A Moment of Silence

So you want a moment of silence?
But for how long?
Till we are left speechless
Till our tongues are snatched from our mouths
Should we remain silent forever?
Or just long enough to hunger
Ourselves to death
//
Silence prevails spectation
Where time shall come
when eyes speak, hands speak with lips sealed
.....
A Moment of silence for deaths in London Tube explosions.

Re: # 62

Ozer......you really need help.Listen, it`s a matter of time before the yanks lower the money supply into that worthless island of yours and then we`ll see you and your kind singing an entirely different tune.And, that`s after you pack your bags and are herded into ships headed for where you or your ancestors came from.The limeys have done it before, they`ll do it again and remember....it is american money that`s keeping it going on in your neck of the woods.Ok, so who bailed out land Rover??...a pop quiz for you....the answer my friend is blowing in the wind.

Re: # 71 {``..............you find all sorts of libertarian fools on the ``right`` who make clinton look like atilla the hun ...........``}

You must be a neo-con to make an irresponsible statement like this. Libertarians` are perhaps the most sensible ideas on the American political spectrum today. Its the Democraps and the Rip-pubicans that are eroding the foundations of Liberty on which this great Republic was founded and managed quite well until the STATISTS started meddling more and more with civil society. With their dreaded agendas of Welfare State and Warfare State, respectively, they are killing the enterprising spirit that once made America great. Perversely, today Russia and China are more enterprise friendly than America. By enterprise I mean individual enterprise, not mega corporate oligopolistic practices. Try starting a small business in America these days. You`ll know what I mean when you get the hungry hounds come at you from the multiple-level state entities.

As for Clinton, he was a criminal in that he did more to strengthen the state apparatus than anyone else in recent history. I would have been clamoring for his impeachment had it not been for a mere blow job. Now THAT was one brave thing the dude did. My hats off to him. Though he should be rendered blind for showing such bad taste. Fat ass Monia... come on... there is bad taste and there is sad taste... and then there is Monica.

...SR

Re: # 66

SR,

..... i understand with your ``slippery slope`` concerns, but let`s not forget that there is a presidential election every four years and there are all sorts of checks and balances that make it impossible for the us to regress - unlike its adversary, there is no desire or rationale to revert back to the seventh century .............. look, even laura bush opposes repealing roe vs. wade and she sleeps with the president ..............you find all sorts of libertarian fools on the ``right`` who make clinton look like atilla the hun ...........

.......... in my opinion, the pendulum had swung too far to the left under the skirt-chasing president and his cabal of bleeding heart liberals led by the likes of doddering drunkards like kennedy .......... this is a minor correction and i am sure the pendulum will swing back the other way in a few years - it always does ............ let`s not forget that mcarthyism, as bad as it was, was followed by the equally disgraceful anti-vietnam war movement .............

beejay,

........... you are a very patient person, but trying to explain things to people like ozer is like pissing in the wind ...........

............. how do you expect people who neatly divide the world into two houses - the good house of islam, and the evil dwelling of the infidels - to understand ``that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded``......... it is an alien concept that has to be beaten into the the dunderheads after removing their protective turbans ............

#67 Ozer

Dear Ozer,

The janitor was in such a happy mood after watching all the glorious July Four fireworks that I was able to convince him to take the next day off! Therefore, no fear of any immediate interruptions, for now anyway!

To answer the enquiries you raise, there are two points that I must elaborate.

The point number one is as follows.

I am glad that you admitted your poetry is imbued with “thorns”. However, I must try to make you understand that the need to expose the “petals” is critical!

You say – “… my poetry is gut-wrenched from the heart. Suffice that I know it. Every rose has its thorn. Do not thorns give the roses more character?”

Such statements may indeed be true. It’s extremely NECESSARY that good poetry come from heart (gut-wrenched or otherwise), and sure it assumes the character of its source!

But it will never suffice for good poetry that only YOU “know” it! You see, Ozer, good poetry is about more than just you. It also includes your partner – the reader.

Think for a moment like that late great ascetic Morarji Desai would have a difficult time thinking – think of this interaction between the creator of the poem and its intended reader as an intermingling of souls – as of sexual interaction in its most abstract form – subtle in its delight as a breath of fresh air – as one partner, the creator, opens up the innermost and the most closely guarded recesses of his heart to the other partner, the reader. The reader, the other partner, is open to this interaction, at the moment anyway!

And they connect! Except there is just one problem! Your literary prowess assumes the vigor of a tiger on the prowl, moving “fast and furious”, while the innate need of the partner sings “I need somebody with a slow… hand”. Unfortunately, you the writer is absolutely oblivious of what your partner craves for – while fully and only cognizant of your own immediate need of the moment!

Therefore you see dearest Ozer, as those fireworks of your very own July Four rise higher and higher, and burn brighter and brighter, and release heat which relegates Mount Etna to a humiliating second, and as you climax in a paroxysm of delight that feels like your soul has touched the heavens, your partner is the one that’s left holding the bag – left absolutely high and dry! Feeling more clueless than Inspector Clouseau, and worse used than a discarded douche! Not to mention that perhaps in all likelihood, also feeling VERY dour!

To borrow what the janitor earlier attempted to impress upon you – “the pleasure is strictly one-sided”. It just does not a successful mating make!

Therefore, sweet Ozer, before you let go of that pearl that you put so much of YOUR heart into, hold it back for a moment and make sure that your partner is ready – fully ready, to receive it. And temper your urge to splurge with the partner’s innate need, not speed!

Now let me turn to the point number two.

Ozer, you ask “Just for how long can a superpower leave a Trail of broken souls, Streams of gushing blood, Torn legal treaties, and Grope about in a nebulous fog blaming it on the War on terror. Surely Nobody with a clear conscience can swallow that?”

My dear Ozer, your literary style tends to ensure that an idea being presented shall never suffer for lack of words. In doing so, your words at times become the thorns whose overabundance kills the very flower of the idea it’s supposed to protect (or, as the janitor would say – “you need to cut through the crap”). You describe a scenario that your prejudiced lens (you call it “cynical” lens) has conjured up for you – and your strong passion is the prism! You see things, but this lens makes you SEE things! Things that do not exist and assumptions that make an ass out of you! Without realizing it, you summarize the end result in “This is naivete and a false assumption to start with.”

Let me gently try to lift your veil of ignorance, so that you can look your master of knowledge fully in the face, without blushing to the deepest levels of your core.

My country U.S., certainly a superpower, is not a morally-hobbled power. In individual capacities, Americans are among the most giving – both in terms of resources as well as time. At the same time, we are strong believers that all charity must come from our hearts’ dictates and not from those of any government, including our own!

I see no quivering voices here, nor doublespeak. We harbor no need to police the world and we certainly do not govern our polity THAT way. Our role in Iraq, is strictly motivated by our national interest! There is no steamy tryst, only foreign policy to benefit our national interests! And a country whose very declaration of independence states – in no uncertain terms – that “All men are created equal”, leaves no room for human lives to become “disposable toys to be jerked around with”.

Ozer, we love the sanctity of life. Always did. Always will!

Ozer, our country has had the MOST consistent foreign policy since the beginning of our nation. As our first President said in the farewell address (Sept. 17, 1796) – we have no permanent enemies, nor any permanent friends. Let me quote at length his words, which explain it a LOT better than I ever can:

“Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?”

“In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.”

That’s what we believe, that’s what we have always done, and that’s what we will continue to follow. Our enemy of the moment is such for – only the moment! Our national needs are – perpetually paramount!

And therefore, you see dear Ozer, we immensely prefer to be the lone ranger than a member of the herd – ANY herd – including the U.N.! And there are certain values (freedom being one such value) that we WILL defend, even if it requires sending our most cherished lives into the harm’s way!

Sincerely,
BeeJay.

``The Loss of a Judicial Mind``

By Ozer Khalid

An addendum to SR`s interact #60

SR

You reflectively accentuate the weighty flaws of the Patriot Act. Whereas you highlight the obliteration this causes ``domestically`` I will, merely to complement your previous interact, illustrate how Uncle Sam thrashes treaties ``internationally``. This was a piece I had written published in a legal journal a while back.

Harking back to the infamous “torture memos” the US president had the “inherent constitutional authority” to approve any interrogation techniques required to protect the nation`s ``self-interest``— Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib testify to the ugly verity that the US circumvents and circumcizes the very foreskin of the 1949 UN Convention Against Torture, ratified by America itself in 1994. Human Rights Watch, a neutral non-partisan monitoring group, claims that America`s abuse of detainees makes a ``mockery out of the 1949 Convention``.

In virtually every jurisdiction, governed by civil or common law, an international treaty on becomes ``supra-national`` and once ratified, overrides national law. Not so in the ``land of the eagle of freedom, the stars and the stripes`` where it simply becomes a corpus of domestic law. As such, it is given the cold shoulder whenever

It tickles the political fancy.

To nail the point with a hammer: after the World Court rendered a verdict against the United States in 1986 for mining Nicaragua`s harbours, Cowboy Ronald Reagan counselled his advisers to tear up the relevant treaty giving the court jurisdiction as if it were some movie script of his. When informed that this necessitated a two years` notice, he compelled them to tear it up even quicker. From the frying pan to the flames.

The very non-binding nature of most public-international law makes it little more than “soft” satire for armchair-activists to dwell upon. The ICC is America`s favourite ``bête noire``. Just adding that tad bit of salt to the wound, America has entered into bilateral agreements with 100+ countries granting its citizens umbrella immunity from ICC prosecution. Under what mandate ? Your guess remains as good as mine !!!!

Yet America grinningly supports other international tribunals such as those set up to deal with genocide and other atrocities in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia. Pelting stones at glass houses !!

Something even Dante`s inferno, in its sheer ``Divine Comedy`` could not have foreseen. Republicans have been further inflamed by the momentous frequency of Supreme Court references to foreign ``doctrines of precedence``. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, recently lambasted Justice Anthony Kennedy for his “incredibly outrageous” citation of international views in the court`s ruling outlawing the death penalty for juvenile killers.

Republicans have now choked a resolution down Congress`throat banning inappropriate vomit of foreign judgments in interpreting the constitution. Baron Montesqieu`s ``separation of power`` has jilted up in flames.

Yet moderates such as Justices Kennedy, Sandra Day O`Connor, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsburg do warm the seats of the US Supreme Court, arguing with legal sagesse, that when confronted by a particularly intractable point of law, it simply makes sense to examine experiences and rulings outside America.

Laws are organic, and they benefit from cross-pollination.

This is judicial suicide and anathema for uptight stiff-upper-lipped SC conservatives, such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The court should not impose “foreign moods, fads or fashions” on Americans, argues Justice Scalia. To him, the practices of the “world community” are irrelevant: Scalia obviously belongs to a different century and needs to be tele-ported back.

Beam him backward Scottie. Beam him front-ward. Beam him anywhere. But not here.

Yet Americans are happy to impose their own “fads and fashions” on others. A London court once ruled that Ian Norris, the former head of Morgan Crucible, a British engineering firm, could be extradited to the United States because of price-fixing by two of the firm`s US affiliates. The ``alleged`` offences were in 2000, when cartel activity was not deemed a criminal activity in Britain. Mr Norris`s lawyers said the case, the first involving extradition for an alleged antitrust offence, meant that no English executive with American subsidiaries or stripes could be sheltered in safe haven.

Under extradition rules America no longer bears the brunt of supporting any substantive evidence against someone it wants to extradite. It simply has to prove that an “extraditable” offence occured. But lo and behold if Britain wants to extradite an American suspect, it still has to make out a prima facie case against him/her.

Foreign companies are feeling the rash. Their allergy- Uncle Sam`s use of America`s Alien Tort Claims Act, passed in 1789 !!!! which grants jurisdiction to American federal courts over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States”.

This feverishly augments American whims to sue global companies for ``alleged`` wrongs suffered outside the United States. One can imagine the rumpus if such a law were invoked, abroad, against a US company.

Often disputes sprawl over several domains. An instructive case in point was when the Supreme Court rejected, in a 5-4 ruling, a death-sentence appeal by a Mexican citizen in Texas who had claimed that he and 50 other fellow Mexicans on death row in the US were black-listed from any help from the Mexican Consulate.

The World Court upheld the Mexicans` claim. By cutting the oxygen valve of consular assistance, America unjustifiably violated the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, ratified by the United States in 1969. Mr Bush, the then governor of Texas, signed with profound ink many of the men`s death warrants, roaringly boasting America`s withdrawal from the protocol giving the court jurisdiction over such disputes.

But for how long will the roar last ?

Epilogue:

America`s Alien Tort Claims Act 1789, the 1949 UN Convention Against Torture, the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the ICC protocol, inter alia, all teeter into misuse. Your honour we have before us the

Loss of A Judicial Mind

Today

Tomorrow

And for all times to Come

Re: # 65

Dear Beejay,

With every interact of yours, my respect for you augments. We may have started on the wrong footing. Yet it is becoming apprent that you are now making a paradigm-shift, and giving me your objective views about the ``poem`` rather than the ``poet``. This is a gladdening change in focus. And temperament.

Welcoming as fresh roses are the comments you make about the ``style and content`` of my poem. Admittedly my ``genre`` of poetry is imbued with thorns. I see no point in exposing the ``petals``. For my poetry is gut-wrenched from the heart. Suffice that I know it.

Every rose has its thorn. Beejay Do not thorns give the roses more character ?

Even though we both embrace completely different political maxims, I respect your take as an axiomatic diversity for it

Breadeth life into intellectual stimuli.

You see my cynical lens, and your ``microscopic mop`` must surely be able and agile to question the quavery voice and double-speak with which a morally hobbled superpower polices the world and governs its own polity.

The Aristotelian claim that ``man by nature is a political animal`` reasonates with truism even today and ``benign janitors`` must surely not overlook the steamy trysts in any foreign policy where human lives are

disposable toys to be jerked around with.

Many human rights activists are labouring under the faux-delusion that the current UN auspices, Bretton Woods structures and international socio-economic legal infrastructure have any semblance of equality. This is naivete and a false assumption to start with.

Just for how long can a superpower leave a

Trail of broken souls,

Streams of gushing blood

Torn legal treaties and

Grope about in a nebulous fog blaming it on the

War on terror.

Surely Nobody with a clear conscience can swallow that ?

hamidm Re: # 64 {``... i would begin to worry if they didn`t ask those questions and let in somone who hates our way of life and wants to destroy what he does not understand and cannot build ...``}

Okay, I understand. It`s a genuine difference in perspectives. You buy into the paranoia conjured up by the so-called ``liberal media`` that you otherwise pretend to decry. In return you are perfectly happy to surrender ``some`` of your liberty. But beware of the ``slippery slope``... Remember the slippery slope.. the one you often times refer to in other contexts? Let the camel stick his nose in your tent and before you know it the camel is in your tent and you are shivering outside in the cold sand.

This ``someone who hates our way of life`` is a miserable bungling bafoon... The only people he is a real threat to are his own... He`s no threat to the might and majesty of Rome...urr.. sorry wrong millennium... I mean, no threat to the might and majesty of Washington. These clowns are a mere inconvenience, they are dangerous, alright... but not to civilization... they are only dangerous to themselves. No more than an irritating fly that you can swat with a fast blow. But you don`t mind the overzealous housekeeper (or Janitor if you use BeeJay`s term) far exceeding his limit... you`ll let him cut off the fresh air by shuttering down all the french windows and roshandaans just because a miserable fly came in and fell in your tea cup. So now you are ready to cut out the light and the fresh air and draw the curtains, seal the windows and suffocate and sweat in the muggy heat... Well, that`s really smart....

I would feel too stuffy and wouldn`t worry about the few flies that might or might not come in if I left the place open and airy.

Now don`t go lecture me on the 3,000 dead in the twin towers... etc... etc... Look that was really bad, yes, but put it in perspective. Look at the scale. 50,000 die each year in auto accidents, 12,000 from drunk driving alone... will you be talking about banning Toyota and Merlot also? How about banning McDonalds for the 250,000 heart attacks attributed to fast food? Get real. Who is the alarmist here? Who is the one really paranoid? ``Protecting our way of life...`` Yeh right !!! ... my horse`s exhaust outlet...

...SR

#64 hamidm

Well said!

For those of you who are Americans, please let me break in and wish you a happy Fourth of July!

Now, get off this web site and go party somewhere! And go somewhere tonight and watch those fireworks (real ones, I mean, not the kind they have around here day in and day out)!! :)

BeeJay.
(An Extremely Benign Janitor on This Day)

Re: # 60

SR,

... stop being a dramatic alarmist !....... when they requisition my house and convert my garage into a stable for cavalry horses and take away my library card, then i will start worrying about it ............

......... in the meanwhile, i don`t mind giving up a few individual liberties to protect the homeland - after all, in case you haven`t heard, we are at war with a horrible enemy who does not play by any rule book except the one that was handed down by a rather vengeful god ......... every time i pass through the immigration counter at the airport, and lately it has been quite frequently, the poor inspector takes one look at the pakistani visa and starts asking the mandatory questions :``when did you last take training in an al-daeda camp``, `` ``do you know osama``, ``do you know mullah omar``, ``do you know urstruly and echoboom``, ``are you wearing a suicide belt``, `` when did you last take a shower``, ``can you fly a plane``, ``do you hate tall buildings``, `` have you blown up anyting lately``....... and so on ................ but i really don`t mind it, because at the end of it all they do smile and say ``welcome back home`` ............................ i would begin to worry if they didn`t ask those questions and let in somone who hates our way of life and wants to destroy what he does not understand and cannot build ............

#62 Ozer

Dear Ozer:

(The janitor isn’t back yet.)

I am amused to read your latest outburst – in the form of a half-hearted attempt at another poem – given up half way as you switched to prose, in #62. I think you are doing a disservice to your cause (if any) of your 9/11 poem by distracting attention from it – incidentally, which is exactly what you admonished others for doing.

1) Everybody knows that when one celebrates the independence day of a country, one celebrates a people, their history, and heritage – independent of any specific current administration policies of any one particular president, or another. The Independence Day of ANY country is sacred to its citizens who owe their allegiance to it. Therefore, making fun of a country on such an auspicious day can be considered a highly foolish act.

2) From the tone of your post, your hidden (repressed?) bias (jealousy?) toward U.S. is amply evident. If you let your passions rule you, your ability to create – whether as an artist, a photographer, a poet, a singer, a musician, a dancer, a whatever (perhaps even an event organizer), will suffer tremendously! The audience/readership will lose its respect for your objectivity on issues.

3) The current attempt suffers from all the deficiencies of the original, which should have been expected in view of its rushed nature. Therefore, another piece of advice for you is – always TAKE YOUR TIME!

I am sorry that you feel in bad mood because of the U.S. Independence Day. I forgot that the independence was wrested from the British, which might make this occasion less than pleasant for the British – although I have never heard of any such thing happening – from all accounts, the British are supposedly highly reserved with their emotions.

I hope that you feel better soon.

Sincerely,
BeeJay.

``Independence Day``

By Ozer

Common Lets Celebrate it is
``Independence Day- Halleyloooyaaaah``

Michael Moore inevitably seeps through the pores of a vacuous moral skin, whilst oil-rich ``rentier banana republics`` and the petro-dollars such as those of the House of Saud rain through the corridoors of Capitol Hill.

The drums beat. The bells toll. The eagles fly
In a vapid sky.

Are the Gulf kingdoms rich in oil poor in morality
ever finger-pointed for HR violations ?
US foreign policy satire is a Holocaust to justice.

Capitol Hill has played the life-buoy to regular repressive regimes
including the
bearded brigade Mujahideens,
civil liberties are a farce on the breath of our conscience

Let us wag the dog. Prepare American apple crumble pie.
While the tears in Rwanda dry...

The White House`s marriage of convenience with Fidel Castro to oppose a United Nations agreement on torture is an illustriuos fire-starter for Independence Day. Is it not ?
Are the chop sticks ready? Let the barbeque begin...
Have enough people been grilled in Iraq ? In Colombia ?
Who won the World Series ? And the NBA ?
Ayyyymen

The current Convention Against Torture, signed by Papa George Bush Senior, requires governments to punish torturers but does little in terms of preventative measures. Hence Abu Ghraib.

Abu what ? Ghraib eh yo what yo say ? common for now Lets Celebrate for it is our sacred
``Independence Day- Halleyloooyaaaah``

Let us mow the lawn. Wear the cap. Strike with a baseball bat
All these minority hood-rats....

Bush ends up in bed with the Sheikhs, makes irreedemable handshakes and nods,
Shakes, rattles and rolls
Walking into an obliterating sunset....

The White House has no aching desire to let international inspectors visit and interview ``enemy combatants`` detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in military brigs.
Jack Nicholson, Tom Cruise and Demi Moore come party with us

For it is Independence Day Halleylooooooyahhhh ?
Bring on Katie Holmes as well Tom would you ?
Good Scientologist that you are....
For this is a War of the Worlds...

Start filming.

Justice Department officials do not allow international inspections of state prisons since they would breath oxygen for prisoners` privacy rights.

Other ``selective stirrings`` and sound bites of conscience are bohemian rhapsody.
Today let us hymn and sing the National Anthem
The stars and the stripes

Let the Texan cowboy dance in his boots
While Robert John and Charlie shoot
The Iraqi toots.....

Let us peer at one specific shamble: US opposition to the International Criminal Court on the grounds that the court would conduct politically motivated prosecutions of Americans--even though the ICC statute requires that all cases involving Americans be referred to the U.S. for investigation and any resulting prosecution. The ICC can take the case back only if it later finds that the U.S. proceeding was a sham, designed to obstruct rather than to achieve justice.

Such a finding--by judges chosen mainly hand-plucked by Uncle Sam`s ``democratic brethren`` is exceedingly unlikely. Yet its mere possibility is enough to send shivers down Texan spines for the administration to oppose an ICC that may offer the only hope for justice in many cases of crimes against humanity !!

Not only has the president withdrawn the U.S. signature from the ICC treaty, but he has signed a bill that authorizes him to use military force against the ICC. Hats off to the red-neck buffalos at the Pentagon.

US diplomats hold UN peacekeeping missions hostage (enter Nicole Kidman) to their demand that U.S. soldiers be immune from the ICC, and they pressure individual nations to sign agreements promising not to turn over U.S. soldiers to the ICC.
Now a legal birdie whispereth to my ear that this in itself is stretching the Vienna and Geneva Conventions towards

A leviathon of lunacy.

But for now
Bring on the Turkey, sweetcorn, coleslaw and hamburgers
For it is Independence Day Halleylooooooyahhhh
Oh what is that noise ?

It is a Jaguar screeching its way on the motorway of immorality: (please take note of this ``Husna Angelique`` for it relates to your interact #9) When Indonesian courts recently rendered ``not guilty`` verdicts against the first six military personnel tried for the 1999 atrocities in East Timor, despite strong evidence of guilt, the State Department said it was ``slightly disappointed`` but ``hoped`` that future trials will bring a sunnier forecast.

Furthermore, when victims recently sued ExxonMobil for murders and disappearances allegedly committed by Indonesian troops guarding the company`s oil wells and pipelines (exit Kidman enter JR Ewing) the State Department asked the federal judge to dismiss the suit, arguing that it could prejudice U.S. relations with Indonesia. Bleeding paradox or what ?

Let the reader of Chowk decide.

The scant regard for human rights is evident to the blind. No amount of wool can cover our retinas. Since 9/11 1,000+ foreigners have been detained in secret, some for months on end not privy to legal counsel and sheepishly deported after closed hearings for minor immigration offenses.

When a federal judge ruled that their immigration hearings must generally be public, the Justice Department got the Supreme Court to stay the order. When another federal judge ruled that their names, at least, must be made public, the government got that order, too, stayed pending appeal.

Since today is the 4th of July, all hail to Will Smith and ``Independence Day`` 2 U.S. citizens themselves --Jose Padilla and Yasser Esam Hamdi--were held incommunicado in military brigs in the U.S., without access to judicial recourse. Under the convenient label of ``unlawful combatants.`` So, too, are hundreds of foreign citizens at Guantanamo.

But lets celebrate Independence Day !! Halleluyahhhhhhhh

Global moral credibility is undercut.
Due process is short-curcuited.
Legal hearings, if any, are considered VIP events.
The ``collateral damage`` body count is countless.
Enter Arnie Schwarzeneggar.

Lights.

Camera.

INACTION.

But today, on ``independence day`` the stars and the stripes do not fly their flag half-mast

Instead they herald a full-fledged

``flag of treacherous convenience``

No ``moment of silece`` today thank you

For it is Independence Day

Dear Ozer:

The janitor has stepped out for a while. (You see, he needed to get replenishment for his supplies. He ran out, because he has been using them indiscriminately for purposes they were not intended for (primarily for throwing them at perceived opponents of the moment, left, right, up, down, and all over – the tale consists of broken bones and damaged egos of the small and the big alike – leaving a trail of terrible devastation)). I am taking advantage of this break to sneak in a few words from the “Benevolent” part!

It is obvious that we (the Janitor and I) have been harsher than necessary with your work, primarily at the behest of the janitor. At this point, I would like to focus more on your work –your poem and its style than your perceived (intrinsic or projected) external characteristics – strictly from a reader’s point of view

(1) The lines of your poem are extremely unbalanced. You seem to have put them down exactly as they came to your head, and done very little or no work at massaging/streamlining them and at trying to make them more balanced and LOOKING better. (If you were a woman (or perhaps among a SMALL minority of men), you will realize the importance of the latter.) As a reader, I like to see lines that do not end at points too far from each other – the reason is strictly related to better ergonomics – the economy of neck movement.

(2) The italicized fluff up front is too long and drawn out. Most readers would, like I did, simply skip over it.

(3) The poem needs to have less circuitous references, and a better choice of words to make it flow better. For example, right in the beginning, you stumble with “clogged with wax”. Since the reader at this point (in view of (2)) has NO idea of what you are going to be talking about, it immediately conjures up an image of your ears clogged with wax and even YOU would agree that it’s not a pleasant introduction to the poet or poem.

(4) Like some others have pointed out, long winding descriptions of a large number of “atrocity” cases from around the world tend to distract from the message that you may be attempting to communicate. If I were in your shoes (not that I’d want to be – being in the line of fire is not a very pleasant prospect, even for the thick-skinned individuals like me), I’d have chosen no more than three illustrations – perhaps Africa being one. If the objective is to reach out to the reader, you should stay away from controversial topics, especially contemporary ones. Your purpose should be to maximize the impact of what you are trying to communicate, pick only certain aspects of each scene, and make the scene “hit” the reader by using the fewest of words. (Repeat after me – too much detail is a bad thing! It assumes that the reader has NO imagination.)

(5) In general, you seem to not have put in enough time just reading and revising your own poem. Like all things in life, success involves 10 percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration. Your “inspiration” part may be sort of okay, but the other part seems to be sorely lacking!

(6) I earlier commented (in a different tone) about not putting enough “heart” into it and about physical paradoxes (e.g., frozen refrigerators).

I hope the above helps. I wish you good luck. Assuming you are indeed the individual who wrote the earlier article under the same author name, I think this one is an improvement in the sense that it’s less inward-looking! Most readers like that.

I am closing now, since I hear the janitor coming back.

Sincerely,
BeeJay.

Re: # 56 hamidm {``... we cannot abdicate our duties to the cause of freedom ...``}

On June 6, in a closed-door session, a Senate Intelligence Committee approved a bill. If Congress and the President agree (and the President certainly will), this bill will dramatically expand the FBI`s powers under the Patriot Act to issue secret administrative subpoenas for an unprecedented range of personal records without having to go to a judge. The FBI will then write its own subpoenas, just as British customs officials in the colonies did before the American Revolution when they used general search warrants (writs of assistance) to go into homes and offices at will. Here are the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act. Under Sections 215 and 505 of the act, law enforcement officials are given broad access to ANY type of record - sales, library, financial, medical etc. - without having to show probable cause of ANY crime. The Patriot Act also forbids the holders of this information, such as university librarians and college registrars, from disclosing that they have ever provided such records to federal officials. The ``sneak-and-peak`` provision of the Patriot Act (Section 213) allows law enforcement agencies to conduct secret searches of anyone`s home or apartment - without a warrant and without even notifying the owner.

Much more could be added, but this is the ``surveillance state`` in full flight. The genuine Police State follows as a matter of course once the surveillance state is fully established. It is a constant of history that whenever a nation has engaged in external wars, internal repression has ALWAYS followed. In fact, the progression has worked both ways, internal repression followed by external war or external war followed by internal repression. The INTERNAL repression ALWAYS occurs.

Here is the real political reason as to why all this is happening. A June 13 USA Today poll showed that almost six in 10 Americans (59 percent) want a full or partial pullout of US troops from Iraq. In a New York Times/CBS News poll, President Bush`s approval rating dropped to 42 percent while 59 percent disapproved of his handling of Iraq. President Bush is losing on his own internal front.

On June 23, the US Supreme Court said that the US Constitution does NOT prohibit local governments from seizing private property for other private uses - so long as it is developed for the ``public benefit``. Under this ruling, an American`s private property can be taken by political means to be given to some other American! The 5-4 ruling clears the way for the condemnation of some private homes for a new office and retail complex. It gives other cities and towns more leeway to buy and raze homes, churches and other properties that yield little tax revenue. That`s the reason behind the ruling, increased tax revenues for American cities and towns collected by bureaucrats who can condemn somebody`s private property and then give it to somebody else who can afford to pay these bureaucrats more taxes. There will soon be a form of political ``escalator`` inside the US where if you can pay the higher taxes, you keep your ``property``. If you can`t, your ``property`` will be taken from you and given to someone who can.

Between them, this latest expansion of the Patriot Act and the Supreme Court ruling target dead centre what is going wrong inside the US. Political power, at all levels, Federal, State and local, is running amok. This is STATISM in its full flower. The sum of agencies of all levels of government have gained complete power over the Lives, Liberties and Estates of the general public who live their lives in civil society. Politically, this is in fact a blatant claim by government that all citizens ARE its property!

If there is no safe and secure private property and there is no privacy then sooner or later is there going to be any freedom or liberty?

...SR

Beejay thanks for sharing your views in interact 54.

Regards.