http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52452
It's not often that the leading Belgrade daily Politika devotes two of its four foreign pages to the praise of one nation, but it did so for the visit of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan last month.
Turkey was complimented as "one of the most important" partners of Serbia and the Balkans region. The paper detailed accounts of Turkish economic success and investments in the area, such as a billion euros (1.29 billion dollars) in Albania, or hundreds of millions in neighbouring Bosnia- Herzegovina.
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-fi-insurance-salaries-20100811,0,7386070.story
Leaders of Cigna, Humana, UnitedHealth, WellPoint and Aetna received nearly $200 million in compensation in 2009, according to a report, while the companies sought rate increases as high as 39%.
Russia's Agony a "Wake-Up Call" to the World
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52455
A wind turbine on an acre of northern Iowa farmland could generate 300,000 dollars worth of greenhouse-gas-free electricity a year. Instead, the U.S. government pays out billions of dollars to subsidise grain for ethanol fuel that has little if any impact on global warming, according to Lester Brown.
"The smartest thing the U.S. could do is phase out ethanol subsidies," says Brown, the founder of the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute, in reference to rising food prices resulting from the unprecedented heat wave in western Russia that has decimated crops and killed at least 15,000 people.
Average temperatures during the month of July were eight degrees Celsius above normal in Moscow, he said, noting that "such a huge increase in temperature over an entire month is just unheard of."
On Monday, Moscow reached 37 C when the normal temperature for August is 21 C. It was the 28th day in a row that temperatures exceeded 30 C.
Soil moisture has fallen to levels seen only once in 500 years, says Brown. Wheat and other grain yields are expected to decline by 40 percent or more in Russia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine - regions that provide 25 percent of the world's wheat exports. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced a few days ago that Russia would ban all grain exports.
Not A Good Day For Wikileaks: Attacked By Human Rights Organizations, Julian Assange Target Of International Trackdown http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/08/10/not-a-good-day-for-wikileaks-attacked-by-human-rights-organizations-julian-assange-target-of-international-trackdown
It’s been several days since Wikileaks went from being an obscure whistle-blower Web site to one that has attracted international attention, not to mention condemnation. The latest meme going around right now is that Julian Assange, the editor-in-chief and de facto “face” of Wikileaks, has lost his standing with people, organizations, and governments that otherwise would be on his side, all things being equal. Even more pronounced: the U.S. government is trying to convince its foreign allies to limit his travel and bring criminal charges against him.
( TechCrunch cites the overwhelming media promotion of military agenda : mindwashing the population with 'political correctness' )
Comment
While deaths (civilian and military) in Iraq may be going down, they are skyrocketing in Afghanistan, many are caused by the Taliban/Al’Qaeda themselves (IEDs or because they are considered to be enemies by helping NATO) but on other instances they are caused by allied forced. Here is a graph of American casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan, it illustrates how Afghanistan is falling apart, whilst Iraq is pretty much stable http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/index.html
Insurgents have killed directly between 4-5.5K people, in Afghanistan and
the coalition has killed directly between 5.6-8.4K people, indirectly 3.2-20K, total 8.8-28.5K (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)
The Apache video illustrated how only civilians were killed on that unprovoked attack (including two journalists), not some civilians, only civilians. Reuters tried for over two years to obtain a copy of the footage, and was denied, had they done so, there wouldn’t have been such PR disaster. Furthermore, there already was an account of the incident (with transcripts and all) in the book “the Good Soldiers” by Washington Post’s journalist David Finkel. So first of all it was nothing not known, and by not complying with freedom of information laws, they caused a greater problem than had they done so.
Are you aware of the complexity of removing digital fingerprints, going through the logs to try to ensure that names etc are not there etc? Preparing a presentation format which can be useful for media? How do you even know how long he has had it for? He did give access to traditional news to the data 1 month prior so they could prepare their websites and go through the information, do you honestly believe that the government did not know what was going to be published?
And lastly, what law did Mr. Assange break? It is legal in the US to publish classified material. This was established by the supreme court in the 70s when the Washington post and the New York Times were sued by the government for publishing the Pentagon files. It was ruled that it is only illegal to obtain the documents illegally, if the publisher does not have anything to do with the how the documents were obtain but the thief gives them the documents, it is legal for them to publish them. I’ll quote the Wall Street Journal (July 27 2010) on this matter
>It is clearly illegal, to put it bluntly, to steal classified documents. It is clearly protected by the First Amendment to publish documents obtained illegally as long as the publisher has not been involved in illegality,” said Frederick Schauer, a law professor at the University of Virginia. “That is the lesson of the Pentagon Papers.” In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment allowed the New York Times and Washington Post to publish sections of the Pentagon Papers, a classified study of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
Insurgents have killed directly between 4-5.5K people, in Afghanistan and
the coalition has killed directly between 5.6-8.4K people, indirectly 3.2-20K, total 8.8-28.5K (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)
The Apache video illustrated how only civilians were killed on that unprovoked attack (including two journalists), not some civilians, only civilians. Reuters tried for over two years to obtain a copy of the footage, and was denied, had they done so, there wouldn’t have been such PR disaster. Furthermore, there already was an account of the incident (with transcripts and all) in the book “the Good Soldiers” by Washington Post’s journalist David Finkel. So first of all it was nothing not known, and by not complying with freedom of information laws, they caused a greater problem than had they done so.
Are you aware of the complexity of removing digital fingerprints, going through the logs to try to ensure that names etc are not there etc? Preparing a presentation format which can be useful for media? How do you even know how long he has had it for? He did give access to traditional news to the data 1 month prior so they could prepare their websites and go through the information, do you honestly believe that the government did not know what was going to be published?
And lastly, what law did Mr. Assange break? It is legal in the US to publish classified material. This was established by the supreme court in the 70s when the Washington post and the New York Times were sued by the government for publishing the Pentagon files. It was ruled that it is only illegal to obtain the documents illegally, if the publisher does not have anything to do with the how the documents were obtain but the thief gives them the documents, it is legal for them to publish them. I’ll quote the Wall Street Journal (July 27 2010) on this matter
>It is clearly illegal, to put it bluntly, to steal classified documents. It is clearly protected by the First Amendment to publish documents obtained illegally as long as the publisher has not been involved in illegality,” said Frederick Schauer, a law professor at the University of Virginia. “That is the lesson of the Pentagon Papers.” In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment allowed the New York Times and Washington Post to publish sections of the Pentagon Papers, a classified study of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
( I figure I am whistleblowing on honest journalism much of the time. The thing is, I'm not giving anything away that isn't already known to ogres busy throwing away human liberties essential to public debate of common interest. Shall I then desist from trying to understand what's going on because official secrets are 'Need to Know' and Classification protects villains with power and authority ? That's why an Index to the Net isn't common property - unless people take it upon themselves to collectively provide one as individuals...which we do.
Wikileaks ? It must be doing something right to get Murder Incorporated to react.)
Khadr Trial Will Be a Window Into America's War on Terror
http://www.truth-out.org/khadr-trial-will-be-a-window-into-americas-war-terror62117?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TRUTHOUT+%28t+r+u+t+h+o+u+t+%7C
+News+Politics%29
Across his eight years in U.S. custody, Americans have seen Canadian Omar Khadr grow from a child found near dead in a war zone in Afghanistan to a brooding, weeping teenager and more recently a defiant young man spurning a guilty plea deal at Guantanamo.
They've seen him cast as, alternately, a child of jihad who hurled a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in battle in Afghanistan in 2002 or a 15-year-old captured far from his native Toronto and then tortured into confessing to a crime he now denies.
Prosecutors say Khadr, now 23, was an "unprivileged enemy belligerent'' when he joined elders on a night mission in Afghanistan, planting mines. They call it a war crime.
Defense lawyers see a "child soldier'' whose father introduced him to al Qaida at age 11 and deserved the protections of an innocent offered up to war.
While his coming trial must tackle those competing tales, the first full war crimes prosecution of the Obama administration may reveal much more:
...Khadr's lawyers argue he was tortured into confessing to a crime he doesn't remember after his capture, near dead on July 27, 2002, in a firefight near Khost, Afghanistan. He'd been shot twice in the back, blinded in one eye and was buried in the rubble of two 500-pound bombs.
Sometimes you must wonder that I don't hate 'Americans' - the continents are Americas, not the country - with all the lies and spew I catalogue.
I consider the source - another child of Britain; enslaved nation which propagated its political sickness upon the world as surely as it shared its diseases like smallpox and the measles. That 'Independence Day' is celebrated must be one of the cruelest jests among the Commonwealth brotherhood sharing common legal deceptions and makeup. I recall the tales of 'clearance' from childhood when realizing I lived in a place where both Indians and French had been evicted in succession for strategic considerations : and I was descended from 'subjects' 'loyal' to those 'above the law.'
The Irish arrived in the New World during a time of famine. Land evictions from the serfdom of conquered Ireland sound similar to Palestine/Israel today : a British machination echoed in India, Pakistan, Kashmir and Afghanistan. The US perverted Iran,Iraq and a litany of unfortunates like Somalia assaulted by military 'professionals'.
That is the real horror of 'drinking the koolaid' of a military conquest culture : trillions are spent in graft to kill those without armies and the bitching about locals turning the weapons produced by assembly lines against those using them performing what is really 'professional mass murder.'
"Improvised Explosive Devices" : aren't Patented ?
So what is this child persecution - not prosecution ; that implies 'due process' - except a modern day tale recreating the old tale of how innocents shall suffer so that they provide an example to terrify the mob. Extraordinary Rendition : kidnapped abroad, imprisoned without process or limit, tortured in a process illegal internationally including the place where it was done...just part of the parade. Our 'allies' are so trustworthy that Canada has done nothing to challenge the farce of 'trying' a 'child soldier' taken as a trophy.
These days there are no limits to what has been done to kill all. The Gulf of Mexico is just a part.
Nobody is Safe.
Fire Tariq Ramadan!
Steve Emerson on Brother Tariq
Investigative reporter Steve Emerson, the author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, has investigated radical Islamists in the U.S. for over 10 years. In 1994 he produced a documentary report detailing the seditious calls for the downfall of the U.S. made by such jihadists. Emerson has been threated with death numerous times by these creeps because of his efforts. He is an unsung hero in the war onI received a card on the commencement of Ramadan. Recalling posts at Baghdad Burning and other Iraqi blogs showing how religious hatred and division was incited by occupying forces, a little cultural information might be appropriate. Oh, wait. It's 'hatemongering' when done by 'outsiders'. Tsk, tsk.
New World Order
http://www.missionislam.com/nwo/index.htm
A Psychiatrist Searches fo Sanity in a Crazy World
The Lies of Hiroshima are the Lies of Today John Pilger
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20532
In the immediate aftermath of the bomb, the allied occupation authorities banned all mention of radiation poisoning and insisted that people had been killed or injured only by the bomb's blast. It was the first big lie. "No radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin" said the front page of the New York Times, a classic of disinformation and journalistic abdication, which the Australian reporter Wilfred Burchett put right with his scoop of the century. "I write this as a warning to the world," reported Burchett in the Daily Express, having reached Hiroshima after a perilous journey, the first correspondent to dare. He described hospital wards filled with people with no visible injuries but who were dying from what he called "an atomic plague". For telling this truth, his press accreditation was withdrawn, he was pilloried and smeared - and vindicated.
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder that unleashed a weapon of intrinsic criminality. For this reason its apologists have sought refuge in the mythology of the ultimate "good war", whose "ethical bath", as Richard Drayton called it, has allowed the west not only to expiate its bloody imperial past but to promote 60 years of rapacious war, always beneath the shadow of The Bomb.
Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20403
Part I: Global Warfare
by Michel Chossudovsky
Humanity is at a dangerous crossroads. War preparations to attack Iran are in "an advanced state of readiness". Hi tech weapons systems including nuclear warheads are fully deployed.
This military adventure has been on the Pentagon's drawing board since the mid-1990s. First Iraq, then Iran according to a declassified 1995 US Central Command document.
Escalation is part of the military agenda. While Iran, is the next target together with Syria and Lebanon, this strategic military deployment also threatens North Korea, China and Russia.
Since 2005, the US and its allies, including America's NATO partners and Israel, have been involved in the extensive deployment and stockpiling of advanced weapons systems. The air defense systems of the US, NATO member countries and Israel are fully integrated.
This is a coordinated endeavor of the Pentagon, NATO, Israel's Defense Force (IDF), with the active military involvement of several non-NATO partner countries including the frontline Arab states (members of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative), Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Australia, among others. (NATO consists of 28 NATO member states Another 21 countries are members of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), The Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative include ten Arab countries plus Israel.)
The roles of Egypt, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia (within the extended military alliance) is of particular relevance. Egypt controls the transit of war ships and oil tankers through the Suez Canal. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States occupy the South Western coastlines of the Persian Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman. In early June, "Egypt reportedly allowed one Israeli and eleven U.S. ships to pass through the Suez Canal in ....an apparent signal to Iran. ... On June 12, regional press outlets reported that the Saudis had granted Israel the right to fly over its airspace..." (Muriel Mirak Weissbach, Israel’s Insane War on Iran Must Be Prevented., Global Research, July 31, 2010)
In post 9/11 military doctrine, this massive deployment of military hardware has been defined as part of the so-called "Global War on Terrorism", targeting "non-State" terrorist organizations including al Qaeda and so-called "State sponsors of terrorism",. including Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan.
The setting up of new US military bases, the stockpiling of advanced weapons systems including tactical nuclear weapons, etc. were implemented as part of the pre-emptive defensive military doctrine under the umbrella of the "Global War on Terrorism".
This military adventure has been on the Pentagon's drawing board since the mid-1990s. First Iraq, then Iran according to a declassified 1995 US Central Command document.
Escalation is part of the military agenda. While Iran, is the next target together with Syria and Lebanon, this strategic military deployment also threatens North Korea, China and Russia.
Since 2005, the US and its allies, including America's NATO partners and Israel, have been involved in the extensive deployment and stockpiling of advanced weapons systems. The air defense systems of the US, NATO member countries and Israel are fully integrated.
This is a coordinated endeavor of the Pentagon, NATO, Israel's Defense Force (IDF), with the active military involvement of several non-NATO partner countries including the frontline Arab states (members of NATO's Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative), Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Australia, among others. (NATO consists of 28 NATO member states Another 21 countries are members of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), The Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative include ten Arab countries plus Israel.)
The roles of Egypt, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia (within the extended military alliance) is of particular relevance. Egypt controls the transit of war ships and oil tankers through the Suez Canal. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States occupy the South Western coastlines of the Persian Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman. In early June, "Egypt reportedly allowed one Israeli and eleven U.S. ships to pass through the Suez Canal in ....an apparent signal to Iran. ... On June 12, regional press outlets reported that the Saudis had granted Israel the right to fly over its airspace..." (Muriel Mirak Weissbach, Israel’s Insane War on Iran Must Be Prevented., Global Research, July 31, 2010)
In post 9/11 military doctrine, this massive deployment of military hardware has been defined as part of the so-called "Global War on Terrorism", targeting "non-State" terrorist organizations including al Qaeda and so-called "State sponsors of terrorism",. including Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan.
The setting up of new US military bases, the stockpiling of advanced weapons systems including tactical nuclear weapons, etc. were implemented as part of the pre-emptive defensive military doctrine under the umbrella of the "Global War on Terrorism".
War and the Economic Crisis
The broader implications of a US-NATO Israel attack on Iran are far-reaching. The war and the economic crisis are intimately related. The war economy is financed by Wall Street, which stands as the creditor of the US administration. The US weapons producers are the recipients of the US Department of Defense multibillion dollar procurement contracts for advanced weapons systems. In turn, "the battle for oil" in the Middle East and Central Asia directly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants.
The US and its allies are "beating the drums of war" at the height of a Worldwide economic depression, not to mention the most serious environmental catastrophe in World history. In a bitter twist, one of the major players (BP) on the Middle East Central Asia geopolitical chessboard, formerly known as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, is the instigator of the ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
Media Disinformation
( Two main categories in the sidebar Topical Index here at Opit's LinkFest! : Perception Alteration and Politics of Perception | Foreign Policy. That there are many more perversions in 'news' keeps one busy finding real information...though once you start searching YouTube or just asking questions there's a depressing surplus. )
Public opinion, swayed by media hype is tacitly supportive, indifferent or ignorant as to the likely impacts of what is upheld as an ad hoc "punitive" operation directed against Iran's nuclear facilities rather than an all out war. War preparations include the deployment of US and Israeli produced nuclear weapons. In this context, the devastating consequences of a nuclear war are either trivialised or simply not mentioned.
The "real crisis" threatening humanity, according to the media and the governments, is not war but global warming. The media will fabricate a crisis where there is no crisis: "a global scare" -- the H1N1 global pandemic-- but nobody seems to fear a US sponsored nuclear war.
The war on Iran is presented to public opinion as an issue among others. It is not viewed as a threat to "Mother Earth" as in the case of global warming. It is not front-page news. The fact that an attack on Iran could lead to escalation and potentially unleash a "global war" is not a matter of concern.
The broader implications of a US-NATO Israel attack on Iran are far-reaching. The war and the economic crisis are intimately related. The war economy is financed by Wall Street, which stands as the creditor of the US administration. The US weapons producers are the recipients of the US Department of Defense multibillion dollar procurement contracts for advanced weapons systems. In turn, "the battle for oil" in the Middle East and Central Asia directly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants.
The US and its allies are "beating the drums of war" at the height of a Worldwide economic depression, not to mention the most serious environmental catastrophe in World history. In a bitter twist, one of the major players (BP) on the Middle East Central Asia geopolitical chessboard, formerly known as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, is the instigator of the ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
Media Disinformation
( Two main categories in the sidebar Topical Index here at Opit's LinkFest! : Perception Alteration and Politics of Perception | Foreign Policy. That there are many more perversions in 'news' keeps one busy finding real information...though once you start searching YouTube or just asking questions there's a depressing surplus. )
Public opinion, swayed by media hype is tacitly supportive, indifferent or ignorant as to the likely impacts of what is upheld as an ad hoc "punitive" operation directed against Iran's nuclear facilities rather than an all out war. War preparations include the deployment of US and Israeli produced nuclear weapons. In this context, the devastating consequences of a nuclear war are either trivialised or simply not mentioned.
The "real crisis" threatening humanity, according to the media and the governments, is not war but global warming. The media will fabricate a crisis where there is no crisis: "a global scare" -- the H1N1 global pandemic-- but nobody seems to fear a US sponsored nuclear war.
The war on Iran is presented to public opinion as an issue among others. It is not viewed as a threat to "Mother Earth" as in the case of global warming. It is not front-page news. The fact that an attack on Iran could lead to escalation and potentially unleash a "global war" is not a matter of concern.
"In the Crossfire or the Crosshairs?"
Norms, Civilian Casualties, and U.S. Conduct in Iraq
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/869/in_the_crossfire_or_the_crosshairs.html( My first reaction was 'more institutional bullshit'. Then I recalled how devoted people are to Constitutional ideals. Too bad enforcement was left out of the recipe. Regardless, it would explain taught reversion to KKK mentality - promoted in the military to overcome innate revulsion to compelled atrocity. It's a 'humanitarian measure' for 'the troops'...who are not to emotionally embrace the horrors they are performing as repulsive reality... the Real and Ugly. )
Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1480.htm
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1480.htm
A standing army has always been used by despots to enforce their rule and to keep their people under subjection. Its existence was therefore considered a great threat to peace and stability in a republic and a danger to the rights of the nation. Since every aspect of government was designed to prevent the rise of tyranny, strict limits and control over the military were considered absolutely necessary. It was essential that the military be subordinate to civilian control.
"Bonaparte will conquer the world, if they do not learn his secret of composing armies of young men only, whose enthusiasm and health enable them to surmount all obstacles." --Thomas Jefferson to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806. ME 11:116
What is a "Standing Army"?
http://stason.org/TULARC/society/lawful-arrest/1-3-What-is-a-Standing-Army.html
http://stason.org/TULARC/society/lawful-arrest/1-3-What-is-a-Standing-Army.html
A Standing Army is a paid, armed military force that
exists before there is any threat. A Standing Army that
lives among the citizenry is most likely to be used against
the citizenry. Our present system demonstrates this.
exists before there is any threat. A Standing Army that
lives among the citizenry is most likely to be used against
the citizenry. Our present system demonstrates this.
The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy2.html
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/fieldsandhardy2.html
It is difficult to imagine a more terrible engine of oppression than the power in an executive to fill the house of an obnoxious person I with a company of soldiers, who are to be fed and warmed at his expense, under the direction of an officer accustomed to the exercise of arbitrary power, and in whose presence the ordinary laws of courtesy, not less than the civil restraints which protect person and property, must give way to unbridled will; who is sent as an instrument of punishment, and with whom insult and outrage may appear quite in the line of duty. However contrary to the spirit of the age such a proceeding may be, it can never be impossible that it will be resorted to in times of great excitement and violent party action . . . .
Thomas M. Cooley
Constitutional Limitations (1868)
Thomas M. Cooley
Constitutional Limitations (1868)
The third amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."[1] Among the legal protections set forth in the American Bill of Rights,[2] few have been relegated to more obscurity.[Page 394] For almost two hundred years, now, it has gone virtually unnoticed. No Supreme Court case has ever directly interpreted the amendment, although several opinions, most notably the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, mention it in passing as one aspect of the right to privacy.[3] Complaints arising under the amendment have been urged in a handful of lower court cases, but most of them have been summarily dismissed as farfetched assertions.[4] In only one instance, the 1982 case of Engblom v. Carey, has a lower court ever been asked to directly apply the amendment in a meaningful context requiring an interpretation of its quartering provisions.[5]
Although the third amendment is today widely taken for granted, to many in the revolutionary generation, its protections were a matter of great importance. The grievance, which the amendment sought to [Page 395] address, the abuses of persons and property resulting from the involuntary quartering of soldiers was one of the major problems associated with the presence of British soldiers in the colonies prior to and during the Revolutionary War. The presence of those soldiers as a group was itself the basis of the larger political grievance and root cause of the Revolution¾the maintenance of "standing armies" in peacetime without the consent of the colonial legislatures. Unlike the other problems attributed to the presence of British soldiers, however, the quartering problem was by its history and nature so intimately connected with the larger political issue of the "standing army," that in the end, the successful resolution of that larger issue for practical purposes rendered superfluous the protections which came to be embodied within the third amendment.
The grievances relating to the involuntary quartering of soldiers and the maintenance of standing armies were the products of a common experience. Their origins and development paralleled; and at crucial junctures in both English and American history they became so closely linked so as to be almost indistinguishable. Yet, throughout their history each of the grievances maintained a separate legal identity; each was addressed in different ways within the United States Constitution; and the solution to the problems of each to a great extent reflected different ideological, historical, and practical considerations.
Although the third amendment is today widely taken for granted, to many in the revolutionary generation, its protections were a matter of great importance. The grievance, which the amendment sought to [Page 395] address, the abuses of persons and property resulting from the involuntary quartering of soldiers was one of the major problems associated with the presence of British soldiers in the colonies prior to and during the Revolutionary War. The presence of those soldiers as a group was itself the basis of the larger political grievance and root cause of the Revolution¾the maintenance of "standing armies" in peacetime without the consent of the colonial legislatures. Unlike the other problems attributed to the presence of British soldiers, however, the quartering problem was by its history and nature so intimately connected with the larger political issue of the "standing army," that in the end, the successful resolution of that larger issue for practical purposes rendered superfluous the protections which came to be embodied within the third amendment.
The grievances relating to the involuntary quartering of soldiers and the maintenance of standing armies were the products of a common experience. Their origins and development paralleled; and at crucial junctures in both English and American history they became so closely linked so as to be almost indistinguishable. Yet, throughout their history each of the grievances maintained a separate legal identity; each was addressed in different ways within the United States Constitution; and the solution to the problems of each to a great extent reflected different ideological, historical, and practical considerations.
Why do we need a standing army when we have nuclear bombs?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100724022225AA5mtCq
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100724022225AA5mtCq
How Disney Magic and the Corporate Media Shape Youth Identity in the Digital Age
http://www.truth-out.org/how-disney-magic-and-corporate-media-shape-youth-identity-digital-age62008
http://www.truth-out.org/how-disney-magic-and-corporate-media-shape-youth-identity-digital-age62008
The information, entertainment and cultural pedagogy disseminated by massive multimedia corporations have become central in shaping and influencing every waking moment of children's daily lives - all toward a lifetime of constant, unthinking consumption. Consumer culture in the United States and increasingly across the globe, does more than undermine the ideals of a secure and happy childhood: it exhibits the bad faith of a society in which, for children, "there can be only one kind of value, market value; one kind of success, profit; one kind of existence, commodities; and one kind of social relationship, markets."[2] But corporate-controlled culture not only exploits and distorts the hopes and desires of individuals: it is fundamentally driven toward exploiting public goods for private gain, if it does not also more boldly seek to privatize everything in the public realm......
It is estimated that the average American spends more than six hours a day watching video-based entertainment and, by 2013, the numbers of daily hours spent watching television and videos will match the numbers of hours spent sleeping.[3] The American Medical Association reports that the combined hours "spent in front of a television or video screen is the single biggest chunk of time in the waking life of an American child."[4]
Such statistics warrant grave concern, given that the messages provided through such programming are shaped largely It is estimated that the average American spends more than six hours a day watching video-based entertainment and, by 2013, the numbers of daily hours spent watching television and videos will match the numbers of hours spent sleeping.[3] The American Medical Association reports that the combined hours "spent in front of a television or video screen is the single biggest chunk of time in the waking life of an American child."[4] Such statistics warrant grave concern, given that the messages provided through such programming are shaped largely by a $263-billion-dollar-a-year US advertising industry[5], which sells not only its products, but also values, images and identities largely aimed at teaching young people to be consumers. A virtual army of marketers, psychologists and corporate executives are currently engaged in what Susan Linn calls a "hostile takeover of childhood,"[6] seeking in the new media environment to take advantage of the growing economic power wielded by children and teens. by a $263-billion-dollar-a-year US advertising industry[5], which sells not only its products, but also values, images and identities largely aimed at teaching young people to be consumers. A virtual army of marketers, psychologists and corporate executives are currently engaged in what Susan Linn calls a "hostile takeover of childhood,"[6] seeking in the new media environment to take advantage of the growing economic power wielded by children and teens.
WHO WILL BE OUR NATION'S LEADERS IN 2011?
http://www.australianoftheyear.org.au/media/?view=news&id=710
http://www.australianoftheyear.org.au/media/?view=news&id=710
Australian of the Year Award Nominations close Tuesday 31 August 2010
“Our Australians of the Year play an important role in our national life by raising issues that are important to us all and this makes nominating someone for the Awards a powerful action
"Incomprehensible" Absence of Women in Global Environment Policy
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52392
The lack of references to the role that women can play in global and local policy on climate change "is incomprehensible," especially given the number of studies stressing that they should play a central role, Sandra Akpéne Freitas, one of the activists who has spoken out most loudly against the lack of a gender perspective during the talks in Bonn, told IPS in this interview.
Freitas is one of the two delegates representing the New York-based Women's Environment and Development Organisation (WEDO) at this week's meeting in this German city.
Rich Countries’ Farm Subsidies Benefiting Royals
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52401
The EU spends about 75 billion dollars on subsidies for agriculture, even though the sector represents only about two percent of the total gross domestic product of the union. This subsidies regime will only change in 2014.
The new OECD data inflamed these complaints, the more so since it has been shown that the largest agro-businesses and even some royal houses in European monarchies benefit the most from the subsidies.
"EU subsidies for agriculture are a shame," Marita Wiggerthale from the German office of the humanitarian organisation Oxfam told IPS. She cited the example of subsidies for milk, which form part of the EU agricultural policy.
Due mostly to over-production, the European milk prices for farmers were in early 2009 extremely low at less than 0.20 euro per litre. Instead of reducing the production to stabilise prices, the EU reintroduced subsidies for milk in 2009 to support producers.
"As consequence, the EU is again exporting milk to the whole developing world, especially towards Africa, at ‘dumping’ prices," Wiggerthale said. "By so doing, the EU is destroying the livelihoods of farmers in the poorest countries of the world while artificially maintaining a too high level of production."
To add insult to injury, the EU is simultaneously forcing developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific to further open their markets through the trade deals called economic partnership agreements.
Rainer Falk, a leading German critic of neoliberal globalisation and publisher of "World Economy and Development", a specialised newsletter on international cooperation and trade, told IPS that the OECD subsidies for agriculture only benefit the largest companies in the sector.
"The data for 2008 illustrates this point," Falk said. "The main beneficiary of the EU subsidies in Germany was Suedzucker, a large sugar producer, which that year received more than 50 million U.S. dollars in subsidies," Falk pointed out.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment