Before my recap, here are few superlatives from this World Cup...
MOST SURPRISING DEVELOPMENT: Attacking Germans. For decades, German soccer was equated with boring, efficient play. Yet coach Jurgen Klinsmann made them into a free flowing, attacking outfit. If a country for long synonymous with robotic play can have their mentality changed so thoroughly, then this offers hope for the future of the sport. It would be the one positive development from this tournament. Even Italy, with an equal reputation for defensiveness, finished its semifinal with four forwards on the field.
MOST DISAPPOINTING TREND: Besides diving... the fact that nearly all the meaningful games tended to be boring, defensive affairs. With a few exceptions, the most breathtaking games were the games with nothing at stake. First round matches between already eliminated teams (Poland-Costa Rica, Ivory Coast-Serbia & Montegnero) and the third place match (Portugal-Germany) were three of the most back-and-forth games of the tournament.
BEST PLAYER: Italy's captain Fabio Cannavaro. Though Zidane got the golden ball as the tournament's top player, that honor really belonged to Cannavaro. I'm usually partial to creative attacking players like Zidane and I've pooh-poohed the notion that defending can be an art. But Cannavaro showed that when done right, defending can be something to watch. Defending will never match the beauty of Zidane or Ronaldinho gliding past players like a slalom skier but it can be artful on rare occasions. Furthermore, Zidane missed one match due to suspension and was sent off in another. Cannavaro not only played every minute of every match, but he spent most of the tournament shoring up a defense missing his world class partner: the injured Alessando Nesta. Perhaps even more impressive, he didn't pick up any cards in a ournament where they were thrown around like confetti.
BEST GAME
First round: Argentina 2-1 Ivory Coast. Great match. Lots of attacking soccer.
Knockout stage: Argentina.2-1 (aet) Mexico. It's a cold day when I give Mexico any credit but they did themselves proud.
MOST DREADFUL GAME
First round: Argentina 0-0 Holland. That two teams this talented could produce such a pathetic spectacle is a crime against soccer.
Knockout stage, Ukraine 0-0 (aet) Switzerland. Sadly, this match represents 2+ hours of my life I'll never get back.
BEST UNDERDOG EFFORT
First round: Ghana 2-0 Czech Republic. Astonishing result. Could've been much worse for the supposed #2 team in the world.
Knockout stage: Italy 1-0 Australia. Socceroos knocked out by a dodgy late penalty.
MOST ONE-SIDED MATCHES
First round: Spain 6-0 Serbia & Montenegro. S&M looked like they were victims of S&M. How the Balkan side went undefeated through European qualifying and then looked like a group of schoolboys playing Brazil is beyond me?
Knockout stage: Italy 3-0 Ukraine. Clock strikes midnight for Shevchenko and company.
BEST INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE
First round: T&T goalkeeper Shaka Hislop vs Sweden and Kasey Keller, keeper for 9 man USA vs Italy.
Knockout stage: Portugal's keeper Ricardo saving three penalties against England (and getting his hand on the fourth).
MOST ENIGMATIC PLAYERS
Zidane. Lots of excellence and a moment of madness.
Juan Roman Riquelme. When he's on, Argentina is virtually unstoppable. But too often, he looks like his dog just died.
MOST DETESTED TEAM: dirtycheatingportugal (TM). The less said about them the better.
MOST AMAZING STAT: Italy scored 12 different goals via 11 different players. Talk about everyone pitching in!
Monday, July 10, 2006
Friday, July 07, 2006
Gay marriage struck down in New York
Yesterday, New York's highest judicial body (called the Court of Appeals) upheld the state law prohibiting gay marriage. The court ruled that such a ban was not unconstitutional and that it should be up to the legislature to decide.
The court's chief judge, Judith Kaye, authored the dissent. In it, she wrote that the close decision 'retreats' from the state's tradition of equal rights.
Under our constitution, discriminatory views about proper marriage partners can no more prevent same-sex couples from marrying than they could different-race couples.
Like most other states and the US as a whole, New York's constitution has an equal protection clause Article 1, Sec. 11 begins:
No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof.
Though the court ruled that this constitution provision to law-abiding gays can be overruled by a simple majority vote of the legislature.
This ruling is surprising since the conservatives here in NY have been whining that the Court of Appeals is too liberal and that a Democrat win in this year's gubenatorial election would make it worse.
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, favored to become the Democrat nominee for the governor's race, had criticized localities that had performed gay marriage in part to provoke such a judicial case. It is unclear if Spitzer personally opposes the legalization of gay marriage or if he was merely speaking out in defense of respect for the law. (If so, it's refreshing to have an attorney general who respects the law)
The irony is that in 2002, legislation was approved that banned discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, education, employment, credit and public accomidation. The bill was approved by the Republican state Senate and signed by the GOP governor. Many hope that lawmakers will do the right thing and extend equal rights to gays legislatively.
Many hope that this might occur, especially if Spitzer becomes governor and Democrats win control of the state Senate, both of which are possible this November. It would be a long shot, since even if the Democrats win the upper chamber, it would almost certainly be by a razor thin margin. Some even theorize that even if the GOP retain control of the Senate, then that might improve the chances of passage too. Because with a small majority (presently 35-27), then Republicans would be under pressure to not alienate moderate suburbanites who votes are critical to the balance of power in the chamber. That tends to be the only way moderately progressive legislation can get through the Senate.
The court's chief judge, Judith Kaye, authored the dissent. In it, she wrote that the close decision 'retreats' from the state's tradition of equal rights.
Under our constitution, discriminatory views about proper marriage partners can no more prevent same-sex couples from marrying than they could different-race couples.
Like most other states and the US as a whole, New York's constitution has an equal protection clause Article 1, Sec. 11 begins:
No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof.
Though the court ruled that this constitution provision to law-abiding gays can be overruled by a simple majority vote of the legislature.
This ruling is surprising since the conservatives here in NY have been whining that the Court of Appeals is too liberal and that a Democrat win in this year's gubenatorial election would make it worse.
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, favored to become the Democrat nominee for the governor's race, had criticized localities that had performed gay marriage in part to provoke such a judicial case. It is unclear if Spitzer personally opposes the legalization of gay marriage or if he was merely speaking out in defense of respect for the law. (If so, it's refreshing to have an attorney general who respects the law)
The irony is that in 2002, legislation was approved that banned discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, education, employment, credit and public accomidation. The bill was approved by the Republican state Senate and signed by the GOP governor. Many hope that lawmakers will do the right thing and extend equal rights to gays legislatively.
Many hope that this might occur, especially if Spitzer becomes governor and Democrats win control of the state Senate, both of which are possible this November. It would be a long shot, since even if the Democrats win the upper chamber, it would almost certainly be by a razor thin margin. Some even theorize that even if the GOP retain control of the Senate, then that might improve the chances of passage too. Because with a small majority (presently 35-27), then Republicans would be under pressure to not alienate moderate suburbanites who votes are critical to the balance of power in the chamber. That tends to be the only way moderately progressive legislation can get through the Senate.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
US Senate candidate to visit Glens Falls
Matt reports that Green US Senate candidate Howie Hawkins will be visiting Glens Falls and speaking to a dinner audience. Hawkins is a co-founder of the national Green Party and has long been critical of the Democrat Party. He also noted that the Greens' gubenatorial candidat Malachy McCourt is hoped to visit Glens Falls in the autumn as well.
June 26, 2006 – Local progressive and Green Party activist Matt Funiciello announced today that candidate for U.S. Senate from New York, Howie Hawkins, will be the guest of honor at a dinner and fundraiser to be held at 6 p.m., July 22, 2006, at Rock Hill Bakehouse Cafe in Glens Falls. The event is sponsored by the Adirondack Progressives. Local musician Carrianne Skidmore will provide entertainment and a vegetarian buffet will be served. Tickets are available at Rock Hill Bakehouse Cafe and also at High Peaks Java; there is a suggested donation of $25. Hawkins faces incumbent US Senator Hillary Clinton in the fall election.
“Hawkins represents the best and brightest of the Green Party,” said Funiciello, a former member of the Green Party's National Committee, himself. “We’re extremely proud to have him as our party’s candidate against the pro-Iraq, pro-Patriot Act, pro-globalization, former WalMart board member, Citizen Hillary.”
“An independent opposition party like the Greens is the most effective way to advance peace, justice, and a sustainable society,” Hawkins said, “It is not just the peace vote that is open to alternatives. So are the millions without health insurance, the workers who are losing wages and benefits and their very jobs, the environmentalists who see no program to address global warming, and the women and people of color who are losing their recently won rights. All have reason to be dissatisfied with Clinton, who is taking them for granted as she rebrands herself a ‘moderate’ for her presidential run.”
“Clinton has been a consistent war hawk on Iraq and, indeed, all the wars initiated by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. She is more responsible than any other person in America for killing the single-payer national health insurance bill that had about 100 members of Congress as co-sponsors in 1993,” Hawkins added.
Howie Hawkins has been active in movements for peace, justice, the environment, and independent progressive politics since the late 1960s. A former Marine, he helped organize opposition to the Vietnam War and was a co-founder of the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance in 1976. He was a co-founder of the Green Party in the United States in 1984 and currently serves on the Green National Committee.
After attending Dartmouth College in the early 1970s, Howie worked as a carpenter in New England and helped start up a construction workers cooperative that specialized in solar and wind energy installations. Howie moved to Syracuse in 1991 to be Director of CommonWorks, a federation of cooperatives working for an economy that is cooperatively owned, democratically controlled, and ecologically sustainable. A member of Teamsters Local 317 and active in the national Teamster rank-and-file reform caucus, Teamsters for a Democratic Union, Howie presently works unloading trucks and rail cars at UPS.
Howie's articles on social theory, cooperative economics, and independent politics have appeared in many publications, including Against the Current, Green Politics, International Socialist Review, New Politics, Peace and Democracy News, Peaceworks, Resist, Society and Nature, and Z Magazine . He is the editor of Independent Politics: The Green Party Strategy Debate (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2006).
Adirondack Progressives is a group of local Independents, along with members of the Green, Democratic and Republican parties interested in fostering a local dialogue on today’s most important issues. They are currently also organizing a fall appearance by Green candidate for N.Y.S. Governor, Malachy McCourt. McCourt is a longtime activist, author of the NY Times bestseller A Monk Swimming, and brother of Angela's Ashes author Frank McCourt). For more information about this and other Adirondack Progressive events, contact Matt Funiciello at (518) 361-6278. For more information see: http://www.hawkinsforsenate.org and http://www.malachyforgovernor.com
June 26, 2006 – Local progressive and Green Party activist Matt Funiciello announced today that candidate for U.S. Senate from New York, Howie Hawkins, will be the guest of honor at a dinner and fundraiser to be held at 6 p.m., July 22, 2006, at Rock Hill Bakehouse Cafe in Glens Falls. The event is sponsored by the Adirondack Progressives. Local musician Carrianne Skidmore will provide entertainment and a vegetarian buffet will be served. Tickets are available at Rock Hill Bakehouse Cafe and also at High Peaks Java; there is a suggested donation of $25. Hawkins faces incumbent US Senator Hillary Clinton in the fall election.
“Hawkins represents the best and brightest of the Green Party,” said Funiciello, a former member of the Green Party's National Committee, himself. “We’re extremely proud to have him as our party’s candidate against the pro-Iraq, pro-Patriot Act, pro-globalization, former WalMart board member, Citizen Hillary.”
“An independent opposition party like the Greens is the most effective way to advance peace, justice, and a sustainable society,” Hawkins said, “It is not just the peace vote that is open to alternatives. So are the millions without health insurance, the workers who are losing wages and benefits and their very jobs, the environmentalists who see no program to address global warming, and the women and people of color who are losing their recently won rights. All have reason to be dissatisfied with Clinton, who is taking them for granted as she rebrands herself a ‘moderate’ for her presidential run.”
“Clinton has been a consistent war hawk on Iraq and, indeed, all the wars initiated by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. She is more responsible than any other person in America for killing the single-payer national health insurance bill that had about 100 members of Congress as co-sponsors in 1993,” Hawkins added.
Howie Hawkins has been active in movements for peace, justice, the environment, and independent progressive politics since the late 1960s. A former Marine, he helped organize opposition to the Vietnam War and was a co-founder of the anti-nuclear Clamshell Alliance in 1976. He was a co-founder of the Green Party in the United States in 1984 and currently serves on the Green National Committee.
After attending Dartmouth College in the early 1970s, Howie worked as a carpenter in New England and helped start up a construction workers cooperative that specialized in solar and wind energy installations. Howie moved to Syracuse in 1991 to be Director of CommonWorks, a federation of cooperatives working for an economy that is cooperatively owned, democratically controlled, and ecologically sustainable. A member of Teamsters Local 317 and active in the national Teamster rank-and-file reform caucus, Teamsters for a Democratic Union, Howie presently works unloading trucks and rail cars at UPS.
Howie's articles on social theory, cooperative economics, and independent politics have appeared in many publications, including Against the Current, Green Politics, International Socialist Review, New Politics, Peace and Democracy News, Peaceworks, Resist, Society and Nature, and Z Magazine . He is the editor of Independent Politics: The Green Party Strategy Debate (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2006).
Adirondack Progressives is a group of local Independents, along with members of the Green, Democratic and Republican parties interested in fostering a local dialogue on today’s most important issues. They are currently also organizing a fall appearance by Green candidate for N.Y.S. Governor, Malachy McCourt. McCourt is a longtime activist, author of the NY Times bestseller A Monk Swimming, and brother of Angela's Ashes author Frank McCourt). For more information about this and other Adirondack Progressive events, contact Matt Funiciello at (518) 361-6278. For more information see: http://www.hawkinsforsenate.org and http://www.malachyforgovernor.com
President learns about southern Sudan problems from journalist
I admit I was surprised to read this piece at the BBC's website.
While in Washington, the Beeb's correspondent in Sudan's capital, informed President Bush that things were not going so well in the southern part of the African country, 18 months after a peace deal was signed.
"That is not the information I'm getting," [Bush] told the BBC's Khartoum reporter Alfred Taban, who was in Washington to receive an award.
Taban spent more than a quarter hour talking with the president. "He asked me if the peace agreement was working and I said, 'Mr President, it is not working,' and he was very surprised," the reporter explained.
When the president said that this was not what he had been informed, our reporter said he told Mr Bush: "Well, whatever information you're getting, that peace agreement is not being implemented by the government in Khartoum."
He went on to tell the president that people in southern Sudan were still waiting to see improvements to their lives.
"There's no water, there's no electricity, nothing in Juba," our correspondent said, describing life in the capital of south Sudan.
During the discussion Mr Bush called one of his aides and asked to be given more details on southern Sudan.
"He appeared to be taking it very seriously," our reporter said, describing the president's manner as warm and welcoming, despite the intimidating surroundings.
On one hand, it's certainly creditable that the president didn't brush off the reporter's comments and apparently wasn't complacent about the disturbing information shared with him.
On the other hand, it raises serious questions about the quality of intelligence being provided to the chief executive. Are the problems with the intelligence agencies themselves or in the way they are being filtered before they reach the president's desk? In the wake of the Iraq debacle and the mythical WMDs, it's an important question that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Regardless, if the president can find out that I bought dinner with my debit card last night, he certainly should not be learning something this obvious from a ordinary journalist.
While in Washington, the Beeb's correspondent in Sudan's capital, informed President Bush that things were not going so well in the southern part of the African country, 18 months after a peace deal was signed.
"That is not the information I'm getting," [Bush] told the BBC's Khartoum reporter Alfred Taban, who was in Washington to receive an award.
Taban spent more than a quarter hour talking with the president. "He asked me if the peace agreement was working and I said, 'Mr President, it is not working,' and he was very surprised," the reporter explained.
When the president said that this was not what he had been informed, our reporter said he told Mr Bush: "Well, whatever information you're getting, that peace agreement is not being implemented by the government in Khartoum."
He went on to tell the president that people in southern Sudan were still waiting to see improvements to their lives.
"There's no water, there's no electricity, nothing in Juba," our correspondent said, describing life in the capital of south Sudan.
During the discussion Mr Bush called one of his aides and asked to be given more details on southern Sudan.
"He appeared to be taking it very seriously," our reporter said, describing the president's manner as warm and welcoming, despite the intimidating surroundings.
On one hand, it's certainly creditable that the president didn't brush off the reporter's comments and apparently wasn't complacent about the disturbing information shared with him.
On the other hand, it raises serious questions about the quality of intelligence being provided to the chief executive. Are the problems with the intelligence agencies themselves or in the way they are being filtered before they reach the president's desk? In the wake of the Iraq debacle and the mythical WMDs, it's an important question that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
Regardless, if the president can find out that I bought dinner with my debit card last night, he certainly should not be learning something this obvious from a ordinary journalist.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
International court opposes amnesty offer to war criminal
This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel, Iraq and Iran*. (*-added on the suggestion of a reader)
The Ugandan regime has controversially offered an amnesty to warlord and indicted war criminal Joseph Kony. The world's worst war criminal not presently in custody is head of a terrorist group which calls itself rebels and is widely accused of hideous atrocities and crimes against humanity.
Thanks to Kony's grotesquely misnamed Lord's Resistance army, northern Uganda is one of the most dangerous places in the world. Kony denies that his men (and boys and girls) have committed any war crimes whatsoever.
Despite the Ugandan government amnesty offer, the International Criminal Court maintains that its international arrest warrant for Kony is still valid. This is good, since past amnesty offers in Africa have been little more than short term bandaids.
The ICC's announcement will likely please Kony's victims, many of whom are not thrilled by the regime's offer.
Click here to learn more about child soldiers and other young victims of the conflict in northern Uganda.
The Ugandan regime has controversially offered an amnesty to warlord and indicted war criminal Joseph Kony. The world's worst war criminal not presently in custody is head of a terrorist group which calls itself rebels and is widely accused of hideous atrocities and crimes against humanity.
Thanks to Kony's grotesquely misnamed Lord's Resistance army, northern Uganda is one of the most dangerous places in the world. Kony denies that his men (and boys and girls) have committed any war crimes whatsoever.
Despite the Ugandan government amnesty offer, the International Criminal Court maintains that its international arrest warrant for Kony is still valid. This is good, since past amnesty offers in Africa have been little more than short term bandaids.
The ICC's announcement will likely please Kony's victims, many of whom are not thrilled by the regime's offer.
Click here to learn more about child soldiers and other young victims of the conflict in northern Uganda.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Declaration of Independence
In honor of the 230th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence, issued by a band of patriotic dissenters revolting against the imperial absolute power of their head of state. I publish the document text in its entreity. Read carefully and see if any of these complaints are still valid today.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
For imposing taxes on us without our consent;
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;
For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
For imposing taxes on us without our consent;
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;
For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Monday, July 03, 2006
The patriotic dissenters who founded America
In the last few years, the phrase 'patriotism' has been stolen by the pro-war crowd. This isn't exactly new; it happens during pretty much every war, both in America and elsewhere. It's true that the current far right has co-opted 'patriotism' for its own ideological ends but historically, such malfeasence and stiffling of dissent has not always been limited to conservatives.
The 1917 Espionage Act and the 1918 Sedition Act made it a crime to criticize US participation in World War I. Their most famous victim was Eugene Debs, who received nearly a million votes for his socialist presidential candidacy in 1920 despite being in prison at the time. These bills pushed through not by a far right president, but by Woodrow Wilson, one of the patron saints of American liberalism.
The patriotism of Americans of Japanese descent was doubted during World War II. With due process suspended thanks to the Supreme Court, millions of law-abiding citizens were thrown into internment camps. This was implemented not by a far right president, but by Franklin D. Roosevelt, another patron saint of liberalism.
In that vein, The Christian Science Monitor published an excellent editorial warning against the further politicization of patriotism.
On the eve of Independence Day, we are reminded that America was not forged by a homogeneous set of individuals. There were merchants and big landowners. Slave owners and abolitionists. World travelers and provincialists. None of them owned America any more than the current far right (or any other ideological fringe) claims to. No one person or small group gets to define what are American values. Dick Cheney is no more a real American than Cindy Sheehan, George W. Bush no more so than the Dixie Chicks.
And we are also reminded that America was forged by people who thought dissent was their patriotic duty.
The 1917 Espionage Act and the 1918 Sedition Act made it a crime to criticize US participation in World War I. Their most famous victim was Eugene Debs, who received nearly a million votes for his socialist presidential candidacy in 1920 despite being in prison at the time. These bills pushed through not by a far right president, but by Woodrow Wilson, one of the patron saints of American liberalism.
The patriotism of Americans of Japanese descent was doubted during World War II. With due process suspended thanks to the Supreme Court, millions of law-abiding citizens were thrown into internment camps. This was implemented not by a far right president, but by Franklin D. Roosevelt, another patron saint of liberalism.
In that vein, The Christian Science Monitor published an excellent editorial warning against the further politicization of patriotism.
On the eve of Independence Day, we are reminded that America was not forged by a homogeneous set of individuals. There were merchants and big landowners. Slave owners and abolitionists. World travelers and provincialists. None of them owned America any more than the current far right (or any other ideological fringe) claims to. No one person or small group gets to define what are American values. Dick Cheney is no more a real American than Cindy Sheehan, George W. Bush no more so than the Dixie Chicks.
And we are also reminded that America was forged by people who thought dissent was their patriotic duty.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
The Bill of Privileges
In an earlier discussion about the probably illegal warrantless spying programs revealed by the press, an acquaintance asked, "What about the Fourth Amendment?"
I responded, "Bush has informed Congress that it's no longer valid."
I did so because some backers of the war on civil liberties contend that so long as the president lets Denny Hastert and Bill Frist know about what he's doing, then it is, by definition, legal.
My comment was half-joking but half-serious. Maybe it was in fact more than half-serious.
Take the most recent column by far right commentator Cal Thomas. In it, he (surprise surprise) trashed The New York Times, falsely accusing it of 'giving aid and comfort to America’s terrorist enemies.'
Ever since the start of the Iraq aggression, any criticism of the president, his policies or the implementation of those policies has constituted for some 'aid and comfort to America’s terrorist enemies.'
This is a brilliant smear because it's false but the nature of the accusation makes it impossible to prove or disprove. The far right does the same thing when they say that if there's another terrorist attack, it will be The Times' fault. Again, defame your opponents with something that's impossible to prove or disprove.
In reality, any expression of democracy may give aid and comfort to the enemy. They don't understand the concept so they see the free exchange of ideas as a sign of chaos and indiscipline. The expression of democracy is really a sign of strength, but it can be intrepreted as a sign of weakness. By this standard, the only way to fight terrorism is to suspend democracy, lest the enemy get the wrong impression.
In the midst of his anti-New York Times screed, Thomas made an interesting, if unwitting, admission to that effect Bush has unilaterally suspended the Constitution. He writes of the paper:
This isn’t about the privileges guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is about the agenda of the Times and some other newspapers and media outlets that clearly want the administration to fail in Iraq — and in everything else — so that Democrats will retake the reins of government.
Last time I check, we had a Bill of RIGHTS. Not once, to the best of my knowledge, does the word 'privilege' appear in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Bill of Rights.
A privilege is something that's given to you by the state and can just as easily be taken away from you by the same state. Or in this case, by the Leader.
Driving is a privilege. You are not automatically allowed to drive on public roads. You have to pass a written test. Then you take a road test and someone decides if they deem you qualified or not. Rights are different. You have them by the mere virtue of being a citizen. In this country, there is no test you must take to become a government-licensed reporter. Articles are not subject to government authorization before being published, no matter how much the administration would like different.
According to Cal Thomas, we have lost the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. And by the looks of things, many of the succeeding nine amendments as well. It was indeed religious extremists who took them away. But they weren't foreigners. And they weren't Muslim.
I responded, "Bush has informed Congress that it's no longer valid."
I did so because some backers of the war on civil liberties contend that so long as the president lets Denny Hastert and Bill Frist know about what he's doing, then it is, by definition, legal.
My comment was half-joking but half-serious. Maybe it was in fact more than half-serious.
Take the most recent column by far right commentator Cal Thomas. In it, he (surprise surprise) trashed The New York Times, falsely accusing it of 'giving aid and comfort to America’s terrorist enemies.'
Ever since the start of the Iraq aggression, any criticism of the president, his policies or the implementation of those policies has constituted for some 'aid and comfort to America’s terrorist enemies.'
This is a brilliant smear because it's false but the nature of the accusation makes it impossible to prove or disprove. The far right does the same thing when they say that if there's another terrorist attack, it will be The Times' fault. Again, defame your opponents with something that's impossible to prove or disprove.
In reality, any expression of democracy may give aid and comfort to the enemy. They don't understand the concept so they see the free exchange of ideas as a sign of chaos and indiscipline. The expression of democracy is really a sign of strength, but it can be intrepreted as a sign of weakness. By this standard, the only way to fight terrorism is to suspend democracy, lest the enemy get the wrong impression.
In the midst of his anti-New York Times screed, Thomas made an interesting, if unwitting, admission to that effect Bush has unilaterally suspended the Constitution. He writes of the paper:
This isn’t about the privileges guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is about the agenda of the Times and some other newspapers and media outlets that clearly want the administration to fail in Iraq — and in everything else — so that Democrats will retake the reins of government.
Last time I check, we had a Bill of RIGHTS. Not once, to the best of my knowledge, does the word 'privilege' appear in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Bill of Rights.
A privilege is something that's given to you by the state and can just as easily be taken away from you by the same state. Or in this case, by the Leader.
Driving is a privilege. You are not automatically allowed to drive on public roads. You have to pass a written test. Then you take a road test and someone decides if they deem you qualified or not. Rights are different. You have them by the mere virtue of being a citizen. In this country, there is no test you must take to become a government-licensed reporter. Articles are not subject to government authorization before being published, no matter how much the administration would like different.
According to Cal Thomas, we have lost the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. And by the looks of things, many of the succeeding nine amendments as well. It was indeed religious extremists who took them away. But they weren't foreigners. And they weren't Muslim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)