In order to be licensed for broadcasting on what are theoretically “the people’s” airwaves, we need to require all radio and television stations to grant free equal airtime to “qualified” candidates; qualification determined by obtaining enough signatures of registered voters, amount determined by office and number of people represented.  And, we need to eliminate the electoral college, elect everyone by popular vote, hold all party primaries on the same date and require a verifiable paper trail.

There is much tweaking necessary for the amendment proposed here, but this sketch outline is sufficient to grasp the basic idea.  No law will eliminate all corruption, but what is suggested here would eliminate well over 90% of the current problem and, would allow the majority of we the people to actually have a voice.

Will the bottom-feeding miscreant corporate-puppet juvenile delinquent treasonous reprobates of Congress ever be eliminated and put in federal prison where they belong?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article:
http://www.freedomtracks.com/500/congressionalreform.html

IS THERE REALLY LIFE IN THE FUTURE?

October 17, 2009

When I was a young boy growing up in Southern California, all of us kids had trouble breathing on summer days that were exceptionally smoggy.  We experienced chest pains, shortness of breath and burning pain in our lungs, whether or not we had asthma or other problems not attributable to the smog.
 
It is a very well-documented and accepted medical fact that human-induced pollution is significantly harmful to people, especially young children.  This fact alone is plenty more than enough reason to get rid of as much pollution as possible, as quickly as possible.
 
Our ever-myopic U.S. media, as usual, is focusing on the wrong thing.  Whether or not human-induced pollution is causing global warming is irrelevant to the larger issue of increased lung disease, cancer, liver disease and heart problems that result from it.  Pollution is also very bad for plant and animal food sources that we depend upon to survive, ending up in the water we share with them and the ground where our crops grow.
 
Air and water pollution have been increasing at an alarming rate due to accelerated economic growth in China and India.  And not surprisingly, significant health problems are documented to have dramatically increased well beyond mere population growth in both nations over the past ten years.
 
There is no legitimate argument that can be made against curbing and eliminating human-induced pollution as quickly as possible.  And Al Gore is absolutely right that human pollution is causing significant harm to our planet and every living thing on it, whether or not he is correct in every detail. 
 
The actual science is highly complex, involving both global warming and global dimming processes.  Global warming is the stronger of the two and thus, the net result is our planet is indisputably warming up.  Vast quantities of ice have disappeared in the past few years in South America and Greenland and at both poles, leaving large areas of bare surface where thick ice recently dominated the landscape.  Point Barrow, Alaska and entire islands are literally vanishing into the sea.
 
And meanwhile, corrupt bought-and-paid-for scientists, politicians and right-wing media hacks routinely rip known science way out of context and otherwise, completely ignore overwhelming evidence they don’t like.
 
Time is running out for ourselves and may well have run past the point of no return for our children and their children.  Is there really life in the future?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article:  
http://www.freedomtracks.com/500/pollution.html