Posts
That in the United States the following is true ???
•No right to privacy in constitution, though search and seizure protections exist in 4th Amendment; case law on government searches has considered new technology
•No comprehensive privacy law, many sectoral laws; though tort of privacy
•FTC continues to give inadequate attention to privacy issues, though issued self-regulating privacy guidelines on advertising in 2007
•State-level data breach legislation has proven to be useful in identifying faults in security
•REAL-ID and biometric identification programs continue to spread without adequate oversight, research, and funding structures
•Extensive data-sharing programs across federal government and with private sector
•Spreading use of CCTV
•Congress approved presidential program of spying on foreign communications over U.S. networks, e.g. Gmail, Hotmail, etc.; and now considering immunity for telephone companies, while government claims secrecy, thus barring any legal action
•No data retention law as yet, but equally no data protectio
Friday, March 26, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
ALWAYS REMEMBER WACO !!!!
Always remember WACO!
To answer the question "Why in shadows", regarding how the Templars always keep a low profile, I would state that we remember the burnings. If one thinks that persecution no longer exists, then I would also remind readers that at no time in the history of URth, has human life been less private.
Phones can be tapped, mail opened, bank accounts observed, and governments have data bases of their data bases. Some of the Fascist laws enacted by the 104th Congress of the United States were the following:
___A law enabling the government to label any group "terrorist" by FIAT, without trial and without appeal!
___Laws allowing secret trials with secret evedince for various classes of defendents.
___A law establishing a data base containing everything you and your doctor say during consultation.
___The largest gun confiscation act in US history.
Observation of individuals is easy in our society because:
___The use of ATMs enables the governemnt to observe spending habits, know your global position, and put a freeze on your funds.
___GPS systems in vehicles enables the government to always know where your vehicle and its driver are located.
___Triangulation of cell phones enables an individual to be found even if they are off the grid.
___Satellites can snoop, hear what you are saying, see what you are doing.
Why should one keep a low profile?
Always remember WACO!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
CAMELOT REJOICES
Some people stir you. Some offer hope. And you just know when some will change the world. Martin Luther King did it, as did JFK, and family, of Camelot!
And now we have President BARACK OBAMA. He is honest and direct, which are amazing, refreshing traits to find any politician , especially after one has become completely disillusioned with politics.
In past years the Presidential potentials all seemed to be turned out of the same breeding mills, and were pitiful examples of world leaders. Whether Republican or Democrat, their cloaks may have differed, but they sure as heck were all tarred with the same brush ( or bush!) underneath , to mix metaphors! To speak bluntly...they were not worthy.
BARACK walks to the sound of his own drummer, and he has marched straight into Washington, to sit in the President's chair in the Oval Office.
I had given up hope that there was a leader on this planet worthy of a second glance. BARACK OBAMA withstands scrutiny, and what he offers is practically magical!!!
Finally the reign of terror in the US has ended. Finally the tattered Constitution will be restored. No longer will ideals be sacrificed on the altar of expediency!
Camelot has thrown open its gates, to welcome home its KING!
Long Live the King!
And now we have President BARACK OBAMA. He is honest and direct, which are amazing, refreshing traits to find any politician , especially after one has become completely disillusioned with politics.
In past years the Presidential potentials all seemed to be turned out of the same breeding mills, and were pitiful examples of world leaders. Whether Republican or Democrat, their cloaks may have differed, but they sure as heck were all tarred with the same brush ( or bush!) underneath , to mix metaphors! To speak bluntly...they were not worthy.
BARACK walks to the sound of his own drummer, and he has marched straight into Washington, to sit in the President's chair in the Oval Office.
I had given up hope that there was a leader on this planet worthy of a second glance. BARACK OBAMA withstands scrutiny, and what he offers is practically magical!!!
Finally the reign of terror in the US has ended. Finally the tattered Constitution will be restored. No longer will ideals be sacrificed on the altar of expediency!
Camelot has thrown open its gates, to welcome home its KING!
Long Live the King!
THE TOOLS OF TYRANNY
The Tool of TYRANNY !
Since the early days, U.S. congressmen have voted to enact laws which were later ruled unconstitutional or were otherwise ‘un-American’ (unethical, unjust). While the reasons may be numerous, we at least know legislators often did so on behalf of special interests or were vote swapping (tit-for-tat). We might also suspect it was often a matter of expediency but still, in light of the consequences, all reasons must be considered on a par. In a very real sense, they are equally unforgivable and traitorous. After all, the result is the same... justice was compromised.
More recently however, those who voted for the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2006 (H.R. 2863) on December 21, 2005 will be remembered as the most damaging of legislators. The exception was that Senator John McCain and a few active supporters of his amendment at least tried to right a ongoing wrong. This amendment was the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (Title X prohibits the inhumane treatment of prisoners).
While initially Title X had some merit, although one of timidness, in the end its potential was negotiated away. In fact, the tables were turned... the amendment became a Trojan horse of political cozenage. And, as if nobody recognized the danger... the act was ratified. While the act itself may have been reasonable, the amendment should have been withdrawn if Section 1004 was to be included.
Of particular concern is Section 1004 (below)... the "Protection of United States Government Personnel Engaged in Authorized Interrogations*. Outrageously, it was a ‘concession’ granted to President Bush in exchange for his acceptance of this amendment (Detainee Treatment Act of 2005). It was a grave mistake... and the reason McCain and company were out-foxed.
While Senator McCain's attempt to prohibit the inhumane treatment of prisoners was a noble gesture, although doubtful it will have any positive effects in that regard, there is a monumental downside of horrid proportions... it puts American citizens in further jeopardy. By granting immunity to the CIA and other government agents from lawsuits arising out of claims of torture, this errant ‘concession' also dissolved that recourse for American citizens. While not in so many words was it dissolved but that's the effect.
Broadening the scope of Sovereign Immunity
So, instead of reigning-in George Bush (as intended), Section 1004 only broadened the scope of Sovereign Immunity. It gave law enforcement tyrannous flexibility.
Chief Justice Marshall once said "there is no right without a remedy".
Justice Scalia wrote... "Nothing in our Constitution grants any person immunity. Nothing in our Constitution grants any person the power to grant immunity to another person. Nothing in our Constitution grants any officer, dignitary, member of the government, elected official, or government subdivision immunity. Yet today numerous government agents, officials and others claim to be immune from the same laws that you and I must follow."
In referring to H.R. 2863, Tom Wilner, a lawyer representing Kuwaiti detainees at Guantanamo Bay, said "I think this language being enacted will more than erase anything good that comes out of McCain."
As if actually needed, Section 1004 states it would protect CIA agents from lawsuits, except… the potential for lawsuits filed by foreigners is remote. The judicial apparatus makes it remote. If, however, the CIA was to be successfully sued by a foreigner… then it is probably warranted. In fact, the Medieval monarchical concept of 'sovereign immunity' has no place in a democracy and should be repealed entirely. After all, the very idea flies in the face of justice... it was even repudiated in the Magna Carta 800 years ago. Perhaps not even the recently exhumed Alien Tort Statute of 1789 should be considered a threat but instead an instrument of justice... see When can foreigners sue in US courts? (Christian Science Monitor).
Far truer however, law enforcement need only fear the potential for lawsuits filed by American citizens. In that case then, it must be the greater reason for Section 1004. And, similar to how Sovereign Immunity was extended to cover virtually all government agents, such as IRS agents, judges, police and even caseworkers with the Child Protective Service, this immunity against claims of torture will soon gravitate downwards to anyone with a badge.
Whomsoever might be claimed a terrorist (a dangerously vague term) will be in jeopardy. Marching protestors could be considered terrorists… it only needs be said.
So, as if license to kill wasn’t enough, George Bush won protection for his torturers. Further, by granting 'ignorance of the law' as a defense, it effectively re-allows all methods of torture disallowed by the McCain amendment.
The re-condoning of torture (of any sort)
SEC. 1004. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN AUTHORIZED INTERROGATIONS.
(a) Protection of United States Government Personnel- In any civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States Government who is a United States person, arising out of the officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent's engaging in specific operational practices, that involve detention and interrogation of aliens who the President or his designees have determined are believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity that poses a serious, continuing threat to the United States, its interests, or its allies, and that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time that they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or extinguish any defense or protection otherwise available to any person or entity from suit, civil or criminal liability, or damages, or to provide immunity from prosecution for any criminal offense by the proper authorities.
(b) Counsel- The United States Government may provide or employ counsel, and pay counsel fees, court costs, bail, and other expenses incident to the representation of an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent described in subsection (a), with respect to any civil action or criminal prosecution arising out of practices described in that subsection, under the same conditions, and to the same extent, to which such services and payments are authorized under section 1037 of title 10, United States Code. (underlined added)
Professional ignorance of the law?
While ignorance of the law might often seem a reasonable ‘excuse’ for citizens, although it legally isn’t, the above is referring to professionals… law enforcement and military personnel trained and knowledgeable about such legalities. It should therefore NEVER be a defense.
Further, since no law enforcement officer or military personnel could be considered being in those positions without training, they WOULD or SHOULD know what is legal and what isn’t.
So why have this ‘protection’?
To enable the government to operate outside the law at all times under any circumstance.
The enemies of America?
So, how should one characterize a legislator who voted for its passage? Is 'traitorous' too strong a word? After all, these same legislators also did some good... like increasing social security benefits for example. So how can this incongruence, if applicable, be reconciled? Perhaps on any given day one human trait must triumph?
While treason may be applicable in many instances over bad legislation, or perhaps stupidity, or that there was little due diligence, on which vote might either of these be applicable? After all, before a bill becomes law there are many motions one must vote upon. There are also amendments. In addition, strategies might explain a few yes votes during the initial stages.
While votes on amendments tell a story, the vote on final passage is the most telling. As far as H.R. 2863 is concerned, with this treachery included, no senators voted against it. Three senators, however, did not vote...Bunning (R-KY), Gregg (R-NH) and Leahy (D-VT)... (their reasons unknown)
While assuredly some senators must have recognized this snafu, or otherwise had reservations, except for the three mentioned they nonetheless voted for it. Why? Even though expediency may often be the culprit, or a sheep mentality which is often the case, as long as justice is in doubt then a 'no' vote is the only ethical alternative. Until kingdom come it is the only alternative. The reasoning "this is the best we can get" is no excuse if it sacrifices justice. If most senators held to this credo we'd get much better laws (and fewer).
Since the early days, U.S. congressmen have voted to enact laws which were later ruled unconstitutional or were otherwise ‘un-American’ (unethical, unjust). While the reasons may be numerous, we at least know legislators often did so on behalf of special interests or were vote swapping (tit-for-tat). We might also suspect it was often a matter of expediency but still, in light of the consequences, all reasons must be considered on a par. In a very real sense, they are equally unforgivable and traitorous. After all, the result is the same... justice was compromised.
More recently however, those who voted for the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2006 (H.R. 2863) on December 21, 2005 will be remembered as the most damaging of legislators. The exception was that Senator John McCain and a few active supporters of his amendment at least tried to right a ongoing wrong. This amendment was the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (Title X prohibits the inhumane treatment of prisoners).
While initially Title X had some merit, although one of timidness, in the end its potential was negotiated away. In fact, the tables were turned... the amendment became a Trojan horse of political cozenage. And, as if nobody recognized the danger... the act was ratified. While the act itself may have been reasonable, the amendment should have been withdrawn if Section 1004 was to be included.
Of particular concern is Section 1004 (below)... the "Protection of United States Government Personnel Engaged in Authorized Interrogations*. Outrageously, it was a ‘concession’ granted to President Bush in exchange for his acceptance of this amendment (Detainee Treatment Act of 2005). It was a grave mistake... and the reason McCain and company were out-foxed.
While Senator McCain's attempt to prohibit the inhumane treatment of prisoners was a noble gesture, although doubtful it will have any positive effects in that regard, there is a monumental downside of horrid proportions... it puts American citizens in further jeopardy. By granting immunity to the CIA and other government agents from lawsuits arising out of claims of torture, this errant ‘concession' also dissolved that recourse for American citizens. While not in so many words was it dissolved but that's the effect.
Broadening the scope of Sovereign Immunity
So, instead of reigning-in George Bush (as intended), Section 1004 only broadened the scope of Sovereign Immunity. It gave law enforcement tyrannous flexibility.
Chief Justice Marshall once said "there is no right without a remedy".
Justice Scalia wrote... "Nothing in our Constitution grants any person immunity. Nothing in our Constitution grants any person the power to grant immunity to another person. Nothing in our Constitution grants any officer, dignitary, member of the government, elected official, or government subdivision immunity. Yet today numerous government agents, officials and others claim to be immune from the same laws that you and I must follow."
In referring to H.R. 2863, Tom Wilner, a lawyer representing Kuwaiti detainees at Guantanamo Bay, said "I think this language being enacted will more than erase anything good that comes out of McCain."
As if actually needed, Section 1004 states it would protect CIA agents from lawsuits, except… the potential for lawsuits filed by foreigners is remote. The judicial apparatus makes it remote. If, however, the CIA was to be successfully sued by a foreigner… then it is probably warranted. In fact, the Medieval monarchical concept of 'sovereign immunity' has no place in a democracy and should be repealed entirely. After all, the very idea flies in the face of justice... it was even repudiated in the Magna Carta 800 years ago. Perhaps not even the recently exhumed Alien Tort Statute of 1789 should be considered a threat but instead an instrument of justice... see When can foreigners sue in US courts? (Christian Science Monitor).
Far truer however, law enforcement need only fear the potential for lawsuits filed by American citizens. In that case then, it must be the greater reason for Section 1004. And, similar to how Sovereign Immunity was extended to cover virtually all government agents, such as IRS agents, judges, police and even caseworkers with the Child Protective Service, this immunity against claims of torture will soon gravitate downwards to anyone with a badge.
Whomsoever might be claimed a terrorist (a dangerously vague term) will be in jeopardy. Marching protestors could be considered terrorists… it only needs be said.
So, as if license to kill wasn’t enough, George Bush won protection for his torturers. Further, by granting 'ignorance of the law' as a defense, it effectively re-allows all methods of torture disallowed by the McCain amendment.
The re-condoning of torture (of any sort)
SEC. 1004. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN AUTHORIZED INTERROGATIONS.
(a) Protection of United States Government Personnel- In any civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States Government who is a United States person, arising out of the officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent's engaging in specific operational practices, that involve detention and interrogation of aliens who the President or his designees have determined are believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity that poses a serious, continuing threat to the United States, its interests, or its allies, and that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time that they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or extinguish any defense or protection otherwise available to any person or entity from suit, civil or criminal liability, or damages, or to provide immunity from prosecution for any criminal offense by the proper authorities.
(b) Counsel- The United States Government may provide or employ counsel, and pay counsel fees, court costs, bail, and other expenses incident to the representation of an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent described in subsection (a), with respect to any civil action or criminal prosecution arising out of practices described in that subsection, under the same conditions, and to the same extent, to which such services and payments are authorized under section 1037 of title 10, United States Code. (underlined added)
Professional ignorance of the law?
While ignorance of the law might often seem a reasonable ‘excuse’ for citizens, although it legally isn’t, the above is referring to professionals… law enforcement and military personnel trained and knowledgeable about such legalities. It should therefore NEVER be a defense.
Further, since no law enforcement officer or military personnel could be considered being in those positions without training, they WOULD or SHOULD know what is legal and what isn’t.
So why have this ‘protection’?
To enable the government to operate outside the law at all times under any circumstance.
The enemies of America?
So, how should one characterize a legislator who voted for its passage? Is 'traitorous' too strong a word? After all, these same legislators also did some good... like increasing social security benefits for example. So how can this incongruence, if applicable, be reconciled? Perhaps on any given day one human trait must triumph?
While treason may be applicable in many instances over bad legislation, or perhaps stupidity, or that there was little due diligence, on which vote might either of these be applicable? After all, before a bill becomes law there are many motions one must vote upon. There are also amendments. In addition, strategies might explain a few yes votes during the initial stages.
While votes on amendments tell a story, the vote on final passage is the most telling. As far as H.R. 2863 is concerned, with this treachery included, no senators voted against it. Three senators, however, did not vote...Bunning (R-KY), Gregg (R-NH) and Leahy (D-VT)... (their reasons unknown)
While assuredly some senators must have recognized this snafu, or otherwise had reservations, except for the three mentioned they nonetheless voted for it. Why? Even though expediency may often be the culprit, or a sheep mentality which is often the case, as long as justice is in doubt then a 'no' vote is the only ethical alternative. Until kingdom come it is the only alternative. The reasoning "this is the best we can get" is no excuse if it sacrifices justice. If most senators held to this credo we'd get much better laws (and fewer).
ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT
ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT...Is It Possible?
In some respects, the world economy is as important as human rights. After all, if starvation was rampant all other issues would seem irrelevant. While the complexity of the world economy would normally call for an in-depth analysis considering the numerous currencies, rates of exchanges and especially the impacts from countless trade issues, a brief overview can still hold value. A fresh perspective from someone who is not an economist might hold even more value.
Trade negotiations
It is said the world economy is so incredibly complex that only a handful of people in the world can fully comprehend it. The most difficult part is fathoming the ripple effects for every action. If that is true, then it follows many policymakers are probably pushing buttons without fully realizing the consequences. It is apparent world economic policies, collectively and jurisdictionally, are based on a ‘patch mentality’... that is, just keep plugging holes. In lieu of a foundation with solid footing, substituting instead are those international agreements and understandings serving as a temporary foundation. This makes negotiations the only alternative available to these policymakers. What constitutes ‘solid footing’ is relatively simple, it requires uniformity (single currency, equal pay scales).
Perhaps at this particular stage in our development as a civilization, that is, with all the various currencies still in circulation and with the various authorities and ideologies, there is simply no choice but to patch and make adjustments… this means negotiations are necessary. Of course, these 'negotiations' would entail bargaining over trade issues, economic understandings and treaties may often result.
However, due to the precariousness of this patching process (negotiations), it can produce countless inequities and even pitfalls. The greatest pitfall, although awaiting far down the road, is the natural tendency to jockey for position, make the best deals and ultimately… to ‘win’. To win is a natural desire, something humans strive for everyday in one way or another. When it comes to the World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings, we see this in action. Every advantage is sought and the biggest exporters, always trying to out-muscle each other, has the effect of forcing everyone else to the same competitive level. It's a situation whereby the disadvantaged third-world countries, which, without the resources and economic clout, are losing out and falling further behind. Some can't even afford to field a bargaining delegation.
Positioned somewhere between the U.S. and the EU in this wrestling match is Canada, Australia, Japan, Russia, Brazil and China and because of America’s huge trade deficits, as creditor nations Japan and especially China are assuredly affecting outcomes. After all, creditors would have leverage. It's also a matter of 'dumping' in an attempt to control the market. Third-world countries can't afford to dump their products nor do they have leverage.
So, could something be done to overcome the resulting inequities as seemingly allowed within the current system? Assuredly it’s possible and assuredly the third-world countries are trying to solve their dilemma every waking minute. After all, they’re up against tough negotiators with advantages in leverage. As said, it boils down to something more basic... it’s because we live in a world where everyone wants to win. Winning too often however, can be dangerous.
The current process under which the WTO operates, that is, negotiations (for all that entails), the facts say it is a situation whereby the rich countries get richer and the poor, poorer. A case against NAFTA? Yet negotiations themselves, normally considered a healthy function basic to the principles of free enterprise, the use of leverage can often make a mockery out of fairness. How much 'pressure' is fair pressure? Or can legalese even describe it?
Well, perhaps knowing the stated position of the WTO will yield clues.
The WTO says it is:"—the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business"
While such an organization is necessary, nonetheless it seems apparent something must be inherently wrong with the WTO. Far too many claim it's an unfair system. After all, nations such as India, Argentina, Venezuela and even Brazil have been threatening to pull out. While 'negotiations' is serving as the poster-boy for the WTO, psychologically representing fairness, apparently that is not the reality. It seems the unfair use of leverage is the culprit... the limits of which legalese cannot describe. No, legalese can't describe how much you love your spouse either. It's amazing how much mankind must rely on 'good faith'.
So, is taking advantage of a bargaining position an ethical matter? Perhaps it depends on the extent ... although certainly an ethical matter if threats are involved. But what about intimidation? Can legalese describe it? On this note, it seems even 'implying' a particular position could affect other trade issues and programs would be unfair. To the extent possible, it would seem each trade issue should stand on its own. If not, it could create an atmosphere ripe for economic blackmail.
The WTO dilemma assuredly lies within the likelihood those countries with the advantages will surely not voluntarily cede them. As a result, what would seem to be a very predictable scenario is that many, if not all, third-world countries will eventually pull out of the WTO upsetting the entire world economy… by regionalizing it. However, perhaps not a bad idea, it may turn out to be a healthy situation in the long run. And, to everyone's delight, it might also strangle those unconscionable transnational corporations out of existence. Taking advantage of a desperate work force is, after all, unconscionable.
Human rights opportunity
In the interests of globalization it seems these third-world countries should be pacified to the full extent fair play allows to keep globalization on track. While that may sound like a vote in favor of globalization but whether uniformity or regimentation is distasteful or not, it seems inevitable. Yet, within the process of creating a potentially distasteful single-world authority, there exists a great opportunity for egalitarianism. If the third-world countries should pull out of the WTO and set-up their own regional economies, it would send a powerful message… that indeed the concerns of all must be taken into account before globalization can succeed.
As it stands now, globalization, as an ideal, is nothing more than a house of cards. If the powers-that-be truly want to see it become a reality, they need everyone onboard... and we common folk would be more receptive to the idea of globalization in exchange for guaranteed human rights. A one-world government doesn’t have to be a bad thing; it could be a very good thing for world justice and peace. However, we first need a ‘perfect’ constitution prepared beforehand for that occasion... one perfectly clear with teeth whereby encroachments upon human rights would carry the harshest of penalties. Penalties, by the way, are something the American Constitution lacks. In other words, no perfect constitution, no globalization.
It should be recognized the most likely scenario for the next 100-200 years is not an ‘official’ one-world government but rather a de facto one-world government. And, dependent upon economic positions and the outcome of wars, countries might take turns being the head honcho. Unfortunately this would have the effect of stringing out the prospects for human rights as should universally exist today. America's chances? Not so good since Adam Smith's tenet 'all new wealth comes from the soil' was dismissed as folly and abandoned, and not since America began bean-balling its farmers aground. In 1950 there were 5-1/2 million family farmers in America, now there is less than 2 million... less than the pre-Civil War days of 1860. Conversely, Brazil understands this relationship between soil and wealth and could be, within 50 years, the next economic powerhouse.
Meanwhile, until this one-world government becomes a reality, we will continue to see the world economy negotiated because there is no alternative yet. While perhaps some credit is due the policymakers, that is, somehow they’ve managed to keep things from totally collapsing so far, they should recognize that their patchwork must include rectifying economic injustices... otherwise disaster looms. While the causes for economic meltdowns in the past were understood in hindsight, today it should be obvious beforehand economic injustices is the greatest threat to economic stability... as the number of desperately poor third-world countries continues to grow.
In some respects, the world economy is as important as human rights. After all, if starvation was rampant all other issues would seem irrelevant. While the complexity of the world economy would normally call for an in-depth analysis considering the numerous currencies, rates of exchanges and especially the impacts from countless trade issues, a brief overview can still hold value. A fresh perspective from someone who is not an economist might hold even more value.
Trade negotiations
It is said the world economy is so incredibly complex that only a handful of people in the world can fully comprehend it. The most difficult part is fathoming the ripple effects for every action. If that is true, then it follows many policymakers are probably pushing buttons without fully realizing the consequences. It is apparent world economic policies, collectively and jurisdictionally, are based on a ‘patch mentality’... that is, just keep plugging holes. In lieu of a foundation with solid footing, substituting instead are those international agreements and understandings serving as a temporary foundation. This makes negotiations the only alternative available to these policymakers. What constitutes ‘solid footing’ is relatively simple, it requires uniformity (single currency, equal pay scales).
Perhaps at this particular stage in our development as a civilization, that is, with all the various currencies still in circulation and with the various authorities and ideologies, there is simply no choice but to patch and make adjustments… this means negotiations are necessary. Of course, these 'negotiations' would entail bargaining over trade issues, economic understandings and treaties may often result.
However, due to the precariousness of this patching process (negotiations), it can produce countless inequities and even pitfalls. The greatest pitfall, although awaiting far down the road, is the natural tendency to jockey for position, make the best deals and ultimately… to ‘win’. To win is a natural desire, something humans strive for everyday in one way or another. When it comes to the World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings, we see this in action. Every advantage is sought and the biggest exporters, always trying to out-muscle each other, has the effect of forcing everyone else to the same competitive level. It's a situation whereby the disadvantaged third-world countries, which, without the resources and economic clout, are losing out and falling further behind. Some can't even afford to field a bargaining delegation.
Positioned somewhere between the U.S. and the EU in this wrestling match is Canada, Australia, Japan, Russia, Brazil and China and because of America’s huge trade deficits, as creditor nations Japan and especially China are assuredly affecting outcomes. After all, creditors would have leverage. It's also a matter of 'dumping' in an attempt to control the market. Third-world countries can't afford to dump their products nor do they have leverage.
So, could something be done to overcome the resulting inequities as seemingly allowed within the current system? Assuredly it’s possible and assuredly the third-world countries are trying to solve their dilemma every waking minute. After all, they’re up against tough negotiators with advantages in leverage. As said, it boils down to something more basic... it’s because we live in a world where everyone wants to win. Winning too often however, can be dangerous.
The current process under which the WTO operates, that is, negotiations (for all that entails), the facts say it is a situation whereby the rich countries get richer and the poor, poorer. A case against NAFTA? Yet negotiations themselves, normally considered a healthy function basic to the principles of free enterprise, the use of leverage can often make a mockery out of fairness. How much 'pressure' is fair pressure? Or can legalese even describe it?
Well, perhaps knowing the stated position of the WTO will yield clues.
The WTO says it is:"—the only global international organization dealing with the rules of trade between nations. At its heart are the WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by the bulk of the world’s trading nations and ratified in their parliaments. The goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters, and importers conduct their business"
While such an organization is necessary, nonetheless it seems apparent something must be inherently wrong with the WTO. Far too many claim it's an unfair system. After all, nations such as India, Argentina, Venezuela and even Brazil have been threatening to pull out. While 'negotiations' is serving as the poster-boy for the WTO, psychologically representing fairness, apparently that is not the reality. It seems the unfair use of leverage is the culprit... the limits of which legalese cannot describe. No, legalese can't describe how much you love your spouse either. It's amazing how much mankind must rely on 'good faith'.
So, is taking advantage of a bargaining position an ethical matter? Perhaps it depends on the extent ... although certainly an ethical matter if threats are involved. But what about intimidation? Can legalese describe it? On this note, it seems even 'implying' a particular position could affect other trade issues and programs would be unfair. To the extent possible, it would seem each trade issue should stand on its own. If not, it could create an atmosphere ripe for economic blackmail.
The WTO dilemma assuredly lies within the likelihood those countries with the advantages will surely not voluntarily cede them. As a result, what would seem to be a very predictable scenario is that many, if not all, third-world countries will eventually pull out of the WTO upsetting the entire world economy… by regionalizing it. However, perhaps not a bad idea, it may turn out to be a healthy situation in the long run. And, to everyone's delight, it might also strangle those unconscionable transnational corporations out of existence. Taking advantage of a desperate work force is, after all, unconscionable.
Human rights opportunity
In the interests of globalization it seems these third-world countries should be pacified to the full extent fair play allows to keep globalization on track. While that may sound like a vote in favor of globalization but whether uniformity or regimentation is distasteful or not, it seems inevitable. Yet, within the process of creating a potentially distasteful single-world authority, there exists a great opportunity for egalitarianism. If the third-world countries should pull out of the WTO and set-up their own regional economies, it would send a powerful message… that indeed the concerns of all must be taken into account before globalization can succeed.
As it stands now, globalization, as an ideal, is nothing more than a house of cards. If the powers-that-be truly want to see it become a reality, they need everyone onboard... and we common folk would be more receptive to the idea of globalization in exchange for guaranteed human rights. A one-world government doesn’t have to be a bad thing; it could be a very good thing for world justice and peace. However, we first need a ‘perfect’ constitution prepared beforehand for that occasion... one perfectly clear with teeth whereby encroachments upon human rights would carry the harshest of penalties. Penalties, by the way, are something the American Constitution lacks. In other words, no perfect constitution, no globalization.
It should be recognized the most likely scenario for the next 100-200 years is not an ‘official’ one-world government but rather a de facto one-world government. And, dependent upon economic positions and the outcome of wars, countries might take turns being the head honcho. Unfortunately this would have the effect of stringing out the prospects for human rights as should universally exist today. America's chances? Not so good since Adam Smith's tenet 'all new wealth comes from the soil' was dismissed as folly and abandoned, and not since America began bean-balling its farmers aground. In 1950 there were 5-1/2 million family farmers in America, now there is less than 2 million... less than the pre-Civil War days of 1860. Conversely, Brazil understands this relationship between soil and wealth and could be, within 50 years, the next economic powerhouse.
Meanwhile, until this one-world government becomes a reality, we will continue to see the world economy negotiated because there is no alternative yet. While perhaps some credit is due the policymakers, that is, somehow they’ve managed to keep things from totally collapsing so far, they should recognize that their patchwork must include rectifying economic injustices... otherwise disaster looms. While the causes for economic meltdowns in the past were understood in hindsight, today it should be obvious beforehand economic injustices is the greatest threat to economic stability... as the number of desperately poor third-world countries continues to grow.
The Terrorism of Tea Time
Reasons Why Republicans Should Care About the Government Labeling Activists “Terrorists”......
Labeling activism as terrorism violates checks and balances on government power.
The coordinated campaign to smear political activists as “terrorists” should concern everyone, from far right to far left and everyone in between:
It puts all Americans at risk. Animal rights and environmental activists have never flown planes into buildings or sent anthrax through the mail, but the FBI labels them the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Focusing on this Green Scare, and investigating property crimes, civil disobedience, leafleting and even vegan potlucks as “terrorism,” wastes valuable law enforcement resources. With the threat of another terrorist attack constantly looming, scarce anti-terrorism resources should be used to combat true threats to national security, not protect corporate interests and push a political agenda.
It puts all political activists at risk. Targeting these activists as “terrorists” sets a legal precedent that will be used against other social movements. The “terrorism” policies and priorities of the Bush administration could just as easily be applied to a different set of activists on the whim of a new president and new Congress. The word terrorism should not be batted around against the enemy of the hour, to push a partisan political agenda.
It violates checks and balances on government power. Singling out one group of people based on their beliefs puts far too much power in the hands of the government. If conservative lawmakers opposed hate crimes legislation because it mandated disproportionate sentences based on motive and ideology, then they should logically oppose legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act on the same grounds. Republicans, in the classic sense of that label, have always been distrustful of government power, and for good reason.
It wastes taxpayer money. In this economic crisis, as millions of Americans are worried about their families and losing their jobs, the FBI is wasting law enforcement resources monitoring flier distribution and testing the DNA of bandannas worn at protests. There are better uses for taxpayer money during the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
It makes it impossible to have a fair trial. Smearing activists as “eco-terrorists” and “domestic terrorists” in press releases, sound bites and press conferences, before they have even set foot in a courtroom, makes it impossible for them to receive a fair trial. “Terrorist” is the most powerful word in our language. Branding someone with that term automatically skews public opinion against them and in favor of the government. Regardless of how you feel about any individual defendant, a cornerstone of the judicial system should be that they are entitled to a fair trial.
Throughout history, the government has repressed social movements by isolating them from the broader society. That’s exactly what happened during the Red Scare, for instance. The government marginalized suspected communists first from other groups on the “Left,” and then from everyone else. “If you’re not one of those people,” we are always told, “you have nothing to worry about. Just go about your business as usual, and pay no attention to what’s going on.”
Most people who read this site are sympathetic to the civil liberties concerns I raise, and many are very sympathetic to animal rights and environmental issues. I think it’s important to remember, though, that there are plenty of everyday people who might have different views on animal rights and environmental issues (to put it mildly) but who would be just as outraged if they knew what is going on.
WARNING
The author of "Syncronicity and the Seventh Seal" stated that his book had been designed to undermine the authority structure on which we depend for general guidance, instruction, prestige, or whatever it is that attracts one to one's Master or Masters.
And so it is with "Ci'RA's SOVEREIGN SOCIETY" !!!
Labeling activism as terrorism violates checks and balances on government power.
The coordinated campaign to smear political activists as “terrorists” should concern everyone, from far right to far left and everyone in between:
It puts all Americans at risk. Animal rights and environmental activists have never flown planes into buildings or sent anthrax through the mail, but the FBI labels them the “number one domestic terrorism threat.” Focusing on this Green Scare, and investigating property crimes, civil disobedience, leafleting and even vegan potlucks as “terrorism,” wastes valuable law enforcement resources. With the threat of another terrorist attack constantly looming, scarce anti-terrorism resources should be used to combat true threats to national security, not protect corporate interests and push a political agenda.
It puts all political activists at risk. Targeting these activists as “terrorists” sets a legal precedent that will be used against other social movements. The “terrorism” policies and priorities of the Bush administration could just as easily be applied to a different set of activists on the whim of a new president and new Congress. The word terrorism should not be batted around against the enemy of the hour, to push a partisan political agenda.
It violates checks and balances on government power. Singling out one group of people based on their beliefs puts far too much power in the hands of the government. If conservative lawmakers opposed hate crimes legislation because it mandated disproportionate sentences based on motive and ideology, then they should logically oppose legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act on the same grounds. Republicans, in the classic sense of that label, have always been distrustful of government power, and for good reason.
It wastes taxpayer money. In this economic crisis, as millions of Americans are worried about their families and losing their jobs, the FBI is wasting law enforcement resources monitoring flier distribution and testing the DNA of bandannas worn at protests. There are better uses for taxpayer money during the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.
It makes it impossible to have a fair trial. Smearing activists as “eco-terrorists” and “domestic terrorists” in press releases, sound bites and press conferences, before they have even set foot in a courtroom, makes it impossible for them to receive a fair trial. “Terrorist” is the most powerful word in our language. Branding someone with that term automatically skews public opinion against them and in favor of the government. Regardless of how you feel about any individual defendant, a cornerstone of the judicial system should be that they are entitled to a fair trial.
Throughout history, the government has repressed social movements by isolating them from the broader society. That’s exactly what happened during the Red Scare, for instance. The government marginalized suspected communists first from other groups on the “Left,” and then from everyone else. “If you’re not one of those people,” we are always told, “you have nothing to worry about. Just go about your business as usual, and pay no attention to what’s going on.”
Most people who read this site are sympathetic to the civil liberties concerns I raise, and many are very sympathetic to animal rights and environmental issues. I think it’s important to remember, though, that there are plenty of everyday people who might have different views on animal rights and environmental issues (to put it mildly) but who would be just as outraged if they knew what is going on.
WARNING
The author of "Syncronicity and the Seventh Seal" stated that his book had been designed to undermine the authority structure on which we depend for general guidance, instruction, prestige, or whatever it is that attracts one to one's Master or Masters.
And so it is with "Ci'RA's SOVEREIGN SOCIETY" !!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
