Today I witnessed something that no longer occurs in the United States. A bus passenger who was saying hateful things on his cell phone was reprimanded by the driver and told to keep it down. In the US, rude and obnoxious people unfortunately get away with creating noise pollution wherever they go because no one has the guts to tell them to be quiet. Hooray for Canadians and their standards of decency.
This particular passenger was talking loudly on his cell, telling his friend that he tried to start a fight at the bus stop, I guess with the black man who was waiting there with his wife/girlfriend and young child. The passenger said the man wouldn't fight, but that he'd "blow his brains out." The "tough guy" wasn't so tough after all. He complied with the driver's request, without fuss.
In the US, people avoid getting involved, plus they don't want to "hurt anyone's feelings." This is so crazy. When I have encountered people who are polluting my space with their language, I've told them, without waiting for an authority figure to intervene.
One time was on a city bus in LA. A young man was cursing every second word--and loudly. I politely said that he needs to keep his foul language to himself. No one else is enjoying it. He gave me some attitude, but he did quiet down.
The other time I can remember, I was attempting to enjoy a cup of coffee at my favorite coffeehouse. Two men in their late 20s were saying "f--k" this and "f--k" that, and "I f--ked her" and I want to "f--k" this other one. On and on. I first gave them a cold stare, but when that didn't work, I told them that if they want to talk like that, go somewhere where they can be alone, so they don't disturb other people, but don't do it here because I'm trying to enjoy a cup of coffee in peace. The two guys gave me more attitude than the kid had. When they wouldn't stop, I said I'd ask the owner to intervene, as I was sure he didn't want their kind of patron keeping others away. They left, thank goodness.
I really wish that more people would get involved. I know some are scared, and friends have told me that I could get into trouble calling these social pariahs out. We are all in this together. If people need some instruction in how to behave, whether they are 14 or 64, why not educate them? They obviously didn't learn how to act from their parents. Somebody's got to do it.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
I'm in the Woods
For the past two weeks and for the next two weeks, I'm staying in my cabin in the Nova Scotian woods, near the Bay of Fundy. My cabin has electricity but no phone, cell phone or internet connections. The only reason I'm posting this is that I drove into town this morning and am using my friend Helene's internet access.
I have been taking some wonderful photos of the fall leaves, but, silly me, I forgot the cable that links my digital camera to my laptop at home, so I cannot transfer photos. I'll have to post these upon my return to So Cal. For now, you'll have to let this summer-time photo of my cabin suffice.
I have been taking some wonderful photos of the fall leaves, but, silly me, I forgot the cable that links my digital camera to my laptop at home, so I cannot transfer photos. I'll have to post these upon my return to So Cal. For now, you'll have to let this summer-time photo of my cabin suffice.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Now OK for Government to Murder US Citizens Without Trial
Two American citizens were killed yesterday in Yemen by US drones. Why? Because the government said they were terrorists. They did not stand trial. They were not convicted of terrorism. They were labeled terrorists and "taken out." Yes, "taken out" was the phrase used by the news media, even by NPR. You know who else takes out people? The Mafia--by all accounts a terrorist organization.
Now I'm not saying that Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were as pure as the newfallen snow. It's that the US Constitution requires due process. On NPR, a "legal expert" was quoted as saying that the government labeling these men terrorists is in itself due process.
What! My God, what kind of circular logic is that! So if the government says you're a terrorist or I'm a terrorist, well, hell, that's good enough reason for us to be taken out. That is actually what is known as summary execution, as was famously captured in 1966 by Vietnam War photographer Eddie Adams (see below). In the photo, police chief General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan executes Vietcong prisoner Nguyễn Văn Lém.
Let me interject a little civics lesson: In a trial, the government (known as "the people"--what a joke, huh!) presents its evidence, and the defense (the accused) presents his/her case. The evidence is aired before a jury. The jury then decides if the person is innocent or guilty. It seems as if the Obama administration has cut out this inconvenient, time-consuming step. Now the government merely has to say someone's guilty, skip the trial, not hear the accused's side of the story, and murder him. History buffs, does this make you think of Stalinist Russia or Maoist China? I'm sure plenty of other regimes also come to mind.
And you realize, I hope, that one of the Patriot Act's definitions of a terrorist is someone who disrupts commerce. What a vague, broad definition. Under those terms, basically anyone who protests in front of a store, or the Occupy Wall Street protesters, could be labeled a terrorist. So, too, I suppose, could someone who encourages people to refrain from buying anything from corporations and to instead buy used, pick up freebies in the alley, make or grow your own, or barter. In short, pretty much anyone could be labeled a terrorist.
The other thing I have to say about the CIA's drone murders of Americans is that isn't it so convenient! To me, it seems as if the CIA is simply cleaning house, bumping off anyone who might tell all kinds of secrets about US government spooky business, if he were put on trial in an open courtroom. Boy, we sure couldn't have that now, could we! All these "terrorists" spilling the beans about the real story behind 9/11, the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions and occupations, the so-called terrorist threats to the US since 9/11, on and on and on. That's why Osama bin Laden never stood trial, and why Saddham Hussein's trial was a sham.
Yet, sad to say, most of my countrymen do not see it this way. When asked by MSNBC, Do you think the U.S. should kill citizens overseas without affording them due process? of 38,877 votes so far, 79.8% said, "Yes, if they are plotting terrorist attacks against the U.S." Only 18.5% said, "No, U.S. citizens have the right to be tried in a court of law regardless of what they are accused of doing."
To the Yes people, I would ask, So, in other words, you're simply taking the government's word that they are plotting terrorist attacks? And this is the same government that's lied to you about everything from the reasons for invading Iraq and Afghanistan to 9/11 to helping Main Street not Wall Street to getting rid of lobbyists in Washington to closing Gitmo? My goodness, if you are that gullible, how do you go through life? Do you still believe in fairy tales too? Actually, I'd be more willing to believe a fairy tale than I would anything coming out of Washington or the mainstream media.
Now I'm not saying that Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were as pure as the newfallen snow. It's that the US Constitution requires due process. On NPR, a "legal expert" was quoted as saying that the government labeling these men terrorists is in itself due process.
What! My God, what kind of circular logic is that! So if the government says you're a terrorist or I'm a terrorist, well, hell, that's good enough reason for us to be taken out. That is actually what is known as summary execution, as was famously captured in 1966 by Vietnam War photographer Eddie Adams (see below). In the photo, police chief General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan executes Vietcong prisoner Nguyễn Văn Lém.
Let me interject a little civics lesson: In a trial, the government (known as "the people"--what a joke, huh!) presents its evidence, and the defense (the accused) presents his/her case. The evidence is aired before a jury. The jury then decides if the person is innocent or guilty. It seems as if the Obama administration has cut out this inconvenient, time-consuming step. Now the government merely has to say someone's guilty, skip the trial, not hear the accused's side of the story, and murder him. History buffs, does this make you think of Stalinist Russia or Maoist China? I'm sure plenty of other regimes also come to mind.
And you realize, I hope, that one of the Patriot Act's definitions of a terrorist is someone who disrupts commerce. What a vague, broad definition. Under those terms, basically anyone who protests in front of a store, or the Occupy Wall Street protesters, could be labeled a terrorist. So, too, I suppose, could someone who encourages people to refrain from buying anything from corporations and to instead buy used, pick up freebies in the alley, make or grow your own, or barter. In short, pretty much anyone could be labeled a terrorist.
The other thing I have to say about the CIA's drone murders of Americans is that isn't it so convenient! To me, it seems as if the CIA is simply cleaning house, bumping off anyone who might tell all kinds of secrets about US government spooky business, if he were put on trial in an open courtroom. Boy, we sure couldn't have that now, could we! All these "terrorists" spilling the beans about the real story behind 9/11, the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions and occupations, the so-called terrorist threats to the US since 9/11, on and on and on. That's why Osama bin Laden never stood trial, and why Saddham Hussein's trial was a sham.
Yet, sad to say, most of my countrymen do not see it this way. When asked by MSNBC, Do you think the U.S. should kill citizens overseas without affording them due process? of 38,877 votes so far, 79.8% said, "Yes, if they are plotting terrorist attacks against the U.S." Only 18.5% said, "No, U.S. citizens have the right to be tried in a court of law regardless of what they are accused of doing."
To the Yes people, I would ask, So, in other words, you're simply taking the government's word that they are plotting terrorist attacks? And this is the same government that's lied to you about everything from the reasons for invading Iraq and Afghanistan to 9/11 to helping Main Street not Wall Street to getting rid of lobbyists in Washington to closing Gitmo? My goodness, if you are that gullible, how do you go through life? Do you still believe in fairy tales too? Actually, I'd be more willing to believe a fairy tale than I would anything coming out of Washington or the mainstream media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)