DEATH PENALTY: AN IRREVERSIBLE ACT OF JUSTICE (OR MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE)

DEATH PENALTY: AN ARCHAIC, IRREVERSIBLE ACT OF CRUELTY?

With an increasingly global trend towards the need for more humane treatment to all human beings, perhaps the most taboo subject of them all, if I may be allowed to put it, is perhaps the controversial death penalty.

It is the epitome of all punishments by secular state law: Not only is the offender not given the opportunity for reform through confinement, the person has forfeited his or her life to the state authority. No other law can be seen as being more archaic and cruel than the death penalty.

Countries who still practise this controversial law are mostly non-democratic, or theocratic in nature. Countries such as communist China, countries of Islamic rule (Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc) and pseudo democracies (E.g Singapore, Malaysia, etc) do exercise their rights to exerminate a criminal's life.

EXECUTION METHODS

States that practise it in America tend to utilize poison injection, while the communist regime, well known for its deadly efficiency against all crimes against the state, do it with an unceremonious bullet from the back. Others, like puny Singapore, hang their prisoners. As the saying goes, there is always more than one way to slaughter the proverbial cow.

Crimes amounting to the death penalty vary. The common ones include premediated murder, espionage and other state and life-threatening crimes. Other less common crimes may include: Kidnapping, drug trafficking and corruption. In Islamic countries, being caught in a homosexual act can constitute a death sentence for the unfortunate offender.

Unlike other moral arguments, this is one argument that I feel is evenly matched: Both proponents and opponents of the death penalty have valid arguments to make, and due to the seriousness of this issue, I would like to take the trouble to present both views as succinctly and unbiasedly as I possibly can.

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY

Proponents of the death penalty have put up credible arguments to defend this age-old punishment.

Most would agree, however, that the death penalty be restricted to violent crimes, mostly pertaining to murder, or at the very most, crimes pertaining to treason.

A summary of pro-death penalty arguments, followed by counter-arguments, as follows:

1. DEATH PENALTIES FOR SPECIFIC, SERIOUS CRIMES

For: Certain criminals who have committed irreversible crimes, such as rape and murder, ought to be executed by the state. The logic, it seems, stem from the biblical quote of "an eye for an eye". This, in the eyes of death penalty proponents, will discourage and deter would-be offenders from committing acts of murder.

Against: The purpose and logic of secular law is not to facilitate a tit-for-tat. a-la mafia style executions, against criminals. The purpose of punishment is to rehabilitate the criminal, not send them to their deaths.

To punish a crime with another crime, in the form of state execution, just cannot be justified, even if they seem to "even the odds", according to pro-death penalty supporters.

2. THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY AGAINST RECALCITRANT, DEADLY CRIMINALS FROM SOCIETY.

For: Extreme criminals, such as serial arsonists and serial killers, are a real manace to society, and ought to be gotten rid of for good.

Those who have not shown signs of remorse, and have blatantly and constantly flouted the law to commit heinous crimes should be executed.

Against: Again, the fact is that, once you execute a criminal, it is a irreversible act. Once he/she is dead, there is no chance of any kind of resurrection.

To determine who or who should not be executed is something that becomes a really dicey affair, since every nation has a interpretation of what is and what is not an "executable" crimes.

Sure, a serial killer deserves the death penalty, but could he or she been suffering from mental ailments of an unknown nature? If that is so, the killer may inevitably been a victim of his own delusions. How does one justify the state-sanctioned murder of a mentally-ill person? Wouldn't pyschiatric treatment, and constant monitoring of the criminal be a more fruitful preposition.

Besides, who is to say that some day, a person of high social status abuses the law and executes anyone whom he or she is not in good terms with?

3. COST-SAVING

For: Spending millions, or billions (depending on where you live) of taxpayer's money to feed and maintain crooks isn't a long term solution. We need to cull some of them so as to keep the country's fiscal year at an absolute minimum. The worst criminals, such as murderers and rapists, have no place in society, even if they are released.

Against: Criminals are not cows, chickens or poultry. Prisons and other reformatory services must understand their role of counsellors cum punishers. "Culling" criminals is just another inhumane way of placing people in gulag camps, no matter how valid the reasons may seem to be.

FUNDAMENTAL FLAW OF DEATH PENALTY: A WRONGFUL JUDGEMENT MAY LEAD TO IRREVERSIBLE TRAGEDY

Of course, the proponents of the death penalty do justify their points, as to the opponents.

One inescapable flaw, however, is the fact that wrongful judgements, no matter how minimal, becomes a travesty when an innocent man dies for the crime he never commits.

Unlike any other sentence, say, a life sentence, the accused, if wrongfully accused, still has enough time in his hands to make as many appeals as he can, while a man on death parole has a limited time to make his case, before he is summarily executed. In countries such as China, there may be no grounds of appeal provided by the courts.

And example of a wrongful judgement that very nearly caused the death of an innocent man:

DNA Testing Exonerates New York Man Who Might Have Been Executed

After spending more than a decade in jail for a crime he did not commit, Douglas Arthur Warney has been exonerated and will be freed from prison in New York based on DNA evidence. Police maintained that Warney had confessed to the crime. Warney is a poorly educated man with a history of delusions and suffering from an advanced case of AIDS. He originally faced the death penalty for the 1996 stabbing murder in Rochester, but was ultimately convicted of second-degree homicide and sentenced to 25 years in jail. Prosecutors tried to block recent DNA tests that revealed that blood found at the crime scene could not have come from Warney. The test concluded that the blood belonged to another man, Eldred L. Johnson, Jr., who has since confessed to being the sole killer in the crime and is in prison for a different killing and three other stabbings.

Though no forensic evidence linked Warney to the crime, prosecutors used his false confession - which defense attorneys say was based on facts fed to him by a homicide detective - to overcome weaknesses in the case. During Warney's trial, prosecutors said that blood found at the crime that did not match the victim or Warney could have belonged to an accomplice, but that Warney was the killer based on his detailed confession. Despite providing details regarding the crime, Warney's confession was also filled with inconsistencies. According to trial testimony, Mr. Warney told the detective he had driven to the victim's house in his brother's car, although the brother had not owned the car for six years before the murder; he said he disposed of his bloody clothes after the murder in a garbage can, but none were found in a search of the can, which had been buried in snow from the day of the crime; he also said he had an accomplice, naming a relative who, it turned out, was in a secure rehabilitation center.

Warney joins a long list of people who have falsely confessed to crimes they did not commit. "The cops created a false confession by feeding nonpublic details to Doug. Their conduct was criminal, plain and simple," notes Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project, one of the attorneys representing Warney. Based on the results of DNA testing and Johnson's confession to the crime, prosecutors have agreed that the charges against Warney, who is now in a wheelchair, should be dismissed. (New York Times, May 16, 2006)

Along with Warney, 123 Americans have had their death sentences revoked.

Given the dead-end, irreversible nature of the death penalty sentence, it would be prudent for nations who still practise the death penalty to replace it with life imprisonment. Failing which, placing severe restrictions on invoking the death penalty and limiting the number of crimes liable for state-sanctioned execution.

Given the liability of mistakes in the court of law, it is imperative that enough respect and leeway be given to convicted criminals, lest they become victims of the social system whose mistakes may never be eradicated.

To throw the gauntlet at pro-deathers: How do you justify the execution of just one innocent man, in the face of perhaps the deaths of numerous criminals who "deserve" their state-sanctioned deaths? Can society deal with this grave miscarriage of injustice? Can we live with "One mistake out of a thousand correct decisions" mantra, when lives are at stake?

No one wants to put an innocent person in jail, much less execute one. In order to err on the safe side, the law must justify its rulings with humane, reversible punishments.

OTHER FACTS:

According to the Independent/UK:

1. At least 3,797 people were executed in 25 countries in 2004, according to a report released today by Amnesty International.

2. China easily operates the most stringent capital punishment regime, with an estimated 3,400 executions.

3. Iran executed at least 159, Vietnam at least 64, and 59 prisoners were put to death in the US.

4. Singapore has the highest number of executions per capita (Approx. 70 in a population of 4 million).^ (From: Amnesty International." The death penalty: A hidden toll of executions)

Human Genome Project Complete; A Triumph for Public Research Funding.

Today marks a milestone in science. British scientists announced analyzing the final sequence of DNA in the Human Genome Project. Paradoxically, of the twenty three pairs of chromosmes in the human body, the last one to be analyzed was Chromosome 1.

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Scientists have reached a landmark point in one of the world's most important scientific projects by sequencing the last chromosome in the Human Genome, the so-called "book of life".

Chromosome 1 contains nearly twice as many genes as the average chromosome and makes up eight percent of the human genetic code.

It is packed with 3,141 genes and linked to 350 illnesses including cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.

"This achievement effectively closes the book on an important volume of the Human Genome Project," said Dr Simon Gregory who headed the sequencing project at the Sanger Institute in England.

The project was started in 1990 to identify the genes and DNA sequences that provide a blueprint for human beings.

And let's call it what it is: a triumph for publically funded scientific research. Several privately funded ventures set out to do the same thing, but they all were overwhelmed by the size and complexity of the project and came up short.

As I wrote in a post last July entitled, In Defense of Public Funding for Basic Research,

There are those who say that any research worth doing will appeal to private donors or for profit corporations, and so the government should not be in the research business.

Yet, when we think of the biggest scientific breakthroughs of the past century-- the splitting of the atom, landing a man on the moon, the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA, all of these were accomplished with the support of government, not of private industry.

That is not to say that private industry doesn't have a role to play in carrying out basic research. Once the private enterprises involved accepted the fact that publically financed institutions (in this case, a group of several government funded research institutions around the world acting in concert) were providing the heavy lifting for the project, a productive partnership developed. Unlike such projects as building an atomic bomb and landing a man on the moon, the immediate profitability of the genome project has generated a lot of support from private industry, primarily in the biomedical field. And that is good. But, as the article on the role of private industry points out:

Substantial public-sector R&D investment often was needed in feasibility demonstrations before such start-up ventures as those by Celera Genomics, Incyte, and Human Genome Sciences could begin. In turn, these companies furnished valuable commercial services that the government could not provide, and the taxes returned by their successes easily repay fundamental public investments.

This makes at least three points: 1) The initial investment before the project was raised to profitability was provided by government (in this case, primarily the British government); 2) private industry does have its place, just not as the driver of the program, and 3) in the long run, this is a win/win situation, and I suspect that over the long term the British and other governments will get a substantial return on their investment as the sales of pharmaceuticals and other technology or information that come from this project produce much in the way of tax revenue.

But the really best argument in favor of public funding, the argument that really hits the ball out of the park here, is that the genome, now completed, is free and accessible to anyone who wants to look at it. Suppose for a moment, that a private company had in fact carried out this project and sequenced the entire genome. Do you suppose they would simply open it up to free inspection, and tell potential competitors, 'Here?' They would have guarded it like Colonel Sanders guarded his secret recipe, and if they let any of it out at all, you can be sure that it would have only been in pieces, and at a hefty price. In the long run, research into applications would be limited only to that company, and to those who they chose to give the information to. And to compound matters, competitors, not willing to allow that situation to continue permanently, would have certainly begun their own DNA sequencing project. So, the same research would probably be done half a dozen, a dozen or even more times, resulting in a tremendous waste of academic resources. But now, none of them will have to do that, they can go to the public database of the project, and go get anything and everything they want either for free or for a nominal fee.

I respect the ability of private industry to conduct research into those areas that immediately benefit them, but for a project of this magnitude and scope, public financing is still the best avenue to take, and one which today celebrated an enormous achievement.

Cross posted at Night Bird's Fountain and Deep Thought.

CHRISTIANS CRY HUE OVER DA VINCI CODE; FILM MAKERS LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK

DA VINCI CODE: CONTROVERSIAL NOVEL CUM MOVIE

Every once in a blue moon, a work of art is deemed so provocative, members of the "elitist" fundamentalist groups are lured out of their filthy dens in full force to condemn "secular blasphemy".

And so it was, that the da Vinci code has been at the centre of a minor maelstrom (compared to the Danish cartoon furore, that is), with Christians from all corners of the globe condemning the novel-cum-movie.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES OF SINGAPORE: DA VINCI CODE IS A THREAT TO RELIGIOUS HARMONY!!!

Not surprisingly, Christian groups in Singapore have voiced their unhappiness over the Da Vinci mania.

One particular Christian group, National Council of Churches of Singapore (Jeez, sounds like a group in the mould of Opus Dei. Do these loonies practice self-flagellation?), had written to the overwhelming patriachal and conservative media watchdog, Media Development Authority of Singapore (MDA), requesting that the movie be banned:

Excerpts from:
THE NEWPAPER, 16th May 2006:

Last month, the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) wrote a letter to the Media Development Authority (MDA) asking it to ban the movie.

It was the first time that the NCCS had asked for a movie to be banned.

'In our multi-racial and multi-religious society, movies that offend the sensitivities of any religious group should not be allowed,' argued NCCS general secretary Lim K Tham.

Offensive, huh? Why then, did these loonies not voice their disproval when the "Passion of the Christ" was aired? Not to mention the excessive use of fake blood to make that X-rated porn freak-show, there were elements of anti-Semitism plastered all over it. Why didn't the Jews complain?

Clearly, narrow-minded buffoons are attempting to stifle the minds of the masses here by attempting a blanket coup on the movie. Tough luck.

The MDA allowed the movie to pass with an NC-16 rating (Those under the age of 16 not allowed to watch).

Clearly, the MDA has obviously picked potential profitability over religious conservatism. Clearly, money speaks louder than God's fragile ego.

Try harder next time, morons.

PHILIPPINES: BAN ON DA VINCI CODE URGED BY POLITICIAN, CLAIMS IT IS AFFRONT TO AVERAGE "PINOY"

In a predominantly Catholic nation of the Philippines, talk of a ban on the controversial movie has received explicit disproval from a politician:

From Malaya News, 11th May 2006
Ban on Da Vinci Code urged BY JOCELYN MONTEMAYOR

EXCUTIVE Secretary Eduardo Ermita yesterday said the controversial film Da Vinci Code should be banned as it is blasphemous and might imprint wrong ideas on Catholics, particularly the young. Ermita urged the Movie Television Regulatory and Classification Board (MTRCB) to take a look at its rules. "They should be able to take a look at their own guidelines on whether such a movie with such a story line should be allowed to be shown in the Philippines, especially as we are a Catholic country," he said. "And if you are to ask me, personally, I think if we know that indeed it will offend the sensibilities of the Filipinos, we being a Catholic country, we should do everything not to allow it to be shown at the least," he added.

Judging by the fact that politicians ought to keep themselves busy with bettering the lives of the common folk, meddling with religious affairs is simply not appropriate for an "executive secretary" (whatever that title means).

In any case, if Mr Eduardo has too much time in his hands, he might as well try and find out, and maybe eradicate the state of corruption and improve the welfare of his people. Trying to rally common gullible folks to ban movies is the job of priests, whose prime occupation of molesting altar boys place them in good stead with such a dastardly, dirty job.

COMMON ARGUMENTS FOR CALL ON DA VINCI BAN

Having read and heard comments from hard-core fundies advocating the voices of censorship,, their arguments, when explored in full view of unbridled logic, becomes as flimsy as a house of cards:

Lame Argument 1: The da Vinci code is full of errors.

The da Vinci code is primarily written as a novel. It basically explores the possibilities of the live of Jesus through a detective-style novel. As such, it cannot be taken seriously as a historical book.

Critics may judge the contents of the book in the context of story narration, writing style and so on. But to judge the book based on grounds of historical authenticity is certainly a futile exercise, since this is not one of the main criteria for judging novels.

Lame Argument 2: The da Vinci code is a dangerous book, as it might deceive believers of the faith.

Another pathetic argument from the religious right. If this argument is deemed valid, I can scarely imagine the degree of "faith" Christians have misplaced on their supposedly infallable superhero. If, indeed, a mere novel can strike such a non-sensical fear into the hearts of fundies, we atheists ought to write books of this nature, hopefully to scare all of them to death.

Lame Argument 3: The book claims Jesus married Mary Magdalene. This is blasphemous to the Christian deity.

This argument, I suspect, is partly due to the fall-out from the Muhammad cartoon fracas.

By borrowing a leaf out of the standard Muslim fundie, these Christians are placing the unblamable crime of heresy against the author and the film makers of da Vinci.

Blasphemy or no, the movie is a ligitimate work. The tenets of standard, secular law has allowed citizens of free nations to produce such works. However indignant these fundies may be, they must understand that the freedom to allow such "unpleasing" works to be released also guarantees religiously-slanted art the same degree of freedom as well.

DA VINCI FUROR: WHO STANDS TO PROFIT

Here comes the ultimate bombshell:

By constantly egging and haranguing for the ban of the movie, these extremists may have unwittingly aided the film makers into enticing more audiences.

After all, negative publicity is definitely better than no publicity. By constantly complaining about the contents of the heretic nature of the book, these naysayers have unwittingly given the film-makers of da Vinci code free publicity. No doubt, that ill-meaning comments do have a significant impact on ticket sales, but curiosity generated by negative comments will no doubt compensate for that slight loss of religious audiences.

Well, what if, say, a nation bans from the movie? Wouldn't that mean that no one stands to gain, besides the jubilant fundies?

Not true. Any ban on the movie in any country will only inspire her citizens to lay their hands on boot-legged DVDs of the film, which only serves to fatten the pockets of pirated vendors of copyrighted films.

In an increasing globalized world, intertwined economies and peoples of many cultures and creeds have created an unprecedented playground for human interaction, so much so that any bans on cultural expression is as good as firing a water gun at a charging bull.

My advice to Christians: Keep quiet. By not giving the movie any criticisms, the film makers will have no grounds to generate any sort of publicity.

Once Again on the NSA Domestic Spying Scandal

I have a proposition which should make 63 percent of the American people happy. No, I take that back. It won't make them feel happy. It will make them sleep well; it will make them feel safe. I had to borrow a little from George Orwell's 1984, but I truly believe that this will finally, finally, make the 63 percent of the American people who agree with the NSA data mining feel safe and secure in the privacy of their own homes. It's called the "1984 Terrorism Prevention Act" and it works like this:

First we have to repeal the Fourth Amendment. The whole thing will fall flat on its face if we entertain the idea that Americans still have a right to privacy. Then we would pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring each and every American to place cameras and microphones in every room of his or her house or apartment. Once installed the mics and cameras would be operated by AT &T, Bell South, and Verizon. Using new and innovative technology, any American would be able to dial up and see what any other American is doing at any time of the day or night. This may sound extreme, but it worked very well in George Orwell's 1984, so I see no reason why we shouldn't give it a try here. Who knows? Perhaps, just perhaps, when when the American people realize that they can't even take a dump without being watched or recorded in the process they might just realize that George W. Bush has transformed this country from the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" into the "Land of the Repressed and the Home of the Cowardly."

The latest flap over the Domestic Spying Scandal proves what we have been saying all along--that this increasingly despotic Administration is still living in a pre-911 world and still employing pre-911 tactics. Almost any mainstream source you read, watch, or listen to, will tell you that Al-Quaida is no longer using e0mails or telephone calls to plan their attacks. Rather, they have gone low tech and are using human couriers, a fact which has apparently eluded George W. Bush and his backward looking pack of cronies. You just have to give the Bush Regime credit. Not only has it found a way to dismantle everything the fourth Amendment stands for, it has also found a way to make us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. It truly believes that it can invade the privacy of the American people. It truly believes that in can repeat the same mistakes which led to the attack on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers on 11 September 2001.

This may come as a shock and a revelation to the Bush Administration and the NSA, but the primary problem with American intelligence prior to 911 was the fact that we had a glut of information but no way to coordinate and decipher it. And now, for some bizarre reason, the Bush and his NSA believe that they can accumulate another glut of information and not suffer the same consequences that it did on 911. Collecting information on phone calls between American citizens and known terrorists was one thing, but a data bass of millions of phone numbers?

That said, why should we believe a word that this President says about anything?

First he said that there was no domestic spying program. Then he said that there were only thirty-some cases of domestic spying. Then we learned that there were thousands of cases of domestic spying, but he told us that they only involved calls in which one of the participants was in a foreign country. And through it all he not only declared that he was trampling on the Constitution to protect us from terrorism, he also claimed that he did not have to go to the FISA court to acquire a federally mandated search warrant.

And now, after all the propaganda and outright prevarications, we have learned that the NSA (National Socialistic Administration) has acquired a data bass of tens of millions of phone numbers obtained from purely domestic calls. And I'm sure that at some point in the near future we will learn that this was not just a data bass of phone numbers, but that actual conversations were tapped and surveiled.

Let's get real here friends and neighbors. If the Administration doesn't know that electronic surveillance like the kind that it is using in the Domestic Spying Program is virtually useless, then it is the most inept Administration in the history of the modern day Presidency. And if it does know that electronic surveillance is useless then we have to ask ourselves why in the name of the Fourth Amendment would they want to collect millions of phone numbers unless there wasn't an ulterior motive.

Could it be that the Administration is trying to obtain personal information (read "dirt")on its political opponents? Considering the way these right wing predators campaign (with no regard for the truth and even less for their morally superior opponents), I think it's safe to assume that this is a very logical explanation. Despite false claims by the Administration that it has only been collecting phone numbers, the truth of the matter is that it is very easy to collect enough information to connect names with those numbers, essentially giving anyone with the position and the mind to do so, the ability to discern who we might have talked to in the past.

That of course, would represent a throw back to the bad old days of J. Edgar Hoover, who collected files of data on civil rights leaders during the 1960s. Remember the late J. Edgar Hoover? He was the former head of the FBI, an anal retentive cross-dresser, who gathered information about Martin Luther King's extra martial affairs and then released the information to both, Mrs. King and the public at large, in the hope that he might be able to derail an influential leader if not the the entire civil rights movement.

Imagine for a moment that you have decided to run for political office. Now imagine that you are a recovering alcoholic, and that during the course of your recovery you made several phone calls to your sponsor or to a clergy man during a time of weakness and talked about your urge to drink. During the course of the conversation you may have talked about embarrassing situations or personal problems which would have nothing to do with your worth as a human being or as a candidate but which might be used as political weapons by a potential opponent.

Better yet. Suppose that you are a business leader and that you have been phoning or emailing important financial information via your phone calls and emails. Would you really feel secure in the knowledge that your phone numbers, or even trade secrets, are being stored by the federal government? How would you feel if a corrupt civil servant leaked that information to a rival business or to the public at large? How would you feel if that corrupt individual decided to blackmail you with the information that he or she had obtained?

Contrary to right wing mythology, the American people really do have something to worry about if they have not done anything wrong. Domestic spying such as the kind "W "adores, not only fails to catch real life terrorists, it also creates a climate of self censorship in which some people will remain silent, refusing to speak truth to power. The overall effect is chilling. Afraid that their names and/or phone numbers might show up in some poorly protected data bass, the American people may remain silent on the issues, essentially shutting down debate before it even has a chance to begin. Of course you have to ask yourself if this is an unfortunate side effect or the original intention, but there are other questions to ask as well.

One question being: Is this a pay back to the telecommunications companies for all the financial support that they have given the Republican party? The telec ommunications Bill of 1996 was nothing more than a payoff by the United States Congress to the telecommunications Companies which had been making substantial contributions to political campaigns for the past several years. In many ways, the data bass of phone numbers represents a symbiotic relationship between the Republican parasites and the corporate parasites who have been ruling this country. The Republicans benefit in this relationship because it gives them convenient access to a massive supply of phone numbers (an by extension, dates and names). The Corporations benefit because this information could readily be declassified and serve as yet another data bass through which they could locate and harass potential customers through electronic media. Just what we need. More spam-filled in boxes and more telemarketers harassing us during our evening meal. Granted, this is mere speculation, but it does explain why Verizon, Bell South, and the dreaded AT & T would be so willing to sell out their customers unless there were some kind of payback for them. This, after all, was not a mandatory action. Qwest did not cooperate with the NSA, so what was the deal here? How did Verizon et al benefit from all of this? Why did three corporations sell out while a third remained true to its customers?

This would not be the first time that an American corporation has sold out to the forces of fascism. According to Edwin Black, author of IBM and the Holocaust, when Adolf Hitler came to power, Thomas J. Watson, the President of IBM looked upon the Nazi warlord and his maniacal regime, not as a menace, but as a lucrative source of business, ultimately helping Adolf Hitler in his execution of the holocaust.

"As a part of that strategic alliance," wrote Black, " IBM and the Nazis jointly designed, and IBM exclusively produced, technologic solutions that enabled Hitler to accelerate and automate key aspects of the persecution of the Jews from the initial identification and social expulsion to the confiscation and ghettoization, to the deportation and ultimate extermination." *

Note the opportune words " from the initial identification." In a very real sense of the word, this is what Verizon, AT & T, and Bell South have done. They have helped an increasingly despotic regime in its obvious attempt to collect information of more than 200 million Americans. Contrary to claims that this is mere data mining and that the Administration is only collecting numbers, the truth of the matter is that once the government, the NSA, has your telephone number, the NSA can easily obtain a name and an address to go with that number. Think about it. If a corporation is corrupt enough to cooperate with such a proto-fascist program, the corporation would also go so far as to provide the names and addresses of innocent American citizens. What's next? Will the NSA demand that every American citizen have his or her telephone number tattooed on his or her forearm? Or will they just settle for the number 666 on our foreheads or in the palms of our right hands?

In the meantime, the Justice Department cannot receive the proper security clearance to thoroughly investigate the NSA spying program. in other words, the White House is actively blocking an investigation into the matter, effectively forcing the justice department to drop its investigation.

Not that we should worry. The man who supervised the domestic spying, General Michael Hayden, has been nominated for a promotion and may well be chosen as the next head of the CIA. Yup, I know that makes me feel a lot safer. Especially when I remember the fact that General Hayden was the head of the NSA when it learned that the match was on for 911, but didn't bother to translate the intelligence until the day after 911. Knowing that I'm really going to sleep well at night.

Not


*For additional information about the connections between IBM and the Nazi regime please go to The Village Voice artcle, "Final Solutions: How IBM Helped Automate the Nazi Death Machine in Poland."

LIBERAL MAN VENTS FRUSTRATION AT WHITE HOUSE CHIMP; CHIMP IS UNREPENTANT

Tis a dream opportunity of just about every American liberal who harbours some form of innane frustration at the White House Chimp and his crony gang: To publicly rebuke him for his half-assed, fascist policies that seem more at home with Nazi Germany than democratic America.

LIBERAL ACTIVIST HARRY TAYLOR, SPEAKING AT THE FORUM. NOTICE THE TWO WOMEN'S EXPRESSIONS TO HIS RIGHT

Enter Harry Taylor, a true-blue liberal, who managed to sneak into a conservative-packed North Carolina forum, hosted by the chief simian, George W. Bush.

The questions he addressed to the Simian, plus his hard-hitting rebukes, were hardly addressed by Bush, although he did a half-hearted attempt at explaining away the use of phone tappings, as provisioned by Congress under the Patriot Act.

Excerpts from the conversation between Bush and Taylor
Washington Post.com
Video here

QUESTION: I've got the mike.

BUSH: Okay, yes, very good. (Laughter and applause.) Good move.

QUESTION: You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own behalf. You are...

BUSH: I'm not your favorite guy. Go ahead. (Laughter and applause.) Go on, what's your question?

QUESTION: Okay, I don't have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that I -- in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate, and...

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Booo!

BUSH: No, wait a sec -- let him speak.

QUESTION: And I would hope -- I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself. And I also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I'm saying to you right now. That is part of what this country is about.

BUSH: It is, yes. (Applause.)

QUESTION: And I know that this doesn't come welcome to most of the people in this room, but I do appreciate that.

BUSH: Appreciate...

QUESTION: I don't have a question, but I just wanted to make that comment to you.

BUSH: I appreciate it, thank you. Let me...

QUESTION: Can I ask a question?

BUSH: I'm going to start off with what you first said, if you don't mind, you said that I tap your phones -- I think that's what you said. You tapped your phone -- I tapped your phones. Yes. No, that's right. Yes, no, let me finish. I'd like to describe that decision I made about protecting this country. You can come to whatever conclusion you want. The conclusion is I'm not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program, and I'll tell you why. We were accused in Washington, D.C. of not connecting the dots, that we didn't do everything we could to protect you or others from the attack. And so I called in the people responsible for helping to protect the American people and the homeland. I said, is there anything more we could do. And there -- out of this national -- NSA came the recommendation that it would make sense for us to listen to a call outside the country, inside the country from al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda in order to have real-time information from which to possibly prevent an attack. I thought that made sense, so long as it was constitutional. Now, you may not agree with the constitutional assessment given to me by lawyers -- and we've got plenty of them in Washington -- but they made this assessment that it was constitutional for me to make that decision. I then, sir, took that decision to members of the United States Congress from both political parties and briefed them on the decision that was made in order to protect the American people. And so members of both parties, both chambers, were fully aware of a program intended to know whether or not al Qaeda was calling in or calling out of the country. It seems like -- to make sense, if we're at war, we ought to be using tools necessary within the Constitution, on a very limited basis, a program that's reviewed constantly to protect us. Now, you and I have a different -- of agreement on what is needed to be protected. But you said, would I apologize for that? The answer -- answer is, absolutely not. (Applause.)

How he managed to smuggle himself into the forum packed with conservatives is one thing, how he managed to get his questions across in a unwavering manner, despite the heckles and boos, hell, I think he deserves a whole lot of credit.

It is quite clear that Bush has not addressed every issue of contention raised by Taylor, which can be summarized as follows:

1. The partial ban on abortion.
2. The Bush Administration's reluctance to address several environmental issues.
3. The Patriot Act, which provides provisions for detention without trial (Singaporeans will be familiar with this. Its called the Internal Security Act).

ISSUES ON PHONE-TAPPING

As it turned out, Bush merely addressed to the phone tapping issue, which he justisfies as a measure for counter-terrorism.

The unambiguous truth is this: Wire-tapping is not a new phenomenon. Past American Presidents, have, at one time or another, wire-tapped phones, most notably during the WWII.

All these activities, however, must been approved by the courts, which would then issue warrants to the inquiring law enforcement agencies to carry out these activities. In the case of the NSA (National Security Agency) wiretapping controversy, the wiretappings did not come with the explicit approval from any legal courts, other than the express approval of Bush the simian himself.

By invoking the Patriot Act, Bush bypasses the courts altogether. Without the explicit approval of the courts, there is no stopping the NSA: They might just as well wire-tap every damn phone in America without proper instructions or checks from any other authority, save those in the Bush Administration.

In short, there is no proper legal procedure: Just Bush calling the shots. You might just as well have been talking about the Fascist States Of America. Of course, Mr Bush can jokingly claim that "he isn't Mr Taylor's favorite guy", or that his actions are meant to protect America, but when a President activates such infringements of freedom and rights without proper protocco, it isn't really an issue about likability anymore.

Most important of all, Mr Taylor has raised a very serious concern here: George Bush's rhetorics about freedom has almost always been a precurser for the loss of freedom for the American public.

Mr Taylor's calls for Bush to "feel ashamed" is, to me, a form of praise, because somehow, I do not think for a second that that simian knows what "shame" really means. After all, when one has managed to screw a nation and deceive its people for so long, one becomes immuned to these things, especially when you consider that Bush isn't that intelligent in the first place.

In an interview by Washington Post afterward, Mr Taylor was pretty candid in his assessment:

"I didn't think I'd be let in the room," he said.

"I didn't care about his response. I wanted to say what I wanted to say and I wanted him to know that despite being in a room with a thousand people who love him . . . there are plenty of people out there who don't agree with him in any way, shape or form."

Well three cheers to the man, I say. With popularity polls at an all time low of 36 percent, the more anti-Bush rhetoric, the merrier.

MYOPIA OF THE MASSES: EXCHANGING HUMAN RIGHTS FOR "FOOD ON THE TABLE"

For the past few weeks, I have been covering on issues pertaining to the General Elections in my native country, Singapore (for anyone who is curious, kindly proceed to www.disgruntledsporean.blogspot.com).

Prior to this, more often than not, I have avoided writing issues about local politics, which are conspicuously absent even from my own blog. I guess, like most Singaporeans, I am guilty of being too apathetic towards politics here, partly because of the predictability and staid state of affairs of our political scene, which can be summed up in three words: "The Lee Dynasty".

Writing about our elections has been a humbling experience for me: For once, I sincerely felt the terrible loss of our rights, literally, for what seems to be the most basic of human comforts: A home to live in, food on the table and a job to go to (if you are lucky). All these, in exchange for our political apathy and enforced meekness in the face of wanton abuse by semi-government and government entities (Check NKF fracas).

Imagine my horror, when a Christian Filipino of a particular forum, of which I am an inactive member of, wrote about the supposed "horrors" of the freedom of the press. He claims that this "freedom" has been abused by journalists, who are being bribed by unscrupulous politicians to slander their political opponents.

Now, in an open, secular society, such acts by corrupt journalists and their associating newspapers would have been exposed by worthier, decent newspapers. In any case, corruption ought to be punishable under the full weight of the law, provided, of course, a healthy, democratic nation has in place a totally unbiased judiciary, plus an enlightened people to question the powers-that-be, without fear of being sued or threatened via physical means.

This Christian further enthuses, to my complete and abject dismay:"I understand the lack of freedom of speech in Singapore; but, I tell you, millions of Filipinos will trade their freedom of speech just to have the kind of food Singaporeans serve on their dining tables. They will be willing to trade their "chewing gums" just to provide them suitable jobs."

According to this rather naive Christian, human rights can be traded for food on the table.

Herein lies my question: Does the genetic makeup of any sane human rest on having food on the table for the rest of his/her miserable life? If so, he/she would have been better off languishing in some miserable prison.

According to the famed Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

Diagram of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

1. Physiological
2. Safety
3. Love/Belonging
4. Esteem
5. Actualization

1. Physiological:

This is the most basic of needs. It pertains to the acquiring of materials to facilitate certain actions essential to the immediate/almost immediate survival of any human being.- the need to breathe reasonably clean air;

- the need for clean water;
- the need to eat decent food;
- the need to dispose of bodily wastes via proper sanitation facilities ;
- the need for sleep in proper shelters;
- the need to regulate body temperature (i.e warmth).

This is the most basic level of needs; any viable system of government must set aside provisions for the purposes of meeting these needs, failing which, the government is to be held accountable for its failure to do so.

2. Safety Needs:

This is the second level of needs that demands almost immediate attention: The need to provide the masses with a relatively safe and secure environment to live in.

These include:

- Security of employment: Worker's Unions, laws protecting workers' rights, etc
- Security of revenues and resources: Checks on government revenues by external auditors, anti-corruption police units, etc.
- Physical security: Police, Armed forces, and other security agencies.
- safety from violence, delinquency, aggressions.
- Moral (i.e laws of the state) and physiological security: Laws, civil and criminal.
- Familial security: Healthy family units, each headed by a father and mother.
- Security of health: Health insurance, social welfare, etc

3. Love/Belonging:

This is a level of need which is more or less exclusive from government intervention. It involves a longing for love and recognition within a social group/family unit. Human beings, being social creatures, long for a sense of belonging within a social circle. This is where churches and other religious groups come into play.

4.Esteem Needs

This is a higher form of need that requires the government to foster an open society, thereby enabling a high level of autonomy in terms of free speech and freedom of the press, along with other freedoms pertaining to the right of expression.

Esteem needs cater to the very human side of nature: The need to be respected, through engagement in a bid to gain recognition and acceptance from a particular niche or group.

The absence of esteem needs for any individual may lead to low self-esteem and a host of other personality problems in relation to the loss of self confidence. When you compound this problem on a national scale, the end result is political apathy and a abject loss of national identity.

5. Self-Actualization

This is the ultimate nirvana of any enlightened human being: To use his/her unique talents to achieve his/her maximum potential.

According to Maslow, self-actualizing people:

- embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
- are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
- are creative.
- are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
- feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
- have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority.
- judge others without prejudice, in a way that can be termed objective.

The level of self-actualization is the highest goal for any society; to foster this need, a higher autonomy and human rights must be granted. Only an open system of government allows and caters for a free and unbiased exchange of views.

CONCLUSION

Human rights are part and parcel of achieving the needs of every human being. Regardless the urgent need to meet the most basic of needs, sacrificing your rights to a political tyrant to meet your temporary urgent needs is not the way to go, even if its a mere act of chewing a piece of gum. Who knows, maybe a medicinal gum may just come along and bring an end to some excruciating, delibilating disease? Wouldn't you fight for your rights, if that were the case?

To exchange human rights for "food on the table" is tantamount to sheep willing to face the slaughterhouse for a bunch of hay. We are intelligent, insatiable beings in our own right. Food on the table is important, but we can't just be myopic about it and forfeit our rights, and in the process forfeit the rights of our future generations.

Even the fish story was fake

We know that President Bush claims that his best moment in the last five years was catching a big perch at his ranch. 7.5 pounds (there's hint number one-- a perch that size would be pretty near a record.)

It wasn't a perch. It was a largemouth bass.

Check out paragraph sixteen of the linked article (ironically about Bush impersonator Steve Bridges, although in paragraphs 15-16 they are talking about the real Bush):

In the midst of his 1999 campaign run, the man who was once a Yale cheerleader scuffed up and spit-polished his Texas twang. Shortly before he was elected, he bought a sixteen-hundred-acre pig farm in Crawford, Texas, and transformed it into an old family homestead, complete with a man-made lake stocked with largemouth bass cross-bred so that they’re easy to catch.

He caught it in a lake he had made, and then filled with easy-catch fish.

Am I surprised?

No, not really. Not at all, in fact.

DIALOGUE BETWEEN E.T AND THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT

(ETs. Alien abductions. The kind of stuff which exists only in the realms of nightmares and science-fiction. From time to time though, UFO (short for Unidentified Flying Objects) sightings have been reported from all corners of the globe, appearing in numerous places to numerous people in all shapes and sizes: From the usual disc shapes to the odd cigar-looking ones, and the more common flying saucers (the saucer-shaped UFOs are the most numerous when it comes to fake UFO photos, usually appearing on still photos with the Frisbee flung from a unsighted place in a city or town background setting) their images have often been caught on camera by both amateur and professional photographers alike. Humanoid creatures, or aliens, have also been sighted too, ranging from the tallest being 6 feet in height, to humanoids of 4 feet or less. Most of them have prettier peculiar facial shapes and disproportional features, the most famous being the little alien in the movie, ET.

Stranger and scarier still, are reports of alien abductions. Alleged victims of such extra-terrestrial schemes often involve the liberal use of experimental devices, which kind of reduces the subjects to the role of the lab rat or guinea pig. Such unusual experiments often induce injuries, the common ones being burns and severe pain of the genital area. In rare cases, symptoms of radiation sickness appear on subjects after the trauma . In certain unique cases, however, subjects are chosen for entirely different purposes. Stories of sexual contact between human subjects and these intruders from beyond are not all that unheard of, which really does bring up the question of whether these space travellers really regard Earth as a great tourist attraction when it comes to cheap sex….

Regardless whether alien visitations and abductions are real or fabricated, the fact remains that aliens remain very real creatures, abet in a more commercial variety, in Hollywood and other entertainment industries. From extraterrestrial movies to Roswell T-shirts, the UFO legend has an undoubted commercial value.


Whatever the implications and reasons behind such alleged paranormal activities, there is but one guy I would gladly recommend to our ET friends, if they do exist, so that they could indeed mete out some of their “hospitality” trademark. I will personally nominate a certain American President (Hint: He was christened as son-of-a-Bush) for our foreign visitors. This President is responsible for many atrocities, ranging from staging an illegal war on the pretext of terrorism and WMDs, to betraying the identities of secret CIA agents and subsequently denying responsibility. It will be interesting if these foreign “invaders” can actually hold him hostage and torture him, not unlike what the American soldiers, who meted out democratic-style tortures on the Iraqi prisoners in Abu Gharib prison. I mean, if anyone has the ability to question the motives of an American President and judge an American President, it must be the average ET. With supposedly superior stealth technology (Flying saucers have a stunning ability to appear and disappear in an instant) and a affable character to boot, surely the ET is the best neutral candidate to give an unbiased decision on an American President, right?

The Story: While eating his favourite snack pretzels, the President of America chokes on what seems to be a harmless delicacy enjoyed by millions of people all over the world. Fortunately for the President, his Special Service Agents, assigned on a 24-hr basis to ensure his safety, manages to perform the necessary first aid procedure on him, and in no time at all he is lying in a hospital bed in a posh private hospital, bruised and battered, but otherwise still alive.

While lying on his hospital bed, the aliens, who have been watching his rescue from the deep bowels of space via superior technology, seizes the chance to abduct him while he is in deep slumber., by zapping him into the cabin of a mysterious UFO, a-la Star Trek style (Read: Beam me up, Scotty). The president’s security personnel are miraculously hypnotized to sleep, and with no help available, the President’s life rests in the hands of his unearthly captors.


Scene: The President slowly awakens, only to find himself in a unfamiliar environment. Bright lights laminates the entire strange room, momentarily blinding the President.)

President: Jesus Christ! Where the hell am I?
(Half-dazed by the light and the reawakening, The President gropes about for some kind of switch to turn off the offending light source, and realises that he is strapped into the hospital bed by some strange, eerie-looking energy chain.) My God! Is this some kind of sick, sadistic joke? (Looks around desperately) Help! Guards! I have been kidnapped! Help!

(Immediately, the lights go off, and the whole room is plunged into darkness. The sudden alteration from bright light to complete darkness completely disorients the President, who goes into a fit of rage)


President: This is outrageous! I demand to meet my captors! In the name of God, come out now! You cowards! You will pay a price for your insolence!

(Just then, the door opens. The President instinctively closes his eyes, in anticipation for another surge of light. Instead, the whole room illuminates into a soft, yellowish light. The President slowly opens his eyes, only to see a E.T-like creature standing before him. Large green eyes, small mouth, a oval-shaped head and a grotesquely small sized body of less than 4 feet; classic look of a E.T)

President (Shocked, stunned): Holy mother of God, what abomination is this?

E.T (Smiles): Good evening, Mr President of the United States of America. On behalf of my crew on this ship, I extend my welcome to you.

President (Angrily): Damn you, freak, trying to masquerade as an alien to make a mockery out of me, tell me, what are your motives? Money? Or are you just one of those stupid terrorists out there seeking revenge on me? Let me out of here, you bloody imbecile!

E.T (Laughs): I understand your anger, fear and frustrations. Calm down, Sir. Look around you, the cabin, or rather, the window ports of the cabin (the UFO was hovering above Earth, which was plain to see through a glass portal of the UFO cabin). Notice the energy chains that bind you. Do you think such technology exists on Earth, that can really kidnap a heavily guarded American President and abduct him right up to space? Those energy chains, I do not perceive that your scientists have the tools nor the knowledge to come up with something even remotely close to this.

President: Aliens are but fabrications of Man’s imagination! Aliens certainly do not exist! (Stops, then exclaims) I know….You must be the Devil! What are your intentions, oh Evil One?!

E.T (Laughs again): Man and his fables. Truly, homo sapiens are incorrigible.

President: What mean you, fables? Do you not admit that you, the king of Demons, exist? Do you not blaspheme against your Creator?

E.T (Shakes his head, smile): No, Mr President. As I have reiterated, I am neither a demon, nor a God. Let me give you a brief introduction about myself. My name is ET. I am but a mere celestial traveller, and a very well-travelled veteran of the cosmos. My home planet is located in a galaxy approximately 100 million light years away from Milky Way, which is your solar system, in case you do not know. Our civilisation is far more advanced than yours, as you have already witnessed. I have been sent by my leaders to be an observer to your planet, and for the past 100 yrs I have been a personal witness to many of your planet’s greatest triumphs, and with it the tragedies. From time to time, we abduct world leaders to my humble spacecraft for a nice little get-together, you know, so that we can understand your species better.

President (Interrupts): Before you continue with this nonsense, release me from this strange bondage of yours. Or simply just slit my throat and let me die, Lucifer!

E.T (Fed up): Only if you are compliant, Mr President, will I release you. Understand this, that you are no match for me. Like it or not, you play by my rules. Your Secret Services have been immobilised by my crew. Your military forces are no match for my spaceship either. Realise this, Mr President, that our civilization far exceeds even your wildest imaginations.

President (Silent for a moment, then retorts): Ok, I promise you. I shall keep my mouth shut. Now just release me from my bonds!

(At this point, the energy chain is de-activated: In its place is a ring of energy beam, which encircles the hospital bed.)

The President immediately jumps out of the hospital bed and makes a mad dash towards ET, only to be electrocuted by a circular energy beam, which quickly surrounds and imprisons him. The President is momentarily stunned, but otherwise unharmed.)

President: (Screams in pain) Ah!!!

E.T (Laughs hysterically): I warned you, Mr President, but you didn’t listen.

President: Let me go, you demon child!

E.T: Halt all hostilities, Mr President, lest you suffer unnecessarily for your futile struggles. I have no wish to harm you. I would like to ask you some questions, which I expect you to answer me with utmost honesty. Do not even harbour any thoughts of lying, for I have ways and means to find out the authenticity of your words.

President: And so you will release me after all these nonsense is over, will you?

E.T: Only after we have conducted certain experiments on you, and collect DNA samples from your body. You must not resist when my men carry out the tests later on, as these tests can be a little uncomfortable and degrading, but rest assured that you will not feel any pain whatsoever, so long as you do not struggle that is. If you happen to resist my men, you may get hurt unnecessarily. Do you understand me, Mr President?

President (Sulking now): I don’t have a choice, do I, Mr E.T?

E.T (Smiles): Yes you have. Like your Gods, I love your religious concept of free will. Either you comply with us, or be tortured to death. That is my freewill to you, which is your equivalent of heaven and hell. Make do with it, Mr President.

President (Irritated): Then get on with it. But let me assure you, demon, or whatever you are, you will pay heavily for your deeds today. I swear I will personally lead my army to hunt you down, right to the ends of the Earth, if I have to.

E.T (Smiles wickedly): Ah, but look around you. We are nowhere near planet Earth now. (Points to the portal window) Look! This is Planet Saturn at its most striking pose. Aren’t the gas rings around this gigantic planet beautiful? What a sight to behold! Truly, Milky Way is a wondrous galaxy!

President: Ok, E.T, spare me your taunts. Ask your questions, and set me free!

E.T: That’s better. Now, just to get things going, can you give me a brief description of yourself, and your family?

President (Laughs): And I thought you are supposed to be so god-damned smart, with all your gizmos and technological advancements. Surely you will have my personal profiles, eh?
E.T: I must apologize for this. Well, you see, we have your information alright, but this is standard protocol, Mr President. Your answers to what has already been made known to us will enable me to provide my superiors with a accurate psychological evaluation of you.

President: Alright, then if you must. I was born in 1946, in New Haven Connecticut, to the 41st President of America. Grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas with 4 siblings. You will probably have known by now, that I had a younger sister who died of leukaemia.

E.T: Yes I do. A trifle too young, to die at the age of three.

President: Indeed, losing a close sibling was a terrible pain.

E.T: Well, let’s skip the sad part, shall we? Tell us a little about your education background, Mr President.

President (irritated): Do I have to spell everything out, Mr Know-It-All Alien crap?

E.T (Calmly): Just answer my questions accordingly, and quit your insults. It will save you a world of hurt. You know now what we can do. So just cooperate with me, Mr President.

President (Sulks): Alright, then. I did my early years at Phillips Academy for three years, from 1961 to 1964, after which I moved on to Yale University, where I graduated with a degree in history in 1968.

E.T: So how well did you fare, Mr President? Excellent results, I suppose?

President (Shrugs): Well enough to earn me a position with the National Air Guard.

E.T (Laughs): Really, Mr President. But my records tells me you were merely an average student, with a “C” grade at that. Now that doesn’t sound like a result one should crow about, eh?

President (Annoyed): Perhaps so, but I wasn’t merely a bookworm, Mr E.T. I was a good, all-round student, and I have always excelled in sports, particularly Football.

E.T: I would have to agree with the sports thing. However, given your academic results, I shall venture to deduce that, without the influence of your father, you would have been nothing more than a white collar man struggling to irk out a living in Texas.

President (Annoyed): This is pure conjuncture on your part. If I wasn’t good enough, I wouldn’t have been capable of making it to the Texas National Air Guard. Can you truly comprehend how difficult it is to make it to the National Air Guard. Do you? No you don’t. Because you are the Devil, damn it!

E.T (Laughs): The National Air Guard, eh? Well, well, forgive me for being blunt here, but I don’t think you are a very bright homo sapien.

President (Angrily): If I wasn’t very bright, I wouldn’t have made in to the National Air Guard, let alone a President, moron! How many times must I repeat this to you?

E.T: Your father, he was a Senator at the time you enlisted into the National Guard, was he?

President: Yes he was.

E.T: Without your father’s influence, I doubt you would actually have made it into the National Air Guard. Especially when we are talking about the thousands that applied during the 1960s and early 1970s, and you should jolly well know why the unit was so popular, Mr President. The National Air Guard stood very little chance of being called up for a tour of duty in Vietnam. And so your father, being a influential figure, decided to intercede on your behalf. You pulled some strings to get yourself drafted into the Texas Air Guard, didn’t you Mr President?

President (Clearly irritated): And you actually believed in the media hogwash?

E.T: You mean to say, you got in on your own merits?

President: Definitely! Not every Tom, Dick and Harry can get into the coveted unit, damn it!

E.T: Then explain the fact that, while in service with the National Air Guard, you hardly ever attended drills, nor was there any records of your flight log. Your attendance in the Air Guard was appalling, to say the least. I don’t think you want me to go into the specifics here, Mr President.

President: There are tons of paperwork pertaining to my service with the Air Guard. I have released them to the public. I have nothing to hide with regards to the issue.

E.T: Allow me to go through the specifics, if you must, then.

President: Go on.

E.T: Well, then, so be it. Let us begin from the very first day you attempted to gain entry into the National Air Guard. Back then, in May 1968, you were but mere days away from losing your student draft deferment, which granted yourself immunity against any draft into the army. Fearing a draft into the army, you had seek the assistance of oil magnate and close family friend, Sid Agner, to intercede on your behalf. From then on, the word was passed on, first to Texas Speaker of the House, Ben Barnes, and he in turn contacted General James Rose, Head of the Texas National Air Guard to draft you in. That’s quite a lot of strings you pulled back then, Mr President.

President: I wasn’t the only guy who requested to get into the Air Guard, damn it! Thousands did too, and many of them had their own personal connections, you know that!

E.T: But they didn’t rally as many high-level politicians as you did, and worst of all, you actually got in on the first day you enlisted! “Hell with the waiting list. I am the Son-of-Bush, so let me in!”, eh? Your Unit Commander, Col. "Buck" Staudt, was so delighted with your enlistment, that he actually arranged a special arrangement for the press during your swearing-in ceremony. A nice little ceremony here, a little favour done there……..privileges fit only for rich, spoilt brats. Will you deny them all, Mr President?

President (Looks lost): Well…….I…….

E.T (Interrupts): At a time when Americans are suffering casualties of approximately 350 a day at the hands of the Vietcong insurgents, you have every reason to fear the draft, and such a fear is perfectly understandable. But you could have done it fairly, and honestly, without jumping the queue. At the very least, you should have cut off all the media show circus, which really was a kick in the teeth for those who were not born to a family as privileged as yours. Now, tell me, what kind of mortal are you? A self-centred, egoistic fool who cares less for the sufferings of others, even at the expense of your own countrymen?

President (Seething with anger): Now you stop condemning me, you moronic little freak! If you were in my shoes, you would have done exactly the same thing!

E.T (Laughs): Perhaps so, but I wouldn’t have done it in the way you did, and then brag to the world that you have carried out your duties in your military, something which you clearly didn’t.

President: Alright, so I pulled some strings, big deal, I served my time. If I didn’t carry out my duties, I wouldn’t have been promoted twice, once to the officer rank of 2nd lieutenant, and subsequently to the rank of lieutenant. I did what I have to do. That’s all I want to say to you, little guy.

E.T (Smiles): If you insist on your little diatribes against my tiny stature, I assure you, Mr President, that you will feel a lot more pain than what you have gone through earlier. (Pauses) Allow me to continue. Your first promotion, which you received after you had completed Basic Military Training, was granted, not earned. Without having to undergo a reasonably rigorous Officer Cadet Course in Officer Cadet School, you were directly appointed as a 2nd Lieutenant upon completion of Basic Military Training. Doesn’t that strike you as a bit odd? A case of noble birth rights in a secular, democratic America?

President: I had excellent credentials, that is why.

E.T (Coy smile): Excellent credentials? (Laughs loudly)

President (Angered): You………!!!

E.T: At the time of your appointment of officer, were you trained as a professional in medical, engineering or other specific fields that the military would have sort after in earnest?

President: Well……..I was a Yale graduate, damn it!

E.T: And a C-grade student at that. By your reasoning you would have been somewhere at the bottom of the list.

President (Annoyed): Oh really? Then why in god’s name was I selected then?

E.T: You jolly well knew the reason why, Mr President. Under standard U.S military protocol during the 1960s, only doctors and personnel with specific qualifications in much-needed vocations were directly appointed as officers without going through officer cadet course, to meet the demanding roles in the Vietnam theatre of operations. You obviously didn’t fit the bill. You got your officer’s rank on account of your father’s influence, and nothing else.

President (Utter loss of words): Erm……..

E.T: As I have concluded earlier, you are not a very bright human, and the statistics do back me up here. Besides your obvious lack of professional training which renders you unqualified for automatic promotion at officer, you were barely qualified for eligibility as a National Air Guard pilot, much less worthy of automatic enlistment as a enlistee. The results of your pilot aptitude test at flight school speaks for itself, Mr President. 25 out of 100.……. pathetic, to say the least, and 50% for the navigator aptitude test. Now, Mr President, what would you have to say in your own defence?

President: I did score a 95% for the officer quality test!


E.T: That test was a sham, really. The average score for officers was about 88%. It’s nothing to crow about, you know that.

President: But I did pass with flying colours, which means I was well qualified to be an Air Guard officer.

Alien (Laughs loudly): Ah……..finally, you do have something to be proud of. But again, having said that, your qualifications as an Air Guard pilot are really appalling.
President (Impatient): All right, all right, I was a bad student, I pulled strings, I scored terrible scores……..but big deal! I did my time, I fulfilled my duty to the nation, and that is what matters now. The past is the past. The Vietnam War is all but over.

E.T: Very easy for you to say, for someone who has never stood in the line of fire. It would all be forgiven, if you admitted outright to the press, that yes, you did pull some strings, you didn’t meet the number of drills required of you, and you did go AWOL whilst you were supposed to be on duty with the Air Guard. You didn’t come clean with the truth, and that’s why it doesn’t go away, Mr President. Your lies stick with you, Mr President. It doesn’t go away.

President (Angrily): Nonsense! As I have mentioned earlier, I have authorized the release of all the records of my tenure with the Air Guard to the press! It is there for all to see.

E.T: Indeed, you have, and us from the extra-terrestrial community have taken notice, and made some observations.

President: And what would that be, Mr E.T?

E.T: Well, let me see…….shall we start first with the unit you were posted to?

President (Shrugs, frowns like a chimp): Oh well, sure.

E.T: Well, then, let us focus with your appalling attendance record. 8 months after you have officially enlisted into the Air Guard, you were granted 2 whole months off to assist Edward Gurney in his Senatorial race. Not only that, for two consecutive years, 1971 and 1972, you did the same thing, first to assist your father, and then to Alabama, to cement your political path. That is akin to 6 months off active duty.

President: I have all along aspired to be a leader. At that point of time, if not for the Vietnam war and the draft, I would have worked my way up the political ladder. That was the reason why I requested for leave.

E.T: So you will sacrifice duty to your nation for your political career?

President: I only did that because my role as an aviator in the Air Guard was of little significance to the security of the nation.

E.T (Laughs): Very true, I totally agree with that assessment. After all, the unit you were in, the 147th Interceptor Fighter Group, was labelled a “champagne unit”. This unit, at that point of time, was flying F-102 fighters, which were in the process of being phased out of the military. Numerous rich men’s sons belonged to that unit. It was the perfect place for anyone who had money and aspired to escape the draft.

President (Shrugs): No matter. I applied for leave, and it was approved.

E.T: Perhaps you can be forgiven for this, after all, you did apply for leave. However, your misdemeanour doesn’t end here. In 1972, you applied for leave due to your political commitments in Alabama. And at the same time you applied to be posted to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron, based in Montgomery, Alabama. Now, this unit, at that point of time, was as near to a defunct unit as it gets. No planes, only a handful of pilots who met once a fortnight to discuss on general, useless matters such as first aid. Now, as a active member of the Air Guard, why would you want to post yourself to the 9921st?

President: I needed to concentrate on my political career. It was the best deal, both for me as well as the Air Guard.

E.T (rather dryly): And, as always, your interests come first, before your nation.

President: I felt I could serve the America, and Americans, better as a politician, than as an airman.

E.T: But you do understand this, that by signing on as a Air Guard guardsman, you are obliged to fulfil your duty as a pilot, don’t you?

President: Of course. But as an air guardsman, I am also entitled to a full time job.

E.T: Yes, and you wanted to be posted to a de-activated base with no airplanes. A great choice for an “aspiring airman”, which you claim yourself to be, when you first signed up. Let me see, you wrote in your "statement of intent" that flying would be "a lifetime pursuit”. Clearly it was a lie, was it not?

President: No, I have always aspired to be an airman.

E.T: Then you ought not to have any problems with completing your obligation, Mr President.

President: I had a tough time juggling both jobs, damn it!

E.T: An excuse, and a terrible one. Other pilots in the Air Guard have had civilian jobs too, yet they have completed their military obligations. It is quite obvious that you simply lost interest. You signed up with the Texas Air Guard, knowing that you will be bonded to the unit for 6 years and complete the necessary number of drills. You wanted to get out of the business of flying, because you never loved to fly anyway, contrary to what you claim.

President (Seething with anger): Now that’s a outrageous lie, and you know it!

E.T (Continues): The truth is, you applied for a transfer to the almost-defunct 9921st Squadron, but your application for transfer was apparently turned down by the higher-ups after having been initially approved. It was a justifiable move by the Air Guard, since it took an average of one million dollars at that time to train a pilot such as yourself at that point of time. To train a pilot and then post him into a flightless base, isn’t that an irony, Mr President? Clearly you understand that you were bonded with the government for 6 yrs, starting from your enlistment in 1968 up to 1974. And then from May 1972 to May 1973, you didn’t even bother to show up in the unit at all. No records exist to show that you turned up for drills of any kind conducted either by the Texas Air Guard, nor the 9921st. And you missed the medical examinations, which would have re-asserted your status as a full-fledged pilot. Now how is this for “duty for the nation”? Where did you go? What were you up to, during this stretch of time?

President: I was too busy, that’s why.

E.T: Too busy to turn up for drills, without informing your unit? Now isn’t this the military equivalent of AWOL? And the medical check-ups, surely an “aspiring airman”, as you deemed yourself to be, will never go AWOL and skip the mandatory medical check-ups as you had done. Was it something you were hiding from the military? Like………..substance abuse???

President (Perplexed): What???

E.T: Come on, you always had a terrible reputation of being a party animal. And you admitted it yourself to the press that you did had an alcohol problem, didn’t you?

President: So I did. But that was all in the past now. To err is human. I have repented, and have mended my ways ever since I became a born-again Christian. Anyway, what does this have to do with my national guard commitment?

E.T: You can be re-born as many times as you want, but that is beside the point. You were also a cocaine user, Mr President. You had admitted that yourself to the press. And it was in that year, 1972, April to be exact, that the military initiated tests on pilots for drug substances, which included urinalysis, questions about drugs and a close examination of the nasal cavities for traces of cocaine abuses. You knew you were guilty, so you probably would want to give the medical check-ups a miss. But you chose not to explain yourself, for fear of criminal persecution.
President: That’s not true! I wasn’t using cocaine during this period of time!

E.T: Well, then, explain your absence from drills for the entire year, from May 1972 to May 1973, then.

President (Totally pissed off, fed up now): Cut straight to the point, Mr E.T! You ask questions, most of which you already have answers to them by now. And your interrogations are too degrading for my liking. Why this crap interrogation, ET? Have I no rights here?

E.T (Smiles, wickedly): Rights? What kind of rights? Surely, you are not hinting at the Geneva Conventions, are you?

President (Screaming): Am I supposed to be a prisoner-of-war here? Even if that be so, I should be entitled to my rights! Now let me out!

E.T: You talk about the Geneva, only when it suits your own ends and means. What about those that have been imprisoned in Guantanamo Naval Base? Or those Iraqi prisoners humiliated and tortured in the Abu Ghraib Prison? Are they not entitled to the rights of the Geneva Conventions? When you blatantly allowed the media to broadcast images of Uday and Kusays’ bodies worldwide, have you ever, for a second, considered the terms and conditions that the Geneva Convention entails?

President: These bastards, they deserved to be imprisoned. Those at Guantanamo Naval Base, we have to imprison them, they are terrorists, not enemy soldiers. Terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention. These barbarians, mostly from the Talibans and remnants of Al-Qaeda do not deserve these rights.

E.T: Oh? So how would you classify terrorists from standard enemy soldiers?

President: Enemy soldiers fight in the uniforms of their countries.

E.T: Are you actually telling me, that soldiers who fight in civilian clothes for a enemy nation against your nation are automatically deemed terrorists?

President: Of course not. It depends on the nature of our enemies.

E.T (Conciliatory tone): Really?

President (Smugly): Well, I can explain it to you, if only you will halt this interrogatory tone of yours.

E.T (Smiles): Pray, please, do tell.

President: Now, we all know that the Osama bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan, and the Talibans; they ruled the land, and they refused to yield him to American custody. So we had no choice. The Talibans were harbouring Osama and his al-Qaeda terrorist network. Osama was the prime instigator in the 911 terror attacks, plus a series of other coordinated attacks against American interests overseas. And so we invaded, and in the process we have detained many prisoners-of-war. The truth though, was that we had no way of differentiating the Talibans, from the al-Qaeda members.

E.T: So you would classify the Taliban as enemy soldiers, and the al-Qaeda members, terrorists?

President: Bingo.

E.T: But since both sides do not wear uniforms, I have to suppose it would be an extremely difficult and uphill task to actually identify them as either belonging to one group or the other, since affiliation to either group is so loose that one can be a Al-Qaeda member and a Taliban both at the same time. And with so many prisoners-of-war being detained by the American military juggernaut, there really was no way to identify them all. Would I be right to say that, Mr President?

President: I wouldn’t deem it impossible, but I would say, it is one hell of a job. My CIA and FBI boys have been interrogating them on a consistent basis since the first prisoners were captured in Afghanistan. But progress has been slow, and I decided to issue a Presidential decree to transfer all of them to Guantanamo Naval Base for temporary detention.

E.T: Which means to say, that as long as their status is not proven, they will be deemed guilty of being a member of a terrorist network. Am I correct to say that?

President: Well, not in that sense. It is just that, we need to be certain that these people pose no security threat to America. We do not want a repeat of the 911 incident.

E.T: So, in the interest of perceived national security, you will deny the rights of P-O-Ws, deny them the rights as accorded to them by the Geneva Convention, by removing their P-O-W statuses altogether by deeming them to be terrorists. Is my interpretation correct?

President (In his Texas cowboy accent): Well, if this is what it takes to take down the enemies to their knees then this is how it shall be. We shall take them all down, dead or alive.

E.T (Shakes head sadly): This cavalier, cowboy attitude of yours is most disturbing. You certainly display all the symptoms of a “dry-drunk”. Not drunk on alcohol, but yet without a sense of sobriety at all. I truly wonder why Americans vote you in the first place. You are truly pathetic.

President (Sulking): Your opinions are not shared by the general American public. So let me go, you idiotic moron!

E.T (Disgusted): Well, I am finished with you, Mr President. I would like to carry on with this interrogation, but it will be merely a waste of my time. This session merely reinforces my disrespect for you. You are a lousy, dumb, conniving and incompetent president, who loves to bully others for the sake of your own gains. We from the extra-terrestrial community loathe you, Mr President, and today we shall extend our own brand of justice to you. I have to remind you here, that since we are aliens, we are not subjected to the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention, nor any other jurisdiction of your species. Just as you have denied your captives to the rights of the Geneva Convention, we shall be extending this courtesy to you. We are free to carry out experiments on you whenever and however we see fit. In a few moments, my crew shall arrive to carry out a series of tests on you, as I have informed you earlier. I must warn you again, that any resistance from you is futile, and I sincerely advise you to cooperate, if you wish to return home in one piece. Do understand however, that my conversation with you has been recorded, and the experiments carried out on you shall also be recorded and previewed by my people on my home planet. I understand that the Geneva Convention does not allow images of POWs to be shown to the masses, but just to let you understand how it feels to be a POW without basic human rights, we shall have to return you the favour. (Smiles wickedly) Do you understand so far?

President: Damn you! You stupid demon! How dare you treat the American President this way! (Closes his eyes, bows and drops to his knees): Dear Lord in Heaven, deliver me from evil………..

E.T (Laughs loudly): Pray all you must! Your Gods can’t help you, any more than your secret service agents. Crew, do your job!

(The door opens. A group of 4 a similar-looking aliens moves in and walks towards Bush. The energy beams are deactivated, and Bush attempts to lay hands on them. As before, he has not come to the realisation that he simply cannot harm his captors, due to the superior technology of his captors. He is immobilized and frozen before he even comes close to the 4 aliens, and then falls onto the floor , stiff and frozen like a frozen piece of pork in an abattoir.

The 4 crews then proceeds to lift him to the hospital bed. Putting their psychic powers to good use, the President is telepathically lifted up and placed onto the hospital bed, all in one swift motion.

Upon settling the President down on the hospital bed, the aliens immediately proceed to strip him naked. One of the aliens draws what appears to be a slick, shiny metal rod out of nowhere, and proceeds to insert the offending rod up the President’s….………….anus. As the President had earlier put up some resistance against the little aliens, he was not granted the benefits of a partial anaesthesia. The President is thus very much in pain, as he feels every sting of the pain as the silver rod proceeds through his anus, then upwards to his intestinal tracts. He tries to scream, but is still immobilised by the very powerful aliens. His movement curtailed, the President braces himself for more horrors to come.


The aliens pulls out a turf of hair, raw from his scalp. They then proceed to examine his private parts, roughly, apparently to ensure that the President feels the full extent of the pain. After the full body examination was over, blood, semen and other bodily fluids are extracted by the aliens. The President is awake throughout the process, reduced to nothing more than a sad, abused puppy.

It is a very humiliating, violent and terrible ordeal for the President. In his mind, he swears that he will destroy these bloody infidels, if he ever lays his hands on them.

E.T then proceeds back to Earth, re-mobilises the President and sends his back to hospital. The Secret Service Agents are released from their hypnotic sleep, their memories altered to compensate the lost time frame. The President wakes up, and instinctively screams for his security agents. The secret agents rushes to his aid, only to hear the President blabbering about aliens and abduction. The agents pacifies him, telling him it was all a bad dream.

A bad dream, it was not. The President’s ass hurts like hell.. And hopefully it stays that way, for a long, long time.)

Our Non-Lingual President!

So which is it?

Does George W. Bush speak Spanish or doesn't he?

When he was on the campaign trail and trying to appeal to Hispanic voters he allowed the Spanish-speaking community to think that he was a fluent Spanish speaker. At one point he went so far as to sing a portion of the American national anthem in Spanish. Not the entire "Star Spangled Banner," as has been suggested, but a fragment thereof. On another occasion Carl Rove encouraged rumors about W's fluency in Spanish by suggesting that W. had held a press conference in Mexico, during one of his few, pre-presidential trips out of the country. This of course was a little less than honest because in Mexico the ruling government had decided which journalists would appear at the press conference. The questions were written out in advance and W. answered them in phonetically written Spanish. In other words, it was a staged event to curry favor with Hispanics in the United States.

Of course now that Bush is trying to placate the racist constituency of the Republican party by condemning Hispanic versions of "The Star Spangled Banner," Bush, and his organ-grinder master are again revealed as the pathological liars that they really are. Isn't it amazing. When Bush wanted to lie to Hispanics he allowed Rove to portray him as a fluent speaker of Spanish. And now W is trying to appease a bunch of closet racists and bigots within his own party, Scooter McClellan is telling us that George W. Bush is not a fluent speaker of Spanish.

Personally I've always had a little trouble with the "Star Spangled Banner" myself. The song is virtually unperformable, it's range being to wide for the average American to sing properly without years of classically-orientated voice lessons. So whether you sing it in English or Spanish is completely irrelevant, because "America The Beautiful," and "This Land is Your Land" would make better national anthems anyhow.

On the other hand, it's nice to know that George W. Bush has finally accomplished something on his own without help from Mommy, Daddy, or corrupt business partners and fall guys. Thanks to the racist elements in the Republican Party we now know that George W. Bush is actually semi-literate in three languages: Spanish, English, and Orwellian Doublespeak!

Way to go George!