It used to be that as Americans, we could pretty much aI recently received gree on "the truth" of things that were happening in the world . . . and the why's and the wherefore's were argued from the standpoint of our respective political affiliations or philosophies.
In the past ten years or so, we have noticed a particular philosophy emanating from the Right Wing: if you say something over and over, no matter its relative veracity, pretty soon that original lie takes on elements of being the "truth."
Case in point: I recently received an "emergency" email from an acquaintance, that had been spread far and wide by other acquaintances that the current Health Care Reform Bill in Congress contains language that, if passed, will require elderly Americans to receive training every five years on self-euthanasia.
Fortunately, the email cited its source: an interview with some "advocate" on the Fred Thompson Radio Show. I listened to the interview, then went to the "advocate's" website to read the source documentation, which included the House Bill. And fortunately, the "advocate" gave the page number and everything.
And you know what? It doesn't say anything of the sort. There are some requirements for the elderly to receive some end-of-life training on issues regarding the use of hospices, nursing homes, medical powers of attorney, living wills, advanced directives, and the like.
As I suspected, NOTHING regarding euthanasia, etc.
These people have absolutely no shame. They get their followers all riled up about stuff that doesn't even exist, when all they are doing is supporting the insurance companies. What rot!!
Monday, July 27, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The Dearth of Independent Radio
Ever notice that as you travel across the country, the radio at one part of the country sounds suspiciously like that in another? Well some years ago, Congress passed a law that allowed media ownership to become much more concentrated in the U.S. So today we are reaping the rewards of that decision, very few independent stations remain, and the music is homogenized, pasteurized, and computerized for replay out of transmitting towers across the country.
Will we ever get independent radio back? Will the news ever be interpreted by independent voices that provide a non-corporate take on the day's events?
Doubtful: that genie has been let out of the bottle for too long to ever get put back in.
But what can we do? When we find those independent voices on the radio dial, we need to support the hell out of 'em. My current favorite is a public radio station, KVMR, broadcasting out of Nevada City, California. You can listen to their stream here at KVMR's website. Which is probably the best way to listen to KVMR: the coverage of their signal is rather spotty, especially in the foothills.
All the DJ's are volunteers, and they play their own selections out of their personal libraries. The mix is rather eclectic, and frankly I can tire of Sunday morning's Kani Ka Pila very quickly (three straight hours of Hawaiian music).
So, give KVMR a listen (here is their program schedule) and if you like what you hear, and you feel like supporting this fine effort, you can donate your spare shekels here.
Will we ever get independent radio back? Will the news ever be interpreted by independent voices that provide a non-corporate take on the day's events?
Doubtful: that genie has been let out of the bottle for too long to ever get put back in.
But what can we do? When we find those independent voices on the radio dial, we need to support the hell out of 'em. My current favorite is a public radio station, KVMR, broadcasting out of Nevada City, California. You can listen to their stream here at KVMR's website. Which is probably the best way to listen to KVMR: the coverage of their signal is rather spotty, especially in the foothills.
All the DJ's are volunteers, and they play their own selections out of their personal libraries. The mix is rather eclectic, and frankly I can tire of Sunday morning's Kani Ka Pila very quickly (three straight hours of Hawaiian music).
So, give KVMR a listen (here is their program schedule) and if you like what you hear, and you feel like supporting this fine effort, you can donate your spare shekels here.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Iran and the coming explosion
Tonight I fear for the people of Iran.
The protesters and their political candidates have received Khamenei's ultimatum, and are fairly exuding a sense of doom.
Tonight I fear that the so far peaceful demonstrations will turn into a bloody revolution against the hard line conservatives and their supporters.
Tonight, I need a hug.
The protesters and their political candidates have received Khamenei's ultimatum, and are fairly exuding a sense of doom.
Tonight I fear that the so far peaceful demonstrations will turn into a bloody revolution against the hard line conservatives and their supporters.
Tonight, I need a hug.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Gitmo Detainees: What to Do?
As part of President Obama's problems with closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, there is always the issue of what to do with those detainees.
As an example, let's consider the fate of 17 Chinese Uighurs, ordered released in October 2008. There is fierce congressional opposition to settling them in the U.S. We've asked Canada to take them: nope. Australia has twice refused US requests to resettle these detainees, though there are rumors that they might take 10 of them. Lastly, we cannot return them to China for fear that they will tortured or executed (there is a fierce Islamist insurgent/separatist movement in Western China) and Beijing officials may want nothing more than to get their hands on these Uighurs, if only for political leverage against other insurgents in the Uighur areas.
Now we're considering resettling some or all of them on the remote island nation of Palau in the Pacific Ocean. Palau just happens to be one of the few nations that do not recognize China (the mainland) and maintains relations with Taiwan, so as a political entity, they have little to fear from the Chinese government's displeasure at not getting the Uighurs back.
Obviously, Palau would receive a lot of aid for doing this (a figure of $200m is being mentioned).
Let's go back to their detainment: these were not terrorists, not "unlawful enemy combatants." They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. They have been held for years without any of the rights that the worst criminals in the United States are guaranteed. Is there a danger that these Uighurs, might turn into terrorists? Sure, see my post below ("We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto"). And who could blame them?
But settling them here in the United States is the right thing to do.
UPDATE, June 10, 2009: The government of Palau has agreed to "temporarily resettle" these 17 individuals "subject to periodic review."
As an example, let's consider the fate of 17 Chinese Uighurs, ordered released in October 2008. There is fierce congressional opposition to settling them in the U.S. We've asked Canada to take them: nope. Australia has twice refused US requests to resettle these detainees, though there are rumors that they might take 10 of them. Lastly, we cannot return them to China for fear that they will tortured or executed (there is a fierce Islamist insurgent/separatist movement in Western China) and Beijing officials may want nothing more than to get their hands on these Uighurs, if only for political leverage against other insurgents in the Uighur areas.
Now we're considering resettling some or all of them on the remote island nation of Palau in the Pacific Ocean. Palau just happens to be one of the few nations that do not recognize China (the mainland) and maintains relations with Taiwan, so as a political entity, they have little to fear from the Chinese government's displeasure at not getting the Uighurs back.
Obviously, Palau would receive a lot of aid for doing this (a figure of $200m is being mentioned).
Let's go back to their detainment: these were not terrorists, not "unlawful enemy combatants." They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. They have been held for years without any of the rights that the worst criminals in the United States are guaranteed. Is there a danger that these Uighurs, might turn into terrorists? Sure, see my post below ("We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto"). And who could blame them?
But settling them here in the United States is the right thing to do.
UPDATE, June 10, 2009: The government of Palau has agreed to "temporarily resettle" these 17 individuals "subject to periodic review."
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The effectiveness of torture
The Republican right wing, from Dick and Liz Cheney, down through the chief apologists and liars at Faux News, have continued to raise the issue of the high quality of intelligence gathered through enhanced interrogation techniques to justify the use of torture in questioning detainees at Gitmo and CIA-operated "black" sites around the world.
Many on the left, have countered those arguments using statements from the many of the actual interrogators that the intelligence gained was incorrect, or are simply statements by those being questioned who thought it was what the interrogator wanted to hear. Both useless pieces of information, but irrelevant to the question of torture itself.
Torture is wrong. It is wrong if you get bad information out of the detainee; it is also wrong if you get perfect information out of him or her.
Why is it wrong? Because we (the US) do not want our soldiers subjected to torture in any shape or form, and we have prosecuted and would wish to continue to prosecute those who who perform these same so-called enhanced interrogation techniques on captured US soldiers. Once our personnel started doing this to the detainees we lost whatever high ground we occupied: we cannot say that it is okay for the US to torture, but not okay for anyone else.
If torture is wrong, ab initio, then whatever arguments the right wing would choose for its justification are not just worthless, we should cut off all further discussion.
That's it. 'Nuff said.
Many on the left, have countered those arguments using statements from the many of the actual interrogators that the intelligence gained was incorrect, or are simply statements by those being questioned who thought it was what the interrogator wanted to hear. Both useless pieces of information, but irrelevant to the question of torture itself.
Torture is wrong. It is wrong if you get bad information out of the detainee; it is also wrong if you get perfect information out of him or her.
Why is it wrong? Because we (the US) do not want our soldiers subjected to torture in any shape or form, and we have prosecuted and would wish to continue to prosecute those who who perform these same so-called enhanced interrogation techniques on captured US soldiers. Once our personnel started doing this to the detainees we lost whatever high ground we occupied: we cannot say that it is okay for the US to torture, but not okay for anyone else.
If torture is wrong, ab initio, then whatever arguments the right wing would choose for its justification are not just worthless, we should cut off all further discussion.
That's it. 'Nuff said.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Gay Marriage in California (or not)
I am puzzled by the California Supreme Court's decision last Tuesday, validating Proposition 8.
The irony is that the prior decision by Chief Justice George (granting gay couples the right to marriage) stated that the ability of all people to marriage is a fundamental right. As such, under the California Constitution, any change to that status must be made by an Amendment to the Constitution, with a specific set requirements--most definitively passage of the bill by super-majorities of both State legislative houses.
Prop. 8, which took away what Chief Justice Ronald George termed a fundamental right, by a bare majority of the voters, was never considered by either house. And I would bet that with Democratic majorities in both houses, it would never pass.
I'm remain, as I started, puzzled as to how the court got around this requirement.
The irony is that the prior decision by Chief Justice George (granting gay couples the right to marriage) stated that the ability of all people to marriage is a fundamental right. As such, under the California Constitution, any change to that status must be made by an Amendment to the Constitution, with a specific set requirements--most definitively passage of the bill by super-majorities of both State legislative houses.
Prop. 8, which took away what Chief Justice Ronald George termed a fundamental right, by a bare majority of the voters, was never considered by either house. And I would bet that with Democratic majorities in both houses, it would never pass.
I'm remain, as I started, puzzled as to how the court got around this requirement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
