heroes, heroism, humanism...

Andrew Sullivan has been following the saga of Capt. Ian Fishback who has spent a lot of time "researching" the Armed Forces policies of humane and inhumane treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. Capt. Fishback has written a letter printed in the Washington Post to Sen. John McCain asking for his assistance in assuring the honor and reputation of the United States' Armed Forces in the world from alleged disregard of the Geneva Conventions and treatment of prisoners as less than human beings by codifying the standards of treatment. In Captain Fishback's own words, "Once again, I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for." washingtonpost.com

He is reported as a totally upstanding member of the Army, a top-notch West Pointer and a caring individual both towards the soldiers under his command and foes. One co-worker, friend and acquaintance after another has attested to his solid background and actions.

The torture end-game is approaching - and Rumsfeld and Cheney know it. What is now being done to the hero, Captain Ian Fishback, who braved 17 months of obstruction, threats and intimidation by military brass to keep quiet, is a national disgrace. Fishback has now been sequestered at Fort Bragg under orders restricting his contacts (the pretext is that he is a key witness in a criminal investigation and that he should not be in contact with outsiders while it continues). My sources tell me that he has been subjected to a series of long, arduous interrogations by CID investigators. Predictably, the CID guys are out to find just one thing: they want to know the identities of his two or three NCO corroborators. Andrew Sullivan

This alleged treatment of Fishback is in keeping with how the current administration has handled instance after instance, not only with Iraq but with domestic and other diplomatic issues. It is concurrent with the secrecy built into the Homeland Security Law under the guise of national security.

...but what else is being kept secret?

nothing better to do...? part XI

Unloading the books...



The The American Library Association (ALA) each year publishes a list of the 10 most challenged books. These books are challenged by people, groups and organizations who do not want anyone to read anything that they believe conflicts or disagrees with what they personally or organizationally believe. Everyone has the right to their own beliefs, but the US Constitution has a clear statement about censorship:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The Bill of Rights

The attempts to ban and censor books, newspapers, magazines, any type of media, has been going on for centuries. The Catholic church was opposed to Guttenberg's printing press because they feared that if everyone learned how to read and get their hands on books easily, they would no longer have control over the serfs, peasants, laity, etc.

With the recent upswing of fundamentalism in many religions, the movement has multiplied a hundred-fold. The ALA has been at the forefront of keeping open the battle against censorship. This week is "Banned Books Week." From the ALA website on "Banned Books Week:"

Banned Books Week (BBW) celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one’s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them. After all, intellectual freedom can exist only where these two essential conditions are met.

No one is declaring that everyone has to read things that they believe are contrary to their personal ethics, morals, or beliefs. If they want to protect their children, parents, etc. from reading certain materials, they need to police this themselves in some way. What the ALA, the Constitution and others are saying is that no one has the right to tell me what not to read. The censorship of any intellectual freedom or discourse is anathema to ensuring that freedom continues for all.

Here is the list of the "Ten Most Challenged" books of 2004. As you'll note, some of them have been around for many years. This is the first year that the Harry Potter books have not been on the list - nor is Tom Sawyer! Have you read any of them?

"The Chocolate War" for sexual content, offensive language, religious viewpoint, being unsuited to age group and violence

"Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers, for racism, offensive language and violence

"Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael A. Bellesiles, for inaccuracy and political viewpoint

Captain Underpants series by Dav Pilkey, for offensive language and modeling bad behavior

"The Perks of Being a Wallflower" by Stephen Chbosky, for homosexuality, sexual content and offensive language

"What My Mother Doesn't Know" by Sonya Sones, for sexual content and offensive language

"In the Night Kitchen" by Maurice Sendak, for nudity and offensive language

"King & King" by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland, for homosexuality

"I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" by Maya Angelou, for racism, homosexuality, sexual content, offensive language and unsuited to age group

"Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck, for racism, offensive language and violence



“Don't join the book burners . . . .” — Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States, 1953–1961

going up...

Stairway to heaven www.telegraph.co.uk

This is has been around for awhile but is getting press all of a sudden. It is the stuff that pure science fiction is made of. Yet is closer to reality than is imagined.

i'm ready to go...

possibilities are endless...

be afraid.... be very, very afraid... part IV

cosmiciguana.com posts this with links:

PENTAGON FORESEES PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES

ANTIWAR.COM:

"Amid increasing tension between the United States and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program, and growing concern about overstretched U.S. ground forces, the George W. Bush administration is moving steadily toward adopting the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states as an integral part of its global military strategy..." [*]

God, this is horrible. We are becoming everything we hate including nuclear aggressors. And can you imagine history's judgement to a nuclear attack based on Iraq style phony intelligence?

iguana also reports that the Russians are pissed! I would be too! ...and am.

My father and uncles fought WWII under the promise that freedom and liberty would be for everyone in the world away from fascists and nazis and other despots. They went through the Cold War and the threat of nuclear attack. They thought that everything they fought for could be wiped out with the push of a button. They were relieved when the threat was lessened and the US and USSR, and consequently Russia, agreed to dismantle their nuclear weapons. Beginning with Reagan, continuing with GH Bush and Clinton, the US and Russia continued on this course.

Now George W has reversed what has taken years of building trust and working together and put the skids on the hope for any kind of peace in the world. From his fiasco in Iraq, to his blundering in Lousiana, to the debacle that Bolton is causing at the UN, to threatening Iran with pre-emptive nuclear strikes or UN sanctions at the least, he has done things that could move the Nuclear Doomsday Clock closer to midnight than its present 7 minutes. [The clock has been at 7 minutes since March 2002!]

The Right religious conservatives have been looking towards the Middle East for the anti-Christ. Maybe, they should be looking closer to home.

...i'm afraid.... i'm very, very afraid.... we all should be afraid...

your village called...

After the previous post I couldn't pass this up as I continued reading other newsites and blogs.

The Jefferson Parish president, Aaron Broussard, told CBS news that government would have to be held accountable for what had happened.

"Bureaucracy has murdered people in the greater New Orleans area and bureaucracy needs to stand trial before congress today," he said.

"Take whatever idiot they have at the top, give me a better idiot. Give me a caring idiot. Give me a sensitive idiot. Just don't give me the same idiot."

Damage exposure will 'wake America up' , David Fickling, Mark Oliver and agencies in the September 6, 2005 Guardian Unlimited


the finish of "your village called..."

...it's idiot is missing!

too much going on...

...and I don't mean just with the world.

Today was the first day of school, so things were more than hectic for the last week - three days of in-service with the staff and then getting everything ready for the kids today. All went exceptionally well.

We instituted a new idea of "No Rules." The teachers bought into it and we began using it with the kids. Yeah, I know you have to have rules in a school, culture or society. We're taking a different approach - "Procedures." Instead of telling the students what they can't do - think back to your school: "No running in the hallway;" " Don't hit anybody;" "No chewing gum;" etc - now we are telling the kids what the procedures are: "The procedure in the hallway is to walk in a straight line with your hands at your side or folded;" "The procedure in the lunchroom is to stay at your table unless an adult gives you permission;" etc. This way no one can say, "Well, you didn't say I couldn't skip in the hallway." Sorry, the procedure in the hallway is we walk. The procedure in the lunchroom is we stay seated unless an adult tells us it's okay to get up.

If you think about it, as adults we follow procedures all the time. The number one example is driving a car. There are procedures for everything: how to stop the car and when; how to press on the gas peddle for the speed limit; how to park a car; how to indicate a turn; etc. Laws are procedures. It's that way with everything. So we're bringing it to the kids. We'll see how it works and I'll try to keep you posted on its success.

If there were no procedures, there would be anarchism. I can't say chaos, because chaos is predictable.



Now as to the rest of the world. With everything that IS going on - Katrina, New Orleans, Rhenquist, etc. - everyone else has been commenting and talking about it. So, I've felt no need to comment. UNTIL NOW.

Buffeted by criticism over the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, President Bush said Tuesday he will oversee an investigation into what went wrong and why _ in part to be sure the country could withstand more storms or attack....

"What I intend to do is lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong," Bush said. "We still live in an unsettled world. We want to make sure we can respond properly if there is a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) attack or another major storm." breitbart.com

Can anyone say, "Special Counsel?" or "Congressional Investigation?" or "Impeachment?" Why couldn't Osama then say, "I'm putting together a special Islamic court of Mullahs to determine if the things we are doing should be considered terrorism." [Why not?]

...just asking?

fun & games...

Crooks and Liars posted a website this morning for a little fun. It's an instant personality test. Click on the link at the bottom and see who you are. This is what it said about me.

You are dignified, spiritual, and wise. Always unsatisfied, you constantly try to better yourself. You are also a seeker of knowledge and often buried in books. You tend to be philosophical, looking for the big picture in life. You dream of inner peace for yourself, your friends, and the world. A good friend, you always give of yourself first.

The World's Shortest Personality Test

...accurate?

historiographia scientifica...

An Op-Ed in today's New York Times, Show Me the Science, by Daniel C. Dennett, asks the most important question about the evolution vs intelligent design controversy. If Bush, Frist, McCain [a BIG surprise] along with the myriad of fundamentalists that want ID taught in science class as an alternative theory "Where IS the science?" to back it up. If it is science in the theory, the scientific process has to be behind it.

The question/problem is there.

The hypothesis is there.

The research/experimentation is not there.

The conclusion is serendipitous.

Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No.

The "No" comes from the use of the scientific process itself. It muddles process with product. You can't get from a to z without steps b through y. The product doesn't answer how the "designer" came up with the product or what steps the "designer" took. My car had a designer but had to employ scientific processes that involved the technique of smelting iron to mold steel, chemical formulas to create the compounds in the tires, physics to determine the coefficient of drag, etc., etc., etc. I didn't just hand over $40,000 for someone's idea, otherwise I'd be driving a Bentley Continental. [I like this "idea" better than the car [idea] I have. I just don't have $175,000!]

Intelligent design advocates, however, exploit the ambiguity between process and product that is built into the word "design." For them, the presence of a finished product (a fully evolved eye, for instance) is evidence of an intelligent design process. But this tempting conclusion is just what evolutionary biology has shown to be mistaken.

Proponents of ID do have a process, but it is not in how the design is developed. It is how they "sell" their "ideas." They are experts at intentionial, excuse me, intelligent design in promotion and propaganda!

The focus on intelligent design has, paradoxically, obscured something else: genuine scientific controversies about evolution that abound. In just about every field there are challenges to one established theory or another. The legitimate way to stir up such a storm is to come up with an alternative theory that makes a prediction that is crisply denied by the reigning theory - but that turns out to be true, or that explains something that has been baffling defenders of the status quo, or that unifies two distant theories at the cost of some element of the currently accepted view.

To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.

Does Jerry Falwell's Liberty University or Pat Robertson's Regent University offer Intelligent Design 101 in their science curricula?


...just asking?

the end....

This is the end, Beautiful friend
This is the end, My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again
Can you picture what will be, So limitless and free
Desperately in need...of some...stranger's hand
In a...desperate land
Lost in a Roman...wilderness of pain
And all the children are insane

James W. Morrison, 1943-1971

to understand is to perceive patterns.... (Isaiah Berlin)

It may seem that I support same-sex marriage from the things I have written in previous posts. I do not.

I uphold the perogative for others who wish a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way in which other groups have the ability to join in a committed contract. Marriage to me is the union of two people who decide to live together with commitment or vow - a fairly traditional view of marriage that comes from my upbringing and background. If people wish to be able to have the entitlement of marriage, it is their responsibility. I would not stand in their way. I feel the same way whether they are straight or gay. It is their decision. In fact, many close friends/family are married and I support them whole-heartedly. It is their choice to make the commitment to each other.

On the other hand, by my personal and ethical study, experience and observation, I cannot support anyone if they choose not to keep their commitments or vows - unless they state up front that they do not intend to be monogamous in their commitment or vows or decide on other conditions of the union. This does not make them bad people. It is my view and I accept it as that. I will not put that on anyone else.

I am trying very hard not to use the word "right." I don't believe that marriage is a right for either straights or gays or anyone else. I believe that it is a choice and a privilege. It is a choice because there are many people through the ages who have chosen not to marry and up until the 20th century marriage was normally an economical or class duty that in most cases was arranged. If love or commitment came into play it was usually by accident or people grew it into the marriage. Marriage for love on a mass scale was a 20th century phenomenon. It is a privilege because it is given by law, whether civil or religious.

My favorite aunt's marriage was arranged by my grandparents when she was just two years old and they were still living in Italy. When she finally married my uncle, here in the US, they had to lie about her age. They said she was 13 but she was only 12! He was 22. I have no doubt that they did love each other. They were married for over 50 years and even though my uncle was 10 years older than she, he outlived her, continually mourning her until his death. My father's parents had been married for over 50 years and my parents almost made their 50th anniversay with my father dying just months before.

At the same time, my mother and her other sister chose their own husbands as was done in the mid-twentieth century. I remember my grandmother telling the story that she and my grandfather were ultimately responsible for my aunt's "arranged" marriage, but since my mother and other aunt chose their own husbands, it was their responsibility for any problems. [Of course, my grandmother never held to this. She was supportive and helpful in any way she could be.]

The argument that most fundamentalists make is that marriage and family, as it is, has been the norm for centuries. This is historically far from the truth. Even the bible has polygamist situations. The Scriptures are clear that polygamy was, and still is today, a valid form of marriage. God, nowhere condemns such godly men as Abraham (Gen. 16:3), Jacob (Gen. 29-30), Moses (Ex. 2:16-21, Num. 12:1), Caleb (1 Chron. 2:46, 48), Gideon (Judges 8:30), or David (1 Sam. 18:27, 2 Sam. 3:2-3) for having more than one wife. Polygamy is just not acceptable anymore.

If you really think about marriage today, divorce is a form of polygamy. It is having multiple spouses, the same as polygamy, but not at the same time. It's like "serial" polygamy. [Some call it "serial" monogamy.]

When you step out of the Judeo-Christian history and idea of marriage and look into ancient Rome, there really was no sense of family until the Stoics foisted their beliefs not only on the Roman populace but the early Christian church. Ancient Romans, and Greeks for that matter, interpreted family as a political, an economical or a class practice.

Ancient Roman pater familias could adopt anyone that they wanted, even if they were older than them, as heirs. To divorce their wives, they only had to say, "I divorce you," in front of seven witnesses and the woman and her dowery would have to leave. [It may have been the first instance of "no fault" divorce.] Women could also initiate divorce if they were independent or had the support of their father who would be the only one who could institute legal reclaim of her dowery because it legally still belonged to him.

From this small background of thought you may begin to see how my view on same-sex marriage may seem contorted. I uphold people marrying but I don't think that there is any real basis for marriage to be a "right." It's a construct devised for different purposes and ends.

As far as the religious-right's argument that marriage is for procreation, there are too many instances of people who chose not to procreate or were unable to procreate - the elderly as an example. Are they upholding the concept of marriage as the religious right would have it? Probably, but not with a procreative chance. So the argument against same-sex marriage not having procreative status could be held in the same vein.

Likewise, the argument that same-sex marriage will be the cause of the destruction of the traditional family is a stretch also. First, what is a "traditional family?" That depends on the mores of the society of the moment. As I mentioned above, in Ancient Rome it was purely for economic and status reasons. In Victorian times, the major goal of the parents was to make certain that a son did not marry below his station and for a daughter to "marry-up" so she wouldn't have to live at home and be a monetary burden to the family.

What has proven to be main cause for the downfall of the traditional family is divorce. There are permutations of the family from divorce that sociologists have probably catalogued of which people are unaware. Step brothers/sisters, half brothers/sisters, step step brothers/sisters... because people repeatedly marry. There are many children's books in the library about "alternative" families with step-parents and extended family due to divorce to help children cope with all the confusion.

Extended family used to be a large family with a patriarch and/or matriarch where each member of the family had the responsibility of making certain that all members were safe and taken care of and kept together as a unit, even if not living in the same house.

When my uncle retired and moved to California, no one in my family would speak with him except his daughter and me. In an extended Italian-American family it was unheard of for any member of the family to move away from the "ancestral homestead." Unmarried children were not expected to leave their parent's house until the day of marriage - even if they were 30, 40 or 50 years old! This still happens not only in Italy but in parts of the US. Strange? No, custom.

One can cite other areas and arguments for/against same-sex marriage, but it has been done innumerable times by all sides. Going back to my beginning statement - "It may seem that I support same-sex marriage from the things I have written. I do not" - all of the things I have mentioned lead me to believe not only that same-sex marriage is not a viable option for gays but, maybe, it's no longer a viable option for anyone. That's a completely different dialogue, however.

My main reason for not supporting same-sex marriage, personally, has to do with the LGBT community. It is a community that thrives and stands for true diversity. It runs the gamut from professional sports figures to professors to businessmen/women to transvestites to blacks to latinos/latinas to committed partners to.... I could go on and on.

Rather than being the downfall of the traditional family, marriage may be the possible demise of the diversity that is so strongly held in the LGBT community. In no other segment of society has diversity been so freely embraced. True, just as in other segments of the population, this diversity is frowned upon and put down by some members of the LGBT community, but I have not found the numbers as in other segments of the population who do not support diversity.

The LGBT community has struggled for years for its own identity. Stonewall was the visible beginning of the struggle. Pride events do not, in my mind, celebrate LGBT as much as the diversity for which it stands. I fear that in the pursuit of acceptance by the mainstream population [ie straights] the LGBT community may swing too far away from its encompassing diversity. Marriage in the "traditional" sense for gays could be viewed as a wish to be the same as everyone else. This is a false argument not only for the LGBT community but for all of mankind.

We are the same in our differences.

Again, I support the perogative for others who wish a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way in which other groups have the ability to join in a committed contract - be it a civil or religious committed marriage or union.

There was a time I wanted to be in a committed relationship with someone but it didn't work out for many reasons. However, I never really imagined myself in a "legal" or "quasi-legal" marriage or union. First, at that time it wasn't even a glimmer of hope and no one contemplated the movement that is happening today. Second, I never thought that as a species it is in humans to be in the type of "traditional" marriage that evolved in the 20th century or as fundamentalists insist upon.

As I tried to show above, at different times in history "marriage" had different reasons behind it but only one purpose: the continuation of the species. Yet, there were groups and individuals who did not and do not wish to procreate, for example the Essenes, Vestal Virgins, Roman Catholic priests, many modern couples today, etc. Societies have always acknowledged and accepted them as non-procreators by choice. It is not a giant leap to accept same-sex individuals into this group, nor should it be difficult to see individuals and couples of any orientation wanting to ensure the species' continuation by adoption or IVF if they themselves cannot procreate for whatever reason.

At this point in my life I don't see myself in a marriage or civil union, especially at my age. However, as Katherine Hepburn playing Eleanor of Aquitaine in The Lion in Winter said...

"In a world where carpenters get resurrected, anything is possible..."

now, god hates sweden...

After Pat Robertson called for the assasination of Venezuela's President Chavez, Fred Phelps is starting an international brouhaha by starting a new website called "God Hates Sweden." Between the two of them, the rest of the world may start asking who are the real religious-fascists.

Anti-gay preacher Fred Phelps has caused an international royal gay flap over accusations that Sweden's King Carl Gustaf is gay.... Phelps' site calls Sweden "a land of sodomy, bestiality, and incest", and goes on to say: "The King looks like an anal-copulator, & his grinning kids look slutty & gay."Fred Phelps' 'Swedish King Is Gay' Tirade at 365gay.com.

Now, I have first-hand, well maybe second-hand, knowledge about this. An old friend, who is Swedish, schooled with Carl Gustaf, competed with him in the Olympics, and was friends with him. Quite a number of years ago, this friend told us a number of stories about His Royal Highness and, trust me, his behaviors, if the stories are true [and I have no doubts], are truly, positively NOT gay.

The Swedish government has lodged a complaint with the American ambassador in Sweden, but it probably will go nowhere. The king and his family have spoken with their lawyers, but there probably is nothing they can do because of First Amendment rights in the US that Phelps knows inside-out. The site and its content have infuriated Swedes who have a close bond with their royal family.

Although Phelps could be prosecuted in Sweden it is doubtful he could be extradited. Phelps intends to picket the King on September 5th in Stockholm. If he goes, there may be no need for extradition. Sweden has "promotion of hate" laws. They might be able to take care of the problem for us.


...and I refuse to link to Phelp's webpage!

power and tragedy...

I posted this entry on my other weblog, existential chaos, but thought it would also be appropriate here with all of the dialogues, debates and pronouncements being made today not only in the U.S. but across the world. A lot seems to be hinging and hanging on spirituality and religion that is happening in the world but, as in the previous post, it is a redundancy as people entrench themselves in their redoubts.

"The Church is precisely that against which Jesus preached and against what he taught his disciples to fight".

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, 1901, 168

"Christianity is still possible at any time. It is not tied to any of the impudent dogmas that have adorned themselves with its name: it requires neither the doctrine of a personal God, nor that of sin, nor that of immortality, nor that of redemption, nor that of faith; it has absolutely no need of metaphysics, and even less of asceticism, even less of a Christian "natural science". Christianity is a way of life, not a system of beliefs. It tells us how to act, not what we ought to believe."

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, 1901, 212

"For this is how religions tend to die: the mythic premises of a religion are systematized, beneath the stern and intelligent eyes of an orthodox dogmatism, into a fixed sum of historical events; one begins nervously defending the veracity of myths, at the same time resisting their continuing life and growth. The feeling for myths dies and is replaced by religious claims to foundations in history."

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, 1872, 10

"Tales of My death have been greatly exaggerated" as God might say... Yet the essential nature of Nietzsche's critique here remains sound. We do indeed see myths taken too seriously, we see 'religion' perverted into a form of 'control-freakery' with no freedom of belief, of thought, of possible progress, a denial even of knowledge and science itself. This strangulation of religious thought, this total rejection of evolution or change in any form, destroys free-will, that supposed 'special' gift of God to humans. It thus rejects God in itself, whilst pretending otherwise. Thus it wasn't Nietzsche who killed God, but the fundamentalists, who rejected (and still do) the beauty of His creation - the world-in-itself. It is if we have presented to us a 'mystery play', which is repeated, endlessly, without the slightest variation or emotion by the most wooden of actors - who could possibly love that ? If God has no real followers, then He must, inevitably, wither away...

CALResCo Complexity Writings, "The Will to Power" by Chris Lucas

...1872, ...1901, ...or 2005?

nothing ≠ something...

...again.

Everything seems to be as usual. Reading the news, reading blogs, observing things going on around us all seems to be a replay of things that have all happened before. Different names. Different places. Different happenings. Same old, same old.

If there had been a comcast.net back in the first millenium, what would the headlines have been? On today's comcast.net home page the number one story is "Bush Compares Iraq to World Wars."

In A.D. 476 it would have been "Western Roman empire ends as Odoacer, German chieftain, overthrows last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus, and becomes king of Italy"

conflict...

Another headline today is "Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuela's president."

In A.D. 54, the headline would have been "Claudius poisoned, succeeded by Nero."

power...

One more headline today is "Last Jewish Settlers Leave Gaza Strip"

In A.D. 637, the headline would have been "Arabs conquer Jerusalem"

redundancy...

Can someone tell me how we are more civilized than the first millenium?


just asking...

liberty and justice for all...

I've been wont to make reference to the Founding Father's thoughts to the writing of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, & the Bill of Rights through other sources, including the Federalist Papers, Thomas Jefferson's private letters, etc. Though to me, it is clear that all of them desired a form of government that ensured that citizen's had their personal rights protected from the circumstances of the times in which they lived, they went beyond this with the foresight to understand that for the government to continue and the people to be safe it had to be a living, growing and evolving entity.

They did not want to limit the power of the people but realized that power directly in the hands of the people was impossible in such a varied and large community as the Thirteen Colonies/states. [What would they think of 50!] Franklin, Madison, et. al. decided that the best solution would be a representative government with a system of checks and balances built into the government so that no one person or group could become sole proprietor of the governing process, hence the executive, legislative and judiciary branches were devised.

The Founding Fathers hoped that with an organization like this the liberties of the people could be preserved, expanded and evolved with an assurance that the tyranny of the one or few could not take hold.

Their work is presupposed on one word: liberty. The Oxford American Dictionary definition is "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views...." As a straight forward definition it is fairly succinct. The government the Founding Father's conceived, however, is not a one-way street. It also declares that the citizens have responsibilities.

The major duty of the people to the success of the government and, consequently, the society of the country is to protect the rights of others in order to safeguard their own liberty.

Thomas Jefferson defined it in the "Declaration of The Rights of Man and The Citizen" as: "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."
How did the founding fathers define liberty and freedom?