How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Fair....and slightly unbalanced???   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Fair....and slightly unbalanced???

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


50 posted 11-23-2009 06:03 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

“I can think of where the outcome of this is anything close to good – apart from  my earlier suggestion – let someone else, preferably a Muslim, find him guilty.

At which a significant portion of the Muslim world would take insult
unless the charge be justifiable homicide, ( a quarter of Muslims surveyed
in England consider the attacks there justified).

And why do we continue to evade the proud and open admission of
responsibility on the part of the accused as if it were beyond our Western
brains to comprehend?


“Our Constitution already gave him that platform, Mike”

Not true at all.  This is a recent novelty, as more than one
commentator, (or do I have post more articles by reputable authority),
has pointed out.

Or maybe the difference is because, as Whoopi
would say, it isn't war war.

.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTFhMDhhZTc4NmZjZmFkYWQzMjQwMTAxZjg5NTllOTI=


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


51 posted 11-23-2009 06:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Really, Ron? I couldn't find anywhere in the constitution where it says trials should be televised.....maybe I missed it?  

Couldn't find Miranda in there, either. She must be hiding...

What we have is a jury-rigged version of the original constitution and the intents of the founders.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


52 posted 11-23-2009 07:49 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Who said anything about televised, Mike? The Sixth Amendment provides for "a speedy and public trial," which is the platform every accused is entitled to under law. If you want to talk about how big that platform should be, you should have said so up front.

And, of course, if you want to talk about the intent of the founders, we can do that, too. They didn't know much about television, but they did know a bit about convicting people behind closed doors and the political dangers of too much secrecy. Personally, I suspect they believed that power, especially the power to imprison or even kill, should always be tempered by public scrutiny. What do YOU think was their intent?


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


53 posted 11-23-2009 08:12 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

     Jury-rigged version?  Miranda?  Televised trials?

      Presumably this line of thinking was available to you when warrantless wire-tapping became standard operating procedure.  Where were you when it became the President's prerogative to classify anybody as an enemy alien and have them thrown in jail, and when torture became standard practice in military operations.  Your notion of constitutional protection is so partisan that it no longer functions as constitution protection, only as a mechanism for political advantage.

     Televised trials?

     Judges have always had discretion as to how open a trial would be, and have often chosen to allow maximum openness.  Scopes drew reporters from all over the world.
The trial of John Wilkes Booth and the various others that were crammed into the notion of the conspiracy around that assassination was reported in Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly and in other large news organs of the time.  If anything, the coverage was far more sensational than it would be today.

     If the horror of the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center  Bombers doesn't spring vividly to mind, that's because the trial was reasonably well managed, and there were no horrible incidents.  It was just a grinding and uncomfortable trial about awful stuff.

     If the judge televises the trial, the judge needs to manage the trial appropriately.  That's the case whether there's TV involved or not.  If the fact that the United States tortured KSM plays a very large part in things, the US is going to look bad in the eyes of the world.  Duh.  Did you think it was going to help us when we went to trial?  Of course it's going to make it hard for people to believe in what we say or do; we haven't been acting like Americans, we've been acting like terrorists ourselves.  Also Duh.  Bad behavior may have bad consequences, even when it's the good guys who act badly.  And there are people about who don't think we're the good guys.

     The issue doesn't have to do with whether the trial is televised, it's the element of truth in what the criminals will have to say that's troubling.  

     Miranda isn't in the constitution. . .

     You've got me there, Mike.  Miranda isn't in the Constitution.  However, the fifth ammendment, from which Miranda is derived is.  Apparently the fact that once detained, you are in the clutches of the judicial system is not something that the police have ever decided to make clear to those that they have arrested for some odd reason, and that the right to self incrimination actually applies once you have been detained.  It applies to all varieties of potential self incrimination, though not to such things as DNA samples, blood tests and so on.  S-o-o-o-o-o, Miranda actually is in the Constitution in the form of the Fifth Ammendment.  It’s simply that the police for a very long time have forgotten to let people know that the fifth ammendment applies to all levels of judicial encounters.  The police do have a right to ask your name, address and date of birth, but beyond that silence is your right.

     Right to counsel has been extended from Federal, capital crimes downward, but not all states supply them for all offenses.  Alaska, for example, may supply them only for very large cases.

     I think the issue is that forgetful police seem to find themselves reminded that their custom is not the same as the law, and that there is a certain amount of upset about that.  Had the police been a bit more alert about this sort of thing, I suspect there would be no need for a Miranda warning.  I may be wrong, however, since there seem to be equivalents in Canada, England and Australia.  Perhaps it’s simply a protection that folks believe it’s civil to enjoy.  At any rate, it seems to be in the Fifth Ammendment over here.

     Jury Rigged version means that you simply don’t like the document and you’d feel happier if the thing was rewritten your way by the people that you think ought to do it.  I say it’s a deeply offensive document and was written to be that way, granting maximum liberty even to the people you least agree with, who should know well enough to think like you do, which is the way any right thinking person ought to think anyway.  That Is something we may be able to agree upon.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


54 posted 11-23-2009 10:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Presumably this line of thinking was available to you when warrantless wire-tapping became standard operating procedure.

No, Bob, that line of thinking was available to me while I sat, watching criminals, even murderers go free, because they were not read their rights properly. It was available when I saw a man go free because he ran outside with the police chasing him, threw a murder weapon into the back of a trash dumpster and, when the police pulled it out without getting a search warrant first, it was disallowed in court. I daresay that, if the founders of the constitution could see what we have done with their system, they would be shaking their heads in disbelief.

we haven't been acting like Americans, we've been acting like terrorists ourselves.

Yes, there are people who don't think we are the goods guys. Apparently, you are one of them.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


55 posted 11-23-2009 10:38 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

The thing I like most about this conversation Grinch is that I'm not spending all my time attempting to clarify facts.

quote:

The trick Ron is not to make enemies in the first place.



There is a fact that I would remind you of -- with which you would certainly agree. The mess the U.S. and the U.K. are in right now is a direct result of the British Empire's decay and the wake of badly managed foreign policy in setting up and dealing with it's remnants around the globe.  (and there was a specific and significant event in 1776 I can think of that had a great shaping on the U.S. and it's attitude toward open courts and civil liberties)

It really isn't even a process that's yet done:

quote:

The recent revelations coming out of the Mabey and Johnson corruption proceeding in the UK has reaffirmed my long held convictions, that the British people are nothing but hypocrites. A brief examination of British relations with their colonies, especially those in Africa, will back my assertions.

As a people, the British love to reap where they have not sown. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. They love to preach virtue while practicing vice. They run with the hounds while chasing the hares. The British came to Africa with Bibles in one hand, alcohol in the other hand, and guns hidden under their tunics. While the natives welcomed them with open arms, the British were plotting to steal and enslave them. In short they came to deceive, pillage, kill, and loot to enrich their motherland. In Ghana (Gold Coast) they built rail links directly to the main sources of raw materials (cocoa, gold, bauxite, timber, etc) and neglected the rest of the country. I am sure the early and latter day explorers convinced themselves that they were in Africa to bring light to a dark continent.

The British championed and actively supported the slave trade. When it became politically incorrect to support the slave trade, the British changed their tune and fought against the very system they had propagated. PM Callaghan, Thatcher, and others before them were the number one defenders of the racist South African regime known as Apartheid. This was a system that treated black South Africans as second class citizens in their own land. I remember Thatcher in particular vehemently and dogmatically opposing imposition of sanctions on the racist South African regime. Her hollow argument being that it will bring untold hardship on the black majority. Her real motive however, was to protect British investments in South Africa. When the tide turned and Mandela was freed, Britain was the first country to extend an invitation for him to visit their shores.

One will ask; all this is in the past, the British of today are very different from their ancestors? Nope. They are the same two-faced goody-goody phonies. The hypocritical British lead by PM Blair was the only other major power to support G. W. Bush in his murderous rampage across Iraq. Now that the Brits have lost their influential role among the world’s elite, they love to hang on to the coattails of the Americans to feel relevant. When British defense firm BAE was accused of bribery and corruption in the Al Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia, the SFO of UK was ordered to stop its’ investigation. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith declared that the decision to drop the probe was made in the wider public interest, which had to be balanced against the rule of law. When is corruption in public interest and when is it against public interest. Corruption is corruption. Whether it is by Africans, Jamaicans, or Americans; whether it is by Anglicans, Episcopals, Catholics, or Protestants, it is still corruptions. Only the hypocritical British can qualify corruption in the name of public interest. http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=172143



quote:

The world is still only receiving trickled news of the British take-over of Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean, though it commenced on August 14, 2009. The British take-over was executed under the authority of Great Britain's Commission of Enquiry report, concluding that the earlier government of Michael Misick bred a climate of fear among its citizens.

Many countries around the world have condemned Britain's actions citing their discontent with colonialism. Prior to August 14, 2009, Turks and Caicos Islands had its own constitution and government which is now "suspended," for what Great Britain says will be a period of at least two years.

What makes this a sensitive subject is not necessarily that Great Britain seized the government of Turks and Caicos, alleging corruption by then Premiere Misick, but that a newly elected government had been installed since March, following Misick's resignation. Galmo Williams had been the newly elected Premiere for five months prior to Britain's take-over. By all accounts, world governments found Great Britain's move to be excessive and improper.

The United Nations' Special Committee for Decolonisation has released its report dated September 23, 2009, entitled: Report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2009. In the report, section X (4), the United Nations addresses Turks and Caicos Islands' direct rule by Great Britain and specifically calls for, "restoration of constitutional arrangements providing for representative democracy through elected territorial Government as soon as possible."

On October 6, 2009, The United Nations published its declaration with respect to eradicating colonialism, "Eradication Colonialism Requires Fresh, Concrete, Creative Impetus." This document affirms the United Nations "Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001-2010)."

Generally, The United Nations condemns colonialism by Great Britain and it has made several resolutions and declarations to that end. But it has also specifically addressed the British take over of the Turks and Caicos Islands of August 14, 2009, as improper.

Furthermore, a team of international attorneys working on behalf of Turks and Caicos argued to The United Nations that the suspension of Turks and Caicos' constitution, "contravenes European Union law."

Among the most outspoken of Great Britain's critics in this regard is CARICOM, a multi-nation Caribbean governmental body whose mission is to "provide dynamic leadership and service, in partnership with Community institutions and Groups, toward the attainment of a viable, internationally competitive and sustainable Community..." CARICOM is said to be a type of United Nations of the Caribbean. http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/world-nations-condemn-great-britains-direct/



quote:

You seemed to be finding it difficult to understand that asking an English atheist which legal system she trusted was a pointless question – I already explained that people naturally place the most trust in their own systems and that Muslims were no different in that regard,



I'd say that you need to talk to the Muslims then in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia who are very dissatisfied with the unfairness of their own governments. While I would agree most people would say there is no place like home -- we seem to have a problem with people who say with their feet that they don't want to be at home at all.

quote:

You still seem to be missing the point Reb. You can be as fair as fair can be, you can follow as close to the letter of the law as you like, you could get the Pope and his brother to swear on a stack of bibles that everything was above board but most Muslims simply won’t believe you. There’s nothing you can do or say to change the fact that some people don’t trust anything that Americans say or do any more, the sad thing is that that way of thinking isn’t restricted to Muslims. I’m not sure if you actually realise how much the actions of your country over the past few years has damaged your image outside America.



You'll get no argument from me that damage has been done -- but I will in no way agree that damage is permanent -- any more than the permanence of enemies.  

The way back from that damage is to do the right thing and keep doing the right thing until our reputation is what it should be, and should have been.

I know what your point is -- but it isn't a viable point.  Therefore -- it is pointless.

quote:

The consensus of opinion from the people I’ve asked, both Muslim and non-Muslim, is that KSM will be found guilty whether he’s guilty or not and there’s no way you can change that perception over the short term.



And what would that perception be if we tried KSM in the military tribunal in which he was already prepared to enter a guilty plea?

What would be the perception if we just kept Gitmo open and never tried the 'detainees' at all -- and just let them languish there forever?

I'm pretty sure Muslims are good at geography.  They know that America isn't at Gitmo -- but they also know that the American's were holding the detainees at Gitmo -- and blowing up Gitmo wouldn't get them anything -- they'd have to come here to make mayhem -- right?

Trying KSM in New York is no more and quite probably less dangerous than trying him at Gitmo.

The more I think about it -- I rather do hope that KSM's testimony will be televised.  The Muslim world will then be able to see what they can't see in their own system -- freedom of speech.... No matter what KSM says -- the medium will be the message.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


56 posted 11-23-2009 10:44 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Really, Ron? I couldn't find anywhere in the constitution where it says trials should be televised.....maybe I missed it?  

Couldn't find Miranda in there, either. She must be hiding...




Aside from Bob's adept interpretation of Miranda's constitutionality based upon the 5th amendment -- the explicit element that you keep missing Mike is the Supreme Court -- the founders meant for the Supreme Court to interpret and apply the laws written by the Congress and Signed by the President.

They knew their work wasn't done.  They knew that our representative democratic republic was (and is) a work in progress.  And I'm pretty sure that all the African Americans you know are glad that they're no longer counted as 3/5ths of a person!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


57 posted 11-23-2009 11:00 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:


Bob to Mike:

Presumably this line of thinking was available to you when warrantless wire-tapping became standard operating procedure.

Mike to Bob:

No,Bob. . .




     Apparently you believe that the constitution only applies during Democratic administrations.  This is as many Democrats have feared.

     I don't know who you think the framers of the constitution may have been, but they were pretty clearly not fans of police powers.  Nor. for that matter, did they glorify the military.  Your version of the framers seems to be the opposite of those who made it clear that they wanted no standing army, and who wanted to make search and seizure a matter of some difficulty — so difficult, in fact, that they specifically put that thing in the constitution.  They knew how easily police powers could be abused, and the fact that you're in sympathy with the police wouldn't have made you Mr. Popularity with them.  

     I suspect that if the founders had seen the damage to the protections they tried to build into the constitution, they'd be shaking their heads in disbelief.  As far as I understand it, police were responsible personally for any damage done to a place that they had to search until late in the 19th century, and that they could be and were sued for damages if they weren't careful.  That's the sort of thing that the constitution intended, near as I understand it.  The people were supposed to have some protection against the depredations of the police.

     I suspect that the framers would be shocked indeed, though not in the way you imagine.

     And your "no" is clearly not true.  A rhetorical flourish designed to suggest that your concern is actually for the constitution.  If it were for the constitution, you'd be howling already at some of the stuff that's been going on during the Republican administrations, when you though that inroads against civil liberties were just swell, and even looked for ways of suggesting that torture wasn't really unpleasant:  That would have had the framers of the constitution rolling in their graves, with their clear injunctions against cruel and unusual punishment.

     So, basically, No, Mike.  I think not.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


58 posted 11-23-2009 11:23 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

A rhetorical flourish designed to suggest that your concern is actually for the constitution.

Well, you pegged me, Bob. I have no concern for the constitution or civil rights or the country. I tried to hide it so well...for example, by not suggesting Americans are terrorists..but you found me out anyway. Nice going.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


59 posted 11-24-2009 03:24 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


quote:

I tried to hide it so well...for example, by not suggesting Americans are terrorists..but you found me out anyway. Nice going.



     Q.E.D.

     If you'd actually been concerned, you wouldn't have been defending your political party, you would have been screaming about the violations to the constitution.  The second we started torturing folks, we crossed the line.  The second we started making excuses for it, we became hypocrites.  Not suggesting Americans are terrorists  when we act like terrorists by torturing innocent civilians and manufacturing excuses first to go to war and then to continue in that war is a betrayal of all that's just and lawful in our system of government.

     I don't care who's doing the torture, it's all wrong.

     I don't even want to find you out.  

     What makes you think that Americans are exempt from thinking and acting like terrorists, for goodness sake?  And why would you want to defend actions that you know will give us an international black eye because they'd give anybody an international black eye, like waterboarding prisoners?  All of a sudden you have to be proud to drown people to make them confess to anything you want them to confess to?  I don't share that pride and righteousness.

     The people who do share that pride and righteousness, ironically enough, are the very people you want to torture and kill, should you ever succeed in accurately identifying them in sufficient numbers to make it worth the time and effort.  They feel the same way about us.

     Who started this chicken and egg game, I have no idea.

     Nice going?

     If speaking the truth as clearly as I can see it is nice going, then thank you very much.

     I am certain, by the way, that you have some concerns for civil rights and the constitution.  I would not suggest otherwise.  Yet you have been quick to advocate giving away privacy rights, and you side with the police powers when it comes to many constitutional protections.  Search and seizure comes to mind in the example you gave about the guy tossing the gun.  It's not supposed to be easy to put somebody in jail here, yet we have proportionately more prisoners than virtually anyplace else in the world.  That is not a great advertisement for freedom, yet I don't hear you express anything but frustration that there aren't more people in jail, and that it isn't easier to put people there.

     I think this is not the intention of the Framers, frankly, and am somewhat stunned to think that you do.
    
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


60 posted 11-24-2009 07:56 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

A rhetorical flourish designed to suggest that your concern is actually for the constitution.

I am certain, by the way, that you have some concerns for civil rights and the constitution.  I would not suggest otherwise.


Yet that's exactly what you did, Bob.

Not suggesting Americans are terrorists  when we act like terrorists by torturing innocent civilians and manufacturing excuses first to go to war and then to continue in that war is a betrayal of all that's just and lawful in our system of government.

I don't recall where we tortured innocent civilians but then my memory isn't what it used to be. Manufacturing excuses to go to war? I'm surprised  you would speak that way against the Democrats - you know, the Kennedys , Clintons and others in Congress who called for war against Iraq in the late 1990's.

All of a sudden you have to be proud to drown people to make them confess to anything you want them to confess to?  I don't share that pride and righteousness.

No, Bob, what you share in is using isolated incidents and painting our military in the worst possible light. I don't recall anyone being drowned, do you? Waterboarded? Yes, in very isolated incidents, which Pelosi was fully informed of and didn't object to. You may recall lately that her denial of that was shot down immediately. So that's why they were waterboarded? To get confessions out of them, even if they were innocent? Your disdain for our military reeks with every statement you make, Bob. If you had ever been a part of it perhaps you would be able to see things in a different light, who knows?

Yet you have been quick to advocate giving away privacy rights,

Really? Have your privacy rights been given away? I certainly advocate giving away suspected terrorist privacy rights, such as monitoring calls and e-mails going to terrorist organizations overseas. That's called logical and reasonable, Bob. You must be referring to the Patriot Act, which Democrats voted for and Obama has not rescinded. WHy not? Because it's prudent and logical, regardless of what you think. Our latest group of terrorists who planned to blow up buildings in the US were found out by those same measures. Perhaps they should sue for violation of their rights as terrorists?

yet we have proportionately more prisoners than virtually anyplace else in the world.  

Ask yourself why sometime, Bob? Why so many criminals in this Utopia the founding fathers created? You could be surprised at the answer, although you would not acknowledge it, I'm sure.

I think this is not the intention of the Framers, frankly, and am somewhat stunned to think that you do.

Then you are easily stunned, Bob? You don't know the intention of the framers any more than I do but I think they would be aghast at what we have done to the judicial system they originally set up...but, then again, I think they would be as equally shocked to see Christmas trees replaced by Holiday trees and carols being banned from school plays...so what do I know?

Yes, I understand that, in your eyes, all of the woes that have  beset the country come from Bush and the Republicans. I can envision your wife waking you up in the morning with a "Good morning, honey" and your response being "Yes, it is, no thanks to Bush". It would have been interesting to see what your attitude would have been if Bush had been a Democrat, employing the same actions. I have a feeling there would have been a great transformation there, from goat to savior....just a guess.
    
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


61 posted 11-24-2009 02:13 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/223862/page/1

QED


.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


62 posted 11-24-2009 02:53 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

I think they would be aghast at what we have done to the judicial system they originally set up...but, then again, I think they would be as equally shocked to see Christmas trees replaced by Holiday trees and carols being banned from school plays...so what do I know?



Apparently a lot of misguided information about the founders and Christmas trees...I doubt most of them even heard of one:

quote:

Several cities in the United States with German connections lay claim to that country's first Christmas tree: Windsor Locks, Connecticut, claims that a Hessian soldier put up a Christmas tree in 1777 while imprisoned at the Noden-Reed House, while the "First Christmas Tree in America" is also claimed by Easton, Pennsylvania, where German settlers purportedly erected a Christmas tree in 1816. In his diary, Matthew Zahm of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, recorded the use of a Christmas tree in 1821—leading Lancaster to also lay claim to the first Christmas tree in America.[11] Other accounts credit Charles Follen, a German immigrant to Boston, for being the first to introduce to America the custom of decorating a Christmas tree.[12] August Imgard, a German immigrant living in Wooster, Ohio, is the first to popularise the practice of decorating a tree with candy canes. In 1847, Imgard cut a blue spruce tree from a woods outside town, had the Wooster village tinsmith construct a star, and placed the tree in his house, decorating it with paper ornaments and candy canes. The National Confectioners' Association officially recognises Imgard as the first ever to put candy canes on a Christmas tree; the canes were all-white, with no red stripes. Imgard is buried in the Wooster Cemetery, and every year, a large pine tree above his grave is lit with Christmas lights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree#18th_and_19th_century



It actually didn't take that long for at least one founder to be aghast at the Supreme Court -- that was Thomas Jefferson - who was immediately incensed that these nine people were going to be ultimately in control of his hard-crafted legislation.

But that was the intent of the founders -- and that's what they wrote in the constitution.

They were also not so much Christians (and not so worried about Christmas) and vehemently against any establishment of religion -- so -- they would have been aghast that children ever sang carols in public schools to begin with.

quote:

I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not
forgotten.  On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it,
that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present
dispose of.  I have a view of the subject which ought to displease
neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many
to a character they have too hastily rejected.  I do not know that it
would reconcile the _genus irritabile vatum_ who are all in arms
against me.  Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be
softened.  The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it
possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the
prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which,
while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom
of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of
obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro'
the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one,
every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians
& Congregationalists.  The returning good sense of our country
threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of
power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes.
And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god,
eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their
opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets
against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison,
&c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to
rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison,
for they are men of truth.
Letter from Thomas Jefferson To Dr. Benjamin Rush - Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


63 posted 11-26-2009 04:25 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


“The War on Terror is also heating up again. Fairly or not, the Fort Hood massacre sent the message that the United States is more worried about appearing politically correct in matters of diversity than about hunting down radical Islamists on its home soil. Those who seek to copy what happened at Fort Hood will be encouraged. And those charged with stopping them will be discouraged and confused.

Such uncertainty was reinforced by the attorney general’s decision to try the architects of 9/11 in federal courts in New York City. At best, the confessed mass-murderer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will lecture the United States. At worst, one sympathetic juror could find the monster only 99 percent guilty, and therefore the court might fail to convict him of planning the murders of 3,000 innocent people.”


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTM2ZGFjNTFlMDc2YzRjOWUyOTJmMjNlMTY5YWI4ZGQ=

So no one can pretend . . .

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


64 posted 11-27-2009 03:27 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     That certainly could be the case.  If it is, we should stand ready immediately to blame it on somebody else and not keep open minds as to why such a look at why such a thing might happen.  It is our quickness to blame others that keeps us in our leadership position in world affairs.  And it is publications such as The National Review that enable us to maintain that lead.  Why already it has determined that it is likely that our laws are not enough, and that we must go beyond our system of laws to deal with the terrible threat from within represented by the Tories, I mean slaves, no I mean copperheads, perhaps it's the german third column, no, maybe the Spanish.  Well, whoever they are.

     We must immediately throw our system of government into the sewer so that we can meet this latest threat.  Thank goodness, The National Review has alerted us to this danger posed by the Semites in our midst.  We must act post-haste.  Thanks, Huan-Yi.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


65 posted 11-27-2009 12:03 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Also, John, if I understand your posting commenting on Newsweek correctly — and I may not — I find the Iranian's behavior as disgusting as I would find the behavior of any other torturer.  It reflects very badly on him and his country, and, as you've no doubt noticed, makes anything the Iranians say or do very difficult to trust.  It also shows exactly how misinformed that man and perhaps many Iranians are about American culture.  The notions about western women I have heard from both occasional Muslim men and also from women who have dated Muslim men from time to time.  Especially Muslim men who haven't spent time in the states or in Europe, where these notions are often disproven fairly quickly.

     The gulf is not simply unidirectional.  That is, it's not only Americans who misunderstand middle eastern Muslims.  It seems that the same holds true in reverse.  The problem is that each of us believes that the other side has the problem instead of seeing that the problem is mutual.

     I'm told that the sexist approach that Muslim men take to western women can frequently be remedied by the woman using a few sharp words of Arabic, which seems to set things straight fairly quickly, makes the guy come up short and gives an attitude adjustment.  Whether this is true everywhere, I don't know; but I dated a woman once for a couple of years who swore by it.

     Torture is vile no matter who does it; of course that means Iranians.  I hope Mr. Rosewater's face falls off.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


66 posted 11-27-2009 05:38 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I still get confused about the Christmas tree controversies, LR.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is now open for Christmas.

First lady Michelle Obama, along with daughters Malia and Sasha, received the official White House Christmas tree on Friday: an 18 1/2-foot Douglas fir delivered from a farm in Shepherdstown, W.Va., by traditional horse-drawn carriage. Growers Eric and Gloria Sundback officially presented it to the family.

THE OVAL: Holiday leftovers

It's the fourth time one of the Sundback's trees has been selected for the White House.

The tree is destined for the Blue Room, where scores of volunteers will decorate it. The tree will be the star attraction of Christmas at the White House, seen by thousands of people at holiday parties and on public tours of the executive mansion.

Next Thursday, the Obamas will flip a switch to light the National Christmas Tree on the Ellipse.


So we can have a national Christmas tree but not a town Christmas tree? SO the White House, which I feel is a government building, can have a Christmas tree but the town square in front of city halls have to have "holiday" trees, at best?

I feel fairly confident there may even be Christmas carols sung in and/or around the White House...but schools can't?

It gets a little confusing to me....as does most of life
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


67 posted 11-28-2009 03:59 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     About the White House and Christmas trees, I find myself confused as well, Mike.  I suppose it's because it may be a publicly owned building, and yet remains a private residence as well.  I wonder what would happen if Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Taoists or Buddhists were elected, and that family wanted to celebrate their religious holidays in The White House?  I suspect the issue might suddenly become very very important in some quarters, but I really don't know.

     What do you think?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


68 posted 11-28-2009 08:41 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I'd have a hard time buying that it is a private residence and not a government building, Bob or even that, since people live there as a private residence in a government building, that it would be exempt from rules the rest of the nation is expected to follow.

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't want to see the White House not have a Christmas tree but I would like to see any government building or park or school have that same right.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


69 posted 11-28-2009 11:38 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I grew up annoyed that my tradition was never represented in the America of my era.  In school, I had to say The Lord's Prayer and watch Christmas pageants and celebrate Easter and Christmas with parties at school.  Every time I mentioned what the Jewish holidays might have been I either got complete puzzlement or punched in the face because apparently I'd killed Christ.  Try as I might, I could never remember doing that.

     As I got older, and my practice became more agnostic and then more Taoist, I found out that the framers were not the sort of guys that would have agreed with the practice that went on in my Canton, Ohio public Schools.  They were 18th Century rationalists, very much against any sort of government celebration of religion, let alone celebration of Christian religion.  If you wanted to celebrate religion on your own, that was fine; but it wasn't fine to bring it into the governmental sphere.  Franklin wanted to encourage Mosques.  I think mostly because he liked to do outrageous things, but also because that was very much the sort of thing he had in mind.  No religious favoritism, and none certainly to Christianity or to any one particular brand of Christianity.

     The country hasn't developed that way, and the folks, even during the times of the framers didn't particularly like that decision.  There were intrigues.  L.R. included some information on some of that stuff somewhere not to long ago, I believe.  The Framers didn't take the popular position on this issue.  It was another one of their positions which provided a great deal of offense to a lot of people.  The Framers, however, were taking a different view, not a popular view, and it remains as offensive in some ways today as it did then.  They weren't trying to be inoffensive.  They took a philosophical position and made whatever compromises they had to make to forge the constitution for a country out of it.  If they'd have gone too much one way, they'd have alienated the south, too much the other, they'd have alienated the north, and if they'd have been to open to religion in general, they would have betrayed some of their own principles.  Not too Catholic, not too Protestant, and not having any power over government policy.  More reason than religion wherever possible because they were readers of Locke and Rousseau.

     I like a Christmas tree a lot, these days.  My wife and I put one up, and we frequently have people over for the holiday, and we enjoy that particular tradition.  I even enjoy the scene at the White House because I think of it as this election cycle's crop of Christians sharing the family experience with those who want to share it.  If I thought that it was other than that, I'd be upset.  We're not supposed to be a Christian nation.  We're supposed to be a Free nation, which means that we get to choose and nobody is supposed to give us a hard time about it.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


70 posted 11-29-2009 05:30 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Well we’ve managed to evade the subject again haven’t we?
Here’s an idea: let’s put both Christ and Mohamed on display
in urine at the National Gallery for the holidays
and see which draws the most planes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ



.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


71 posted 11-29-2009 06:39 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     How are you going to tell the difference between the extremists, John?  Can't tell the players without a program, can you?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Fair....and slightly unbalanced???   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors