Bill Moyers Speech is Must See/Hear/Read

I was flipping the channels around today and landed on Link TV Bill Moyers was taking the podium at New York University. What followed was perhaps the best speech I've ever heard addressing the issues of class we're facing today. You can can access the video, audio, and/or transcript here. I can't speak to the other speeches since I just found the page myself, but they all look they'll be worth the time to check them out.

Spin, Spin, Spin

A few hours ago the president of the US chided his critics for not supporting the liberation of Iraq. Bush is once again acting like being led to a WAR on false pretenses and then getting some collateral benefit such as Saddam Hussein's removal makes him some kind of great leader. He feels like investigations into prewar manipulation of intelligence are strictly political in nature. He is critical of those who voted for the war and are now not supporting the administrations strategies (whatever they are). I agree that those in Congress who voted for the war have shaky ground from which to criticize. If they are voted out over the next few years I say it serves them right. Fortunately, there are several who didn't vote for the war who are speaking out strongly. In the case of the former group, I can at least respect the leader who acknowledges that a mistake was made and wants to correct it, especially when lives are at stake. In my opinion, Bush has not admitted a mistake or taken responsibility for poor choices since he took office. Now he's claiming we're in Iraq in order to liberate the Iraqi people. That's not why he told the American people it was necessary to go to war. He claimed WMD's. Remember the Colin Powell dog-and-pony-show at the UN? Remember Condi Rice's mushroom cloud statements? The cost of the war was to be minimal. Those who thought differently were booted out of the way. Were those just tongue in cheek, Mr. Pres? And now we find out that the stories your staff referenced to support their claims were fed to the reporters who wrote them? WMD's, according to you, were an emergency situation. Without the potential for a nuke you didn't think you'd get the votes to go to war. Without the nukes there might have been debate about the best course of action. Alternatives to war might have been offered and agreed upon. We couldn't have that! What would Halliburton, Bechtel, and Lockheed Martin say? Wouldn't want to get a but chewing from THOSE GUYS! Bush can whine about criticism all he wants. It is sad to watch as the most powerful individual in the world is unable to engage his critics in real, intelligent dialogue or even argument. His only recourse is say that criticism helps the enemy. What a response. My high school debate team would have shredded our fearless leader.

Bush believes that an outward display of strength and infallibility is more important that the lives of our soldiers. His behavior is reminiscent of the days when royalty would go to war with each other over personal slights with little concern over the blood spilt in protection of personal honor. Bush has had plenty of opportunities to act like a human being and show a reasonable approach to obstacles, problems, and even unexpected success. He has instead bullied his way through in an obstinate "kid everyone hated in 3rd grade" display of intolerance to anything that doesn't aline with his narrow agenda. If he had held others and himself accountable, considered diverse input and options, and recognized mistakes and moved to correct them then I could at least give him a respectful hearing. I must say that his speech today is the proverbial straw and my back's busted. What little respect I had for him earlier is gone. I wouldn't want the man left alone with the family silver or my kids. When he opens his mouth I assume he's lying. I don't mean that as in the old joke about politicians- I mean it in the sad realization that a person is pathologically intent on doing ill toward others and can't see it in themselves and won't seek any kind of help. My prayers are that somehow something can happen to stop him from doing more harm because he doesn't see any harm in what he's doing. Gridlock sounds like a blessing from heaven at this point. He sees all of his actions as good. Nothing about Bush is funny anymore. His messianic complex is killing people. His behavior is not deserving of any level of respect. He is a dangerous embarrassment.

We've had people in power who did a bad job and who were their own best fans. We've only had a few who were literally responsible for the death of thousands of people while thinking they were on a mission from God. Three years looks like a very, very long time.

A Marine's Story

This story, Ron Jacobs: an Interview with Kent State's Dave Airhart has several elements that are intriguing. First, there's a marine coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan with his story to tell. My search on major, mainstream news sites (CNN, Fox, Washington Post, etc....) on Airhart's name came up with one story- MSNBC. I realize some of his opinions wouldn't even get him a hearing on most outlets, regardless of which direction their spin motor turns, but I'm intrigued by his outspoken, first-hand accounts and the probability that his story will be generally ignored.
A second revelation to me was cited in the MSNBC.com article where it says:

Now, colleges must either allow recruiters, or lose all federal funding, including loans, grants and student aid.

That's right- education funding is linked to allowing the military on campus!

Here's a couple other posts citing the story:
Kent State veteran discloses murder of Iraqi civilians and detainee abuse | AfterDowningStreet.org

Bob's Links and Rants: Brain dead in Ohio--Kent State revisited

Also, the NYTimes reports of a new incident in which

Unaware that civilians were in the house, the statement continued, Marine aircraft bombed it on Monday, reducing it to rubble.

Another family is dead, some members at the hands of insurgents and some at the hands of the US military. Guerilla urban warfare with smart bombs mixed in. How much more insane can it get? I'm afraid we're on track to find out.

Sufferin fer Jesus

I'd love to see a good study on the psychology and sociology of the American Televangelist. Despite repeated reports on misdealings and misdeeds, they're able to establish multimillion dollar empires from the tax deductible contributions of people who otherwise probably lead productive, somewhat intelligent lives. Here's the latest one to roll into my attention. I realize he's not technically a televangelist, but his support seems to be from largely the same money trails: Law.com

I've always been intrigued by the need for private jets.

Here's a great assay on why we need to keep our eyes open: Trinity Foundation

Sufferin' for Jesus- Gotta love it!

How Much Do You Trust Big Brother's Discretion?

I'm not sure how many are aware of this ruling- U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules. This is a reversal of a previous ruling back in 2003. The courts have

backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

At the risk of sounding alarmist, I think this is very disturbing, and I'm concerned that it will stay under the radar for the average citizen. The basic right of every citizen to due process of law can now be circumvented based on the judgement of the president. Please understand, my concern is not that law breakers have been arrested. My concern is that the administration feels that due process of law, with all of the checks and balances and oversight that are a part of the system, is inadequate.

Governments all over the world have instituted provisions to allow for secret, extra-judiciary branches of government to deal with what they claim to be extraordinary circumstances. For Americans, the threat of terrorism has put the US into a "new" kind of war. In answer to this threat we have been told that some of our rights and freedoms (the ones for which the terrorists hate us so much) need to be sacrificed. Now we're keeping secret prisons in other countries, the names of which have been withheld due to the probability that our actions would be considered illegal in those countries. Globally and historically this is nothing new. Unfortunately, however, these policies, when instituted elsewhere, are often, if not always, abused and held up as obstacles to those governments entering the mainstream global community.

Malaysia met the threat of communism during its youth after WWII with the Internal Security Act (ISA). The communists have been gone for a while now, but the ISA is still in place. In addition, the ISA has given the government carte blanche to "legally" get rid of any political threats. I have personally spoken with a Malaysian Christian who narrowly missed getting rounded up during college. He was out of the country at the time interviewing for graduate school, but a number of his friend were rounded up and detained for months. Their crime: they had a Bible study in their room and had dialogued with some Muslim students about faith issues. They were not arrested and charged with proselytizing which would have involved due process of law. Instead, the ISA gave the authorities the power to detain them without charges and without public disclosure of any kind.

The law was, at face value, set up to allow the government to deal expediently with threats. Individual rights could be compromised in the interest of national security. Whether or not the law was justified to begin with is beside the point.
This convoluted thought comes to this: Reduction in human rights for the benefit of national security puts discretion into the hands of a few who, historically speaking, never use this authority and decreased accountability without abuse. Recent events in our own history show that, in fact, the authorities will flirt with the edge of any limitations put up for them and, as recently evident, overstep those limits if there's a chance they can get away with it.

I do not trust anyone in a position of authority to benevolently take away freedoms in order to protect the freedoms that are left over. I don't trust anyone in authority to know who is "good" and who's "bad" with 100% accuracy. Accountability and oversight are ALWAYS needed. Extreme circumstances call for INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY and OVERSIGHT rather than the DECREASE our illustrious vice-president would like to see take place.

My hope is that Americans would never stand for the government to use these tactics against US citizens. Once given these discretionary powers, however, how many of us would ever know that they were being utilized? How much abuse would have to take place before the public became interested enough to take action? I am very skeptical given that we are currently engaged in torturing detainees and our right to do so is being debated on who technically is and isn't covered under treaties rather than what is moral or in line with our historical defense of human rights. Our administration is detaining people in secret prisons in countries where there will be no oversight. All of this gives me little confidence in the discretion of the military, CIA, and anyone associated with the executive branch of government. Our country is step by step establishing our character in the face of threats that other countries have lived with all along. Our standards for human rights, justice, transparency, and accountability found most of these other countries lacking as they dealt with perceived external and internal threats. Are we going to lower the bar now that we feel threatened or are we going to accept that a free and just society has costs that must be counted and then accepted. I don't say this flippantly. But we must seriously consider this beyond the trappings of politics. We hail the reforms in places like South Africa and Indonesia as triumphs for human rights and democracy. Why would we want to do anything that moves us closer to from whence they came?


FYI:
Here's some more info on Malaysia's ISA and the special branch of government that used it:

Once individuals were taken into custody, they were interrogated by officers from the Special Branch, which, although part of the police bureaucracy, functions as Malaysia’s domestic security service. During the political unrest in the 1970s and during Operation Lalang in the 1980s, Special Branch officers were called upon to interrogate, intimidate, and silence political detainees who were perceived as a threat to the Malaysian government. Because Special Branch officers are completely free of outside oversight when they interrogate ISA detainees, they have developed a reputation for abusive and coercive tactics.
Relevant sections of the legislation are as follows:
Section 73(1) Internal Security Act 1960: "Any police officer may without warrant arrest and detain pending enquiries any person in respect of whom he has reason to believe that there are grounds which would justify his detention under section 8; and that he has acted or is about to act or is likely to act in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to maintenance of essential services therein or to the economic life thereof."
Sect 8. Power to order detention or restriction of persons. "(i) If the Minister is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or the economic life thereof, he may make an order (hereinafter referred to as a detention order) directing that that person be detained for any period not exceeding two years."