China, Tibet, and Freedom

No Olympic Games Without Democracy!



This short post today closely resembles my feelings, blogged about here, concerning the lip service paid by the United States to liberty, freedom and democracy. We talk the talk - big time - but do nothing to stand behind what we say.

Once again, a nation of people, proudly independent even though repressed, stood up to their oppressors and were virtually ignored by the Bush Administration. According to this article, President Bush " has long said the United States and China have “a complex relationship,” and that complexity was on full display this week." It sure was. It displayed that we only want to "free" people if they happen to have lots and lots of oil under their sand.

In all truthfulness, it comes down to money. According to this story, Tibetans have learned to keep "their requests modest. They know few countries have the appetite to cross China, particularly at a time the world is counting on the emerging superpower to keep the global economy ticking as the United States appears headed into a recession." Oppression, domination, lack of freedom, and that liberty Bush can't live without sure was on full display this week as he said not a word. It's the economy, stupid.

And yet, once again, the mainstream media is all but ignoring this connection between money and our condoning of severe human rights abuses. (Read all about this connection here). It's there if you dig a few pages deep (like stories on boycotting the Olympics, here and here). The latter story reports on the boycott effort by Reporters Without Borders and its online petition says that ""Given the massive human rights violations in China, it seems unacceptable to us that the Chinese government be allowed the right to host the world's most prestigious sporting event," it reads in part."

The Chinese government has promised improvements in its human rights abuses but has failed to keep those promises: the government blocks access to thousands of news and political web sites as well as currently holds in prison about 80 journalists and Internet users. The full story on China and why we should boycott is here.

If you feel like signing the petition to boycott the Olympic games in Beijing, go here. When the total number of people reaches one million, it will be sent to China's president Hu Jintao. As of today, 719,494 people have signed it.

*(Photo: Brian Sokol / The New York Times)

To be free or not to be free

So much hot air comes out of not only President Bush, but the Democratic and Republican members of Congress as well. Who needs oil? Just stick a few of these hypocrites in the trunk of your car bla-bla-blabbing away and zoom! off you go.

Hot air? Hypocrites? I'm speaking in reference to this never-ending stream of talk about freedom and liberty and democracy. How we're bringing it to the Middle East; how we have so much of it; how we're the standard-bearer of it all. How so full of shit it all is.

Recently, there was Burma. I talked about it and our pathetic reaction here, here, and here. This week, we've had Pakistan instantly lose what little democracy they had. And why? Of course the leader who staged a coup to get into power, General Pervez Musharraf, said that it's "because the courts were hampering his efforts against extremist groups, such as by ordering the release of suspects held without charge." That's here.

However, the timing of his abolishment of freedom and liberty came at quite an ironic time. General Musharraf "suspended the constitution on Saturday ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on whether his recent re-election as president was legal. He ousted seven independent-minded Supreme Court judges, put a stranglehold on independent media and granted sweeping powers to authorities to crush dissent."

What he did was to order the arrest of freedom, liberty, and democracy because the court system was about to rule on whether he could remain president! If his argument about protecting the country and "democracy" from extremist groups was really true, then why would you shut down newspapers, television stations, and arrest hundreds of lawyers? While that bothers me immensely, it's to be expected from a egotistical thug who gained power in a coup. What is not to be expected is the supposed "greatest nation on earth" to stand idly by in a corner sucking its thumb asking for the General to please not do that. At least American hypocrisy is great.

"Pressed on whether the US backed the anti-Musharraf demonstrators, as it had recent anti-government protests in Myanmar [Burma], Perino replied: "Let me put it this way: We certainly support the right to free speech, and freedom of expression and freedom to assemble."" So, the Bush Administration supports people assembling, expressing, and talking about how their democratic rights were taken away, but says nothing about those rights actually being taken away! How nice.

It is interesting to note that Deutsche Welle reported the other day that "since 2001, Musharraf has received nearly $11 billion from Washington and $150 million continue to flow in each month. Of this, only 10 percent goes to economic and social projects. The rest goes to the soldiers."

Who cares about SCHIP and giving poor children health care with that money - or fixing the hundreds of bridges that are structurally deficient in this country. "Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told Congress on Wednesday that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf is an "indispensable" ally in the U.S.-led war on terrorism and that "partnership with Pakistan and its people is the only option."" What has he done that has made him so "indispensable?" (Besides suspend their constitution twice, the initiation of a police state and the ending of democracy this week?) Where's Osama again?

Hypocrisy. Lies. Distortions. Saddam was our friend. We invaded Iraq to bring "democracy" to a population that was not in the streets protesting for it, yet we totally ignore two countries with citizens actually in the streets protesting and being arrested calling for democracy...

Sorry State of Affairs

The Democrats were elected to end the war. They have not and will not. This is part of the problem with a two-party system. I am not ideologically aligned with the Republicans and I'm maybe half-way aligned with the Democrats. I don't respect either party - so who am I to vote for? Many people share this sentiment, including Greens, Libertarians, and Constitutional party members. Back to the war and Democrats: they say they do not have enough votes to stop the war - and I have yet to know about one instance where a reporter has called them on their bullshit. Not one reporter... save Paul Krugman here:

"But the truth is, Democrats have all the votes they need to stop the war — if they are willing to use the power given them by the Constitution to block the supplemental funding bill unless it includes a deadline for bringing the troops home. As Norm Ornstein told me: “Whatever the White House sends to the House is constitutionally merely a suggestion.” The prerogative to bring a funding bill to the floor rests entirely with the majority — which, in case Democrats have forgotten, is theirs. As for the Senate, Democrats there would only have to find 41 votes to block the supplemental funding bill."





I can't say this enough: if you have not read 1984 by George Orwell - GO READ IT!! It will help highlight the ways in which our liberties and freedoms (that we take for granted) are being "legally" taken away from us.

Why do I bring this up? Because the Bush Administration is trying very hard to get the American people supportive (through terrorizing us) of a war with Iran. The same methods used to scare (terrorize) its own citizens into a war with Iraq are being used again. Bush and Co. say that Iran could develop a nuclear bomb in a few short years. However, "the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday he had no evidence Iran was working actively to build nuclear weapons and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster." You can read the full article concerning Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency here.






This is a very good example of profound slavishness to the Bush Administration's hatred of regulation, fairness, and objectivity. "Ms. Nord, the top official for consumer product safety, opposes provisions that would increase the maximum penalties for safety violations and make it easier for the government to make public reports of faulty products, protect industry whistleblowers and prosecute executives of companies that willfully violate laws."





If we do not take action on this like, yesterday, life as we have come to know it is going to be radically altered - probably forever. And it won't be pretty.

"Humans are changing the Earth's climate so fast and devouring resources so voraciously that the survival of the world's ecosystems and of humanity itself is at stake, a new UN report says. The 570-page Global Environment Outlook, published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), paints a dire picture of planet-wide death and degradation. With more than six billion people, Earth's population is now so big that "the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available," the report warned, adding that the global population is expected to peak at between 8 and 9.7 billion by 2050."

It's laughable to the point of insanity that our country is hyper-focused on immigration, gay marriage, and abortion rather than the fact that we are destroying that which gives us nourishment and life.





The United States has military troops in about 135 countries around the world. If that's not the tentacles of empire, I don't know what is. How many countries have troops in our country? How many foreign militaries have bases in our country? That's why I must applaud Ecuador for being fair and balanced in this regard.

What is Democracy?

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, democracy is:

"a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"

So the majority rules. But more importantly it is the people, you and me, who hold the supreme power. Why is it then, that the majority of the people want us out of Iraq and the Democratically-led Congress continues to do nothing about it? According to an ABC/Washington Post poll here, 54% of Americans believe that we should withdraw our forces "even if that means civil order is not restored there." This same poll shows that since January 2007, a majority of Americans want our forces withdrawn.

Democrats were elected to end this war. They have not. They attempted once and have since maintained that they do not have enough votes to override a presidential veto. However, there are three other options. 1. Continue to send the bill to the president over and over, or 2. Filibuster, or 3. follow the Constitution's power-of-the-purse clause and stop funding the war. Just like impeachment, none of these options are on the table.

Not only do they continue to do nothing about it, but since they're now the party in power in Congress, they don't care. Talking about anti-war protesters on Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that it was ""a waste of time" for them to target Democrats. ""

Why? It's what the majority - the supreme rulers - want; so why is it a "waste of time?" You were elected to do what the majority want and you're not doing it! Why not?

Because ending the Iraq war was only a way for these greedy, power hungry people to get elected. Now that they are safely being paid by us (including full dental, vision, and health care as well as retirement benefits), they no longer need us. Until the next election rolls around, that is. Which brings me to my main point: We need to do away with our monopolistic two-party system.

As it is now, if I do not like Republican policies, I have to vote for a Democrat. But what if I don't like their policies either? (For example, this.) Then what am I supposed to do? The Republicans and the Democrats are not stopping this war that the majority (the supreme rulers) wants stopped. Aside from a few key issues such as abortion and the death penalty, Dems and Repubs are two sides of the same greedy and corrupt coin.

You know what true democracy is? A place for all voices and viewpoints in Congress. I'm talking about third-parties. When I vote for president, the ballot has selections for not only Dems and Repubs, but also Green, Libertarian, Constitutional, and Natural-Law parties. Depending on the state, there may be even more choices. So, why aren't these presidential candidates invited to the presidential debates aired on publicly owned airways? Could it be that they would bring up issues the two major parties do not want to deal with or ideas which may benefit the common person at the expense of huge corporate profits? And why are there severe obstacles for third parties to overcome that the Republicans and Democrats don't face?

Third-parties face such obstacles as ballot-access laws which require them to gather thousands of signatures just to appear on the ballot; something the Republicans and Democrats do not have to do. In addition, the presidential debates are run by a commission made up of....that's right, Democrats and Republicans. When is the last time you saw all the people on your presidential ballot at a debate together? And we call ourselves a democracy?



Then again, we continue to celebrate a man who raped, enslaved, and killed thousands and thousands of people. We close our banks and federal offices for Christopher Columbus. If we can't be honest to our children and ourselves about 1492, can we finally admit that we do not really live in a democracy?

Things that go bump in the day

Under the United States Constitution, citizens are given "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

In other words - we can protest, write, call, petition, etc., our representatives (Senators, Congressmen and women, the President, Vice President: those people that we hire to represent us) in order to persuade them change laws, policies, and the like.

How are we to do this if they can't see or hear us? How can we get proper redress if peaceably protesting American citizens are arrested? How can we persuade our leaders if they never see or hear that a large segment of citizens, let alone other democratic countries, disagree with their (our) policies?

You expect me to believe that our goal is to bring democracy and liberty to Iraq, when it's slowly being eroded here? When Bush & Co. can't even export our First Amendment to Australia, how am I to believe they're going to do that in Iraq? John F. Kennedy said it best:

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."



I do not know how true this is - and the author readily admits as much. However, they did it for the Iraq War and there are telltale signs of it starting up up again, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least. What with General Petraeus's report coming up next week, it makes sense. The Iraqi government is now the fall guy for our disaster there, but do not be surprised if they start saying, or some other mouthpiece for them (read that: a Bush Administration official), starts saying that it's not their fault after all. If Iran would just stop interfering, then the Iraqi government could get their act together. It's all Iran's fault now. The evidence will be there, just like the WMDs.


This one is for all of those people who still trust Bush to tell us the truth. And if he honestly just doesn't remember something so vitally important about the invasion of a sovereign nation, among all other things, he doesn't deserve to be President.

Privatization

It's when privately owned corporations increasingly buy things the government used to own. For example, the "privatization of Social Security" means that the government sells its shares and control of our national pensions to people who run the stock market. Another example of privatization is when corporations buy the water supply in communities. The public no longer owns them, the public no longer has a say in how they are run; and the services that were bought become the means to a profit-driven end.

This is not good for America. Or any society for that matter. The people, communally, should have stakes and a say in how common necessities like water, sewer, roads and our wars are run and organized. For a good take on this and the privatization of our military, read this.


Close to 7 years later, "9/11 changed everything" is still being used as political smoke and mirrors to justify the legal destruction of our rights, liberty, and democracy. We have held American citizens in jail with no access to a lawyer. This is against the constitution. We have held American citizens in jail and not presented any evidence as to why. This is against the constitution. Where is our collective outrage? This man killed no one - but is being killed by the American government. (Updated). Where is our concern? An "Impeach Bush" sign-waving man is arrested. Who are we? If you are not yet awake, maybe this will help you.

Just remember, this is nothing new.


One last thing. In case you haven't heard, the family-loving, job-creating President Bush is trying to allow trucks from Mexico into our country to deliver goods. What about American trucking jobs? What about the safety of those trucks - mechanically and insurance-wise? Whose side is he on? Yours, mine - or those companies that will get to pay Mexican truck drivers much lower wages than they can pay American truck drivers. If you don't believe that, ask yourself -- why else would they do it?