Polansky

One of those ironic cases in life is the arresting of Roman Polansky. After being indicted, and I believe, sentenced for rape (or was it statutory rape?) of a then 13 year old girl. This was in 1978. Some 30 years later the U.S. Government wants him back to process him and send him to jail for some 50 years.

On one hand, I don't know the circumstances within which the whole thing happened, whether Mr. Polansky was really tricked into it or not, whether he knew that the girl was only 13 or not. I do believe that it was wrong from him to feel the justice and not serve the time that then was imposed upon him. Tricked or not, if he commited a crime he should pay for it.

On the other hand, it has been 30 years, the victim already declined to pursue the case, why does the Government wants to keep pushing on it? Certainly the escaping of Mr. Polansky, him doing so many great movies and getting known around the world must have been a stain in their record, a very notorious one. For years Mr. Polansky must have been regarded as the "poster boy" for how to elude the American Law and live a long and successful life. Now, with many friends and many movies of great quality and awesome narrative, he has found himself a huge crew that will support him, or at least would do and say anything to keep him from jail so he can continue making movies.

I love his movies, and he's actually one of my favorite directors, along with Woody Allen, but I do believe that he must pay if he did something wrong, or at least he's entitled to a fair trial. However what strikes me as ironic is that not long ago there was an article in the Washington Post, I believe, saying that hundreds of sex offenders walk out there free with a poor parole follow up, or even no follow up. So, on one hand you have a celebrity, a notorious sex offender that commited one crime, how's been chased down and arrested, though he hasn't committed any other crime in 30 years, but then you have priests with criminal records raping children, dozens of them for years, protected by the Church, within the American soil, and the Govenment does close to nothing. You have Sex offenders abducting children, raping them, sometimes even killing them, fathering children with them, on American soil for years, and no one stops them. You have sex offenders that plead for liberty under parole, get it granted and then they go back to raping, and no one stops them. So what's the message? The Government only catches those who are easier to catch, no matter that these are no longer those making damage?

There's a serious need, not so much of a reform of the law, but a reform of the ways of thinking and acting of those in charge of law enforcement.

Happy Thursday

From a joke I learned that while Friday is known also by the happy acronym of TGIF (Thanks God it's Friday), Thursday is known by the acronym SHIT (Sorry Honey, it's Thursday). Well, today I guess we can say TIGT: Thanks God it's Thursday. Yes, today is a kind of Thursday that's more like a Friday, because tomorrow is a holiday! Yeah! No work for tomorrow! Wake up at anytime, smack away the clock or cellphone that wakes you up everyday to tell you the same old bad news: another day of labour has come, wake up and join the ants. Today is the International Day of Labor, so we rest and do whatever we feel like doing.

However, not everybody has today a happy Thursday, for some people gara go work tomorrow. Year after year more and more people in Costa Rica have to work through holidays. People with jobs that pay little, such as cleaning and construction, but also others like stores and restaurants mainly in big commercial centers, or Malls. However now also people working for foreign companies, particularly in the call centers. I have friends who work in these and it amazes me how these enterprises are allowed to function under this method, forcing their employees to work through the holidays all year long. What's Government doing? Because it's one thing if I volunteer to work throught a holiday in exchange of an extra payment, but it's entirely different if I'm made, if in order to enjoy a nation, and Hyne forbid, an INTERNATIONAL holiday I'm made spend vacation days, and even then have them tied to the chance of being rejected because "a lot of people is asking that day out".

I'm a public employe, like everybody knows by now, and this things are simply unheard in my environment. Nobody questions holidays here. Then again, it's also in our Laws, in the Labor Code, chapter III, article §148, the list of holidays that are obligatory and must be paid by the employer, that must be given to the employees. So what's going on here? Foreign Direct Investment, that's what's going on here. They, namely the current Administration, and other Administrations prior to it, that follow the Liberal and Neoliberal way of "fucking it up", for such brain fart can't be considered "way of thinking" or much less philosophy, allow enterprises to ste up here, have no union and take from the workers as much as they want. Young kids, barely out of their teenage years, working for dollars, some handsome fee... for someone with no preparation whatsoever, and have them locked in a somewhat relaxed environment, socially, where they can dress up their cubbies like one arranges a bedroom, with pictures, posters, toys, and have them work for more hours than they should, for more days than they should. Most of them resign quickly. Most of them hardly last a year, and jump from call center to call center, from this tech support enterprise to that, from this merchandising enterprise to that, here and there like crazy bees, making a patched up career as call center agents,or "account executives", however do you wish to call them, but what kind of career is that?

A generation is growing up without knowing what's like to work for years in the same company, getting to know it, love it, become part of it, feel proud about it. I hear kids ten years my juniors talking about the plans they have with the money they'll receive when they resign from their current workplaces. What happened with the value of stability?

Today everything is fleeting. You buy a new house and a new car if you get a new job with a higher income, but you don't think ahead about what you'll do to pay it. No. While your income is enough, you pay it. When you resign or get laid off, the bank takes the house and the car, or maybe you'll be able to sell it, pay the bank and get something with the remaining money. This workers spend differently than their senior generations. While others bought land, estate, these kids buy toys and electronics. Things they can get quicker, that won't force them to remain in a given enterprise for too long. They won't anyway.

People live short term lives making no plans, maybe just dreaming al kinds of farfetched dreams that feed their desperation, but possess no real base to be achieved. A kid that does nothing but plays videogames all day, works every once in a while for a few months and quits, eats up all his or her money in matter of days and lives a messy, unorganized life can't possibly expect to become "rich and famous". And yet many of them do. Many wait for fame and fortune come knockng on their door. Really, I have more possibilities of developping telekinesis that they have of achieving such unreal dreams.

You know, it never cease to amaze me how people who actually seek to avoid working hard to achieve something, are capable to getting themselves into jobs that squeeze them in exchange of nothing. Wouldn't be better to put all that energy in something that can get them ahead?

And yet, on the same page, there's a lot of people who has been left behind, cut from the chances others had and are stuck in these jobs, trying to get ahead. These are those who stay the most, seek to remain employed as much as they can, because they need the income. You can recongize these people from the others, separate them from the addicts to the instant gratification, because they have to work far harder than many of us. They do these "marxist nightmare" jobs and next to the them they study. Either they manage to attend class, or they are enrolled in online classes, maybe thought distance learning, where they enroll to different classes, pick up their books and do their homework for a given date and then go to the university only to do their tests. I've been there, so I know it's no piece of cake. And yet there are many of these kids, who seek for a chance to make their dreams a reality and follow a career this way while breaking their backs in all kinds of neo-imperialist "coal mines".

All other jobs are being erased as enterprises that work with the old methodology, respecting the law and keeping up with it are forced to close because they have become "inefficient" and "too expensive". Who will have the strenght to work at this pace at the age of 50 or 60? Who will be hired at that age? How will anyone live at that age? Many of these kids, of this workers are not insured, and even if the 9.9% of their wage is retained by their employers alleging "Insurance fee", employers are keeping that money for themselves and not insuring their young workers. "What for? The kid won't be here more than 9 months, so he or she will never notice it". Only, each time the kid remains only 9 months to 1 year at the enterprises, and so, when he or she turns... 65 the Insurer will tell him or her, "Sorry Homie, no money!".

I don't think it's fair that only a layer of our society can have a good life secured. Holidays are for the whole country, not only for those few "blessed ones" who got the right education and the right job and the right connections. Why only a part of us can enjoy the Social Guaranties secured some 13 years ago? Why this benefit, this right we have shed blood for is not for everyone? If we work for a wage, if we all have to pay taxes, and we do, why only a part is subjected and protected by the Law?

So, a day before the International Labor Day, I'd like to leave this thought for reflection about what have been fought, the great revolutions on this matter we had in the XX.th century and what are we doing of it in this new XXI.st century.

When You Can't Smoke

I love to smoke. I adore to smoke. Smoking is one of the greatest pleasure and leisure activities in the world. As some people learn to taste different wines and different teas and different coffees, I learned little by little the art of tasting the soft finesse of tobacco. I was personally hurt when countries and legislations started to shut the door on the face of smokers, placing the rights of non-smokers about those who do. If smoking tobacco isn't an ilegal activity, why should smokers be chased and their rights trashed? I fiercely advocated, and still do foir a change in the way to do things, defining locations for smokers and non-smokers so we can all live our lives without trampling each other. Forcing a part of the society to seek some seedy corner to inhale a little of hot, flavoured, spicy smoke... a product that isn't ilegal per se, but making the act of consuming ilegal due to location, is an act of discrimination. Oh dear, did I say "discrimination"? Yes, Discrimination. So yes, people can get sick and can get lung cancer and enfisemas and heart diseases for being near smoking people, BUT truth is that other stuff also gives you that. I don't have the data for sure, but if I'm not mistaken, more people suffers from asthma and lung related problems due to smog and other contaminante present on the environment. But of course, it is far easier to blame the smokers than blaming the drivers. However, trying to talk in favor not of smoking, but on behalf of smokers is currently a Sisyphusian job (as we say in Hungary) since people, in their "big illumination" don't want to hear anyone talking about such heretic notions as "smokers' rights".

Anyway, I'm one of those poor souls who have been banned from smoking thanks to a disease: asthma. If you ask me if I regret it, no, I don't. I enjoyed every cig I smoked, and I hope one day I can go back to it. You don't have to agree with me on this, but Hyne if smoking wasn't the best thing ever... So, now I can smoke, and I look longingly at those who can. The funny thing is the other stuff I do now that I can smoke: I have taken to collect lighters. This has taken me to think, what do people do when they have to give up something they loved? Make it a vice, a person, a job, an attitude, a place... when you had to give up something that has grown deep into your being... what do you do?

Help Outside, Ignore Inside

The key words for this might be: indifference, lack of priorities, lack of interest in what matters, wish to "make believe". Truth is, this is not a new phenomenon. I'm talking about the case of black people in the US who have AIDS and yet receive less aid than people abroad. It's not really making headlines in the newspapers, though it will work as excellent racist matter for white parents who wish to keep their white kids from "fraternizing" with those "infected monkeys". Oh yeah, racism is still heavy in some of the most developed parts of the world. In the brink of an election where there is a candidate who's said to be black, and really, I would have never known if someone doesn't tell me, and even so, I don't see him black (then again, I don't think Beyoncé or Halle Berry are black...), there are harsh differences made between citizens based on flimsy matters such as skin color.

In an article about the efforts made by the US Government to aid in the fight against AIDS, the reporter mentions that there are more black people in the US with AIDS than in some of the "target nations" the Government is helping. Why is the Goverment spending $19 billion in these people and let their own black citizens struggle? The article says that if they were a separated nation, the US would surely help them, and that the percentage of adults with this virus comes close to that of Uganda. Dude, that sounds bad. Why, oh why is it so? The American black population is at risk with this virus due to the fact that many black men have several sexual partners, and so the percentage of people infected among them is higher. Okay, first of all, why talk about "Black America" and "America"? Let's start with the unavoidable FACT that AMERICA is not a country, but a continent, mainly LATIN, so you are screwed. Then the U.S. is the U.S., same and only to all its citizens. It is, at the same time, rather interesting that different politics have to be issued for different groups of citizens based on the skin color. Does it means that in the US there's a "white law" and a "black law"? Or is it that you are to help the black in detriment of the white? Or the white in detriment of the black? Segregate straights from gays, Republicans from Democrats as if they were not the same? The Government should be one and only for the entire population, helping the poor and establiching the conditions for dignified living for all citizens.

For me, the schism between citizens and the aid they get separated from skin color is just another veil upon a larger fact: the people who elect the Government, and finance it with taxes, is the first neglected. It's not a matter of black or white, but a matter that good American taxes, paid with the working effort of American citizens and residents is shipped abroad to fund wars that give little to non to negative benefits for the taxpayers, and now, on top of that, after education is crumbling into abismal medicrity and there's no "health" or "care" in the taxing American Healthcare, a good chunk of that tax money is spent in other countries, to help people that did not elected the Government and didn't pay the taxes that fund that aid. All Christian values fade here. Hell, one thing is to be a rich country aidng with its excess to poorer countries, but the US has long since been a real "rich country". Wealth is concentrated in a few hands and the large portion of the population is slipping into poverty rather fast. Arrange your home first and then help others later. Stop with this campaign to get the favor of other nations, pretending to be the Big Rescuer and for once, rescue your own people.

E-bay's win a win for customers

My first thought was "fuck, I really should improve my French, because that sounded so wicked". But then, after reading it a tiny bit more carefully, I realized that, no fucking shit, e-bay actually claims that winning this trial against Tiffany's for letting people use the name of the brand on fake jewelry, and not be punished IS a step up for the rights of the customer. Fuck yeah! We are entitled to be taken for fools and cheated with cheap knock-offs in the name of fucking capitalism. Fuck dude, this makes my day! There's a company on the Internet, where trust is vital like air and fragile and expensive like a beautiful Lalique glass pendand, that ensures our right to be sold a lemon, to be tricked, cheated, robbed, misguided and subjects of forgery and fraud. Really, how can I thank them? Oh, I know! I'll never buy from them!!! Geez, that would be awesome, don't you think? ^_^ It would be just great! And since they lost a similar case in France, where those "stick-up-noses" pretend to protect the customer by forcing the enterprise to punish knock off sellers and disclaim faux products,, yet in American soil they where given the right to let their customers be cheated, well... would I buy something pricey or of a good brand from any Internet company? Oh, you can sit and wait for that to happen! Adidas sportswear from Internet? Not in my life time. Out of the cart!!! Lovely Swarowsky glass pendant ring? Give-It-Back! Lalique pendant for Christmas? Hahahahahahahahaha!!! Yeah right.

One case won sets a precedent, which will be brought up over and over and over in each long case, and meanwhile Internet companies, which should be the first ones to ensure the up-most quality and the most precise information (since you can't actually see the product and properly inspect it before purchasing it), let the veil of doubt fall upon their merchandise. It is easy to shake off their responsabilities and say that "the customer should know better", or that it a provider is bad it will eventually disappear because people will notice how bad business is with him or her. Suuuuuuuure! And rumors do not affect the stock market because eventually brokers will realize it was a rumor and they won't listen to it again.

I would like to say that the world, and the market, is not like in the books, so please don't be as stupid as to think that the perfect competition can be made a reality. I know there are a lot of imbecilic people out there, many of them product of purchasing their degrees or grouping up with "the right people" to get a job or get the school projects done instead of studying of Hyne forbid, "working". I mean, yes, I am a 108 Narcissist, but I am not stupid, and all in all my results are perfectly normal (someone as smart and hot as me NORMALLY will turn out to be narcissistic. Or what? Do you EXPECT ME to consider myself equal to my peers and just as STUPID? HA!!). So, I know about morons and imbeciles. I work at the very core of their civilization. Yeah, lazy and ignorant people, like those who think that "maths" have no use, and "history" is a waste of time, or that the "literature and language" class is a bunch of useless crap, and so, are likely to think that "perfect competition" is duable. However, the ones pushing these ideas into people's mind, pretending to have the key to get there, are not necesarily imbeciles, but rather corrupted people who need a smoke screen to ste their crooked business. Open markets so they can have a share of a former public enterprise. Sell State assets so they can get a "bonus" for it. Sure, they are imbeciles but that's not the matter. Their imbecility is shadowed by the smashing magnitude of their corruption. At least in the past, in the Ancient and Medieval times, these corrupts in power claimed to have a Divine Right, but what do these claim to have? The aproval of the people? The people they are squeezing into poverty and death?

World, where are the daughters and sons that once stepped up in France, in America and around the world in revolution for their right to be human?

Sex Related Scandals as a Democrat Campaing Weapon

This is growing just a bit too suspitious. Before the candidate campaing, when Republicans and Democrats were scouting for votes to win the House elections, dirty Republican senators and lawmakers popped up by the dozen. Add to it, all of them were related to gay sex. Mark Foley, accused of seducing underage pages at the Hill, Richard Curtis accused of paying a male escort for sex (other versions say he just paid some regular bloke to have sex, or others that he simply seduced the man), and Larry Craig, who was detained by the police for requesting sex in a public bathroom from other men (the thing about rubbing the separation between the stals).

(In order: Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Richard Curtis.) All these came to light when the Democrats needed to win. And in each case, they did. Well, what does this tell you? That it is a proven and effective weapon to make your opponent fall. So why would you go into reasoning, trying to win the people with smart and duable proposals, and philosophy, political vision, when unveiling sex scandals is far more funny, easy and it doesn't compromise you? It would have been just a coincidence (for most people. Even as they went for Mr. Foley, I smelled a scheme, but with Mr. Craig it was crystal clear.), but when they slam down on Ms. Clinton's right hand man, Governor Elit Spitzer, it is too much. Well, at least we can narrow down now where the "Mastermind" of this winning formula might be. Search among Mr. Obama's people. It does come to my attention how they have not picked a gay man this time to satanize the party, but rather just some poor fellow seeking for the services of a whore. Could it be because they don't wish to scat the Democrat party's image that much, or because it was just so beautiful to use a sex scandal to say: "You all say one thing and do the opposite". Either way it was low and they should really start considering what they are doing. These are today's Canuck Letters, and they are not fun. (Canuck Letter: a bogus letter sent back in the seventies, allegedly written by Sen.Edmund Muskie (Dem.) where he shows prejudice against French-Canadians. The letter was part of a White House operation, then under Republican controll.)

What's the deal? Well, Gov. Spitzer was promoting a law to fight prostitution penalizing the men who sought out the prostitutes. Funny thing, as you read the articles on the case, it is a matter worked out by Feminist Groups which seek to protect women from sexual exploitation. Question: what about men? They can be exploited? What about men who seek male escorts for some paid sex? That's okay? I admit I do not know details of this law, more than what the papers have published, but so far, the prostitute is seen as a victim rather than a partner in crime, because "she has been forced into the business". Well, what about women who like it? What about women who want to do it? There are cases, plenty of them where women chose this path because it is easy money. Prostitution takes form in many ways that go from the poor person (male or female, underage or legal) who stands in a corner selling his or her body, all the way to the golddiggers who offer their body and company to people with the means to give them expensive gifts. Of course, these golddiggers call it love or their "right to seek a better life". lets come clear with this right now: sex for any kind of material gratification is prostitution! Money, jewels, cars, furs, clothes, trips, houses, a promotion, a bigger office, a job, a grade... these are all ways of paying sex, these all turn sex into prostitution. People offering or agreeing into this kind of exchage, giving sex for them are soliciting.

Are they victims? Yes, in some cases, but not in others. Assuming by default that they are victims is a mistake. Now, let's do a little fight for Equity of Gender. Perhaps this will come as a shock for the world, but men are also prostitutes. Yes. Men also sell their bodies for money. They sell it to men and women, mostly men since allegedly men are more into hiring whores than women. (It is not part of our culture.) Anyway, it would be nice for once that these humanitarian groups, particularly the feminist groups, would start showing some consideration towards men too. Why is everything always about women and women and women and no one stops five minutes to consider men and how we are not letting them be equal to us? Why do we have to absorb all they do, but we don't let them get to the things we have enjoyed, or the things we have done?

A friend of mine was complaing a little while ago about how uncivilized and unpolite we are becoming (okay mostly "they", you know the case), and told about not holding doors and pulling out chairs. Yes, indeed it is nice to be treated like that, but if we are fighting for equity, and I do mean EQUITY and not only "now it is time for women to get to boss", then why don't WE pull out chairs for our male companions and hold doors for them? Because that would make them feel weak and "feminine"? Because you only hold doors and pull out chairs for the weaker, fragile and helpless "women-creatures"? Oh yes, women are the victims of prostitution. And what about men? And what about the circumstances of men who seek prostitutes? Why do they feel compelled to pay for sex when us women can perfectly well live without ever paying for a fuck?

Truth is we are living still in a hypocritic world. Now you would hardly dare to question the equity of the sexes, or say that something is not for "women", or you'll risk something from a heavy purse repeatedly smacked againt your head to a law suit, and probably both of them. But at the same time, MEN are not considered in the least equal to women, because they HAVE to give up their chairs, get all uncomfortable, please us, serve us, play for us, and all for what? Because we have the babies. What about those of us who do not plan to have kids? It doesn't matter, we could, so we are entitled to get our share of male servitude. Well, in face of these things, I do understand that they wish to keep a few of their old prerrogatives such as do no home chores . But what do they get? Our bitching. They say: "You don't cook like my Mom", but we say "That's not how I told you to clean up? Are you mental? Can't you do it right?". Honey, poor guy needs practice, and he won't feel like doing shit if you keep telling him that all he does is wrooooong, and when he finally gets it right your compliment goes in the line of "About time! It sure took you long to get it!". Please bitches! Let the poor dude breathe!

So, we get their jobs, we FORCE a legislation where at least 40% of the "Power" (management and such) jobs and Government positions must be filled by women. And if we get 90% women? Oh that's okay. No men? Well, at least we fulfilled the 40%, right? What would happen if a law is passed where there should be at least a 60-40 of men and women? Outrage! What if that one position could be filled by a smart woman but has to be given to a man to keep the 60-40!? But it is perfectly okay if it happens the other way. If a man is caught with a female hooker he gets to jail and she gets help and social support. If a man is caught with a male whore would it be the same or we will just slam both motherfuckers into jail?

Feminism has long been corrupted when it stopped being about equal rights and equal oportunities and equal consideration and it has become about teaching men who is the Daddy now.

Corporative Bribery Was Deductible from Taxes

The issue has been sensitive for American companies because other countries, including France, Japan and Italy, only recently began prosecuting corporate bribes to foreign officials. Until a decade ago, bribes were tax deductible in many European countries.

I read that twice. I had to make sure I was reading right. Well, by know you all know that I'm currently working in the telecommunications industry. I started in this company working for one of the most corrupted of branches: mobile. And yes, in a time when the country borders wash over and the Operators with the right amount of money and connections can step over them and clutter the world with their brand, many tools are considered and used in order to secure a market slice for them to grow and pump out more money. It does sound outrageous that bribes could be "tax deductible" for "bribery" is an illegal, immoral behavior. People should not offer it, nor accept it. But this is the world we live in.

Once again, this quotation was taken from a news paper, so possibly there's an "interpretation" matter involved. For instance, perhaps it could be that the legislation makes tax deductible the donations, and as such, they do not have the mechanisms needed to make sure those donations are indeed donations, and not masked briberies. It is not a matter, necessarily, of a corrupt system, but perhaps only an old, naive legal system. It's not necessarily as it appears in the paper, though, then again, it could be so.

Now, reinforcing laws against bribery, even abroad (overseas) is not nearly enough of the Government is trying to cut down the levels of corruption spreading across the world. First of all, I find it terribly unsuiting that the U.S. would prosecute enterprises bribing governments or enterprises overseas. The U.S. should reinforce the law WITHIN the U.S. and leave the corruption happening in other countries to those other countries. The lack of moral fiber in American companies is a cultural, ethical FLAW. Prosecuting overseas misbehavior won't correct it, only force them to bribe through other methods, such as through investment, or by establishing foreign bogus enterprises in charge of giving away the bribe money. For instance, if I were an American enterprise and I wanted to bribe some foreign governments, I would establish a charity enterprise,... let's say "Child Aid" or something like in... Timbuktu or Bali, Madagascar, Antilles, or some country with no rigid laws about it (I do not know the laws in those countries, I was just naming exotic countries). I would keep cash flowing into this "bribery account" and then, when I need to make a "payment", this foundation would "help out" this given government with a "donation to aid children". Now, I'm not actively working on fraud or anything, so if I can think of this, what could come up with the enterprises actually interested in bribing? Pushing this overseas, the prosecution, I believe is nothing but an invasive intervention of the laws of other countries.

Lets take the case of the sportbidding. Gambling is illegal in the US. Well, Internet gambling. So these enterprises went overseas and established their companies outside, (Sportbooks), the employ people from these countries to do something it is not illegal in their country, and then, suddenly, the American Government falls on them because there are American's putting their money in these overseas based enterprises' sites. In a day, 5000 people was out in the street, jobless, not understanding what has happened, and then, some where even arrested, shipped to the U.S. and prosecuted as criminals for something is not illegal for them. It's not like they didn't know it was illegal (in which case they can't plead not knowing the law), but it's not illegal for them. It's almost as if an Arab men were deported to the U.S. and prosecuted because he married two women after he had married and American, converted woman who lives with him in ... some Jordania, BUT she e-mails to her folks in... Virginia. Or as if an American man were deported to... I dunno, Syria and prosecuted because he's gay and got together with a Syrian man.

It's fine and nice to be concerned about the world outside our boundaries, BUT trespassing those boundaries is not wise. With help, yes, with counseling, diplomacy, yes, but the Law should always remain within the limits of the country for we never know on which sensibilities one might be stepping.

I hope the U.S. Goverment stars practicing a bit of introspection, humbleness before more aggression and danger comes upon the world. I think we have already enough anger and war. It's time to work on peace, trust and understanding.

It's OKAY to Beat Up for the Info

Dear Lee Jordan,




Mukasey Bid Survives Division on Senate Panel

By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer and washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 7, 2007; Page A03

Washington Post.com

«The committee's 11 to 8 vote in favor of Mukasey was accompanied by an impassioned exchange of views between his supporters and opponents, who divided principally over of his refusal to say whether an aggressive interrogation tactic that mimics drowning amounts to illegal torture under U.S. law.»

Take a guess about what upsets me. Come on! Ain't that hard! Just take a guess. ^_^

«Mukasey angered lawmakers in both parties by repeatedly declining to answer questions about the interrogation technique known as waterboarding, saying he found the technique "repugnant" but could not determine its legality without access to classified information.»

Yes, I could go on quoting the entire article but I won't. It's outrageous how, after such a tiring, terrible fight to remove former AG Alberto Gonzales from the office, now they are letting in another, evidently "bushy" to keep patronizing such shameful politics. An Attorney General, as chief representant of a country's Law SHOULD be the first to stick to it. Should be the first to apply the Law as it is written, by the letter, and defend it, defend the rights as well as the duties assigned to all countrymen in the many laws, the Constitution and also in the signed International Agreements. Not externing an opinion on whether "pretend drowning" is illegal or not, is pretty much the signing of a weak will, but above all, a sold will, an agreement with such a practice. I do not know the American Constitution, for I am not American, but I doubt the Law allows people to be tortured, either during an interrogation or for any means. We all know that information or confessions gotten through torture are forbidden. Well, perhaps they are being tortured to get war information? After the Second World War, many countries signed the Geneva Conventions and other protocols about Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws. Countries have been banned for not sticking to them. Haven't we heard about military interventions into countries, or trade-banning because of their inhuman conditions and laws? Isn't Cuba subject to trade embargo still? And how many more? What about the "Tier" countries? What about the countries where there is a sizeable amoount of slave labour force? What about countries where the human rights are but a myth? And in the face of all this, how could a country like the US, which has always presented itself as the epithome of Freedom preech when its Attorney General is not quite sure if certain types of "repugnant" torture are or are not against the law?

And perhaps closer to home, how could an Attorney General pass judgment over a man who beats his wife, or a parent to beats and tortures its children when he condones the very Government's torture for war or other reasons?

The very Government, in the end, are the role model of the society, and whatever vice they commit, they show the population, that it is an acceptable behavior. How can then a mother be stopped from near drowning the child that doesn't want to wash dishes, when the Government has decided that well, maybe it's not against the Law. Repulsive yes, ilegal, no. And then, well, how about beating someone with a phonebook? It's a kind of torture, but if it's okay to do it in Guantanamo, why not against your wife? The bitch surely deserves it, right? then, let's take it a little further, shall we? I hate this motherfucker "Six" from the office. Well, since he's into guns and talks all day long on the phone, scoring for himself all kinds of militar weapons, shotguns, these anti bullet vests, army issue ammo and stuff... well, since he does look like the Arabs one see around, I pick up my phone, call in the Home Security and tell on him. I say he's a terrorist and so I have the Government beating the shit out of him, professionally. But, you know, its okay, because it's not ilegal, and... he could be a terrorist.

Think.

When it's gonna stop?


Love to All,

Locky The Bunny

Law: Obligatory for the Little People, Optional for Presidents

Dear Lee Jordan,




Today I had a "news craze". The papers, even "Forbes" had something to my taste. I spent a good part of my office day going through juicy articles on telecommunication industry, and then basking on currency exchange rate articles. Which, oh chich should I select to comment? My mind has been boiling and brewing sweeter and better thoughts since ... oh dear... *sigh*

Then I came around this article in the Washington Post about the hearing of the new Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey. So there goes today's post on the effects of the variation of the exchange rate. What the hell is going on here? Do you want the long version or the short version? The long version will take me more time than that I dispose of to write this entry, so the short version should make it. (For the long version, go do some reseach, that's why I asked.) So, basically, after deposing Mr. Alberto Gonzales, the former Attorney General, for all the scandals covered widely in the newspaper, and profusely commented here, President Bush picked a new attorney general, this time in the person of Michael Mukasey, a lawyer with quite some "miles" to show up for in the American Court. If you are interested in his record in the field of Law, please click on the picture to the left. It should take you to the White House site, and there to the "Fact Sheet" of Mr. Mukasey. (It's about time you do some research yourself as well.) Certainly looks quite some "wrap" there. Judge and all. Unlike in Gonzales' case, you actually perceive a certain degree of experience and knowledge. Oh well, at least he doesn't look all that much like a spineless sychophant. Then, is it so?

The hearings went just fine the first day (I understand it's a two-day hearing), as Mr. Mukasey pretty much positioned himself as an upright, law-first attorney, who, according to his own declaration, won't bend to political interests or White House pressure (Mukasey Vows Not to Bow to Political Power, Washington Post, 2007.oct.18). Law is Law and that's the end of it. Then again, there was a not-so-reassuring note at the hearings, which I transcript as follows, from the article:

During a sparring session with Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), for example, Mukasey declined to say whether the president could order a violation of federal surveillance law, as Democratic lawmakers have alleged the Bush administration did when it authorized a warrantless wiretapping program after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Mukasey said he could not provide an informed analysis without being briefed on the classified program but noted that some lawyers think the law does not entirely limit the president. "I find your equivocation here somewhat troubling," Feingold responded.


By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer and washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Thursday, October 18, 2007; Page A01

In the second day of the hearing, after having lifted the hearts of everybody, by not condoning torture or the law-bending/law-skipping by the president, Mr. Mukasey turned into almost a carbon copy of what Mr. Gonzales was: a tool in the hands of a reckless president ready to trash a 231 year old (or so) Costitution for the sake of his private interests, a and his unjustified cruzading for the sake of his own megalomania. That very the law does not entirely limit the president is coming to the surface in a horrible manner. Explain to me how this president can go to war to "allegedly" free a country from a tyrant (and now plans to attack Iran too, due to "suspects on nuclear matters"), because of the repeated violation of human rights AND he violates SEVERAL of those human rights IN HIS OWN COUNTRY! Suc violations including the ordering of torture for prisoners, violating the right to privacy of the citizens, forcing third parties (like telecommunication enterprises) to break the law, "denying" healthcare, and downright obstaculizing the democratic process in the country (the continuous vetoing of bills, no matter what the bills were about, until he got his war budget).

Far beyond a simple case of contradiction, you see a clear case of an "agenda" developed, that has NOTHING to do with the country, and everything to do with a derranged, unethical man. How could America re-elect him? What kind of "Republican Values" does he stand for? As far as I undestand, Republicans are conservative and Democrats are liberal. Am I right? Well, to my understanding, a conservative political philosophy would place the People, the country's OWN PEOPLE before the rest of the world. It would seek stability, social security, welfare and inner development. Opposed to the "liberal politics" which would seek for the market opening, the market-vision as well as the pursue of market and social competition (this "social element" ruled by the market) on a global, world wide level. The conservative is pro-people, pro the little man, and the liberal is pro the enterprises, as it invites the little people to compete and become enterprises and successful, big enterpreneurs themselves. See the scope now?

Okay, now explain to me how a CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT pays no attention to the victims of Hurricaine Katrina FOR YEARS, cuts on welfare and healthcare, allows jobs to be cut at horrifying rates (48.000 in one week in February, 28.000 in one week recently), aids to create a highly unstable economical environment with sketchy Free Trade Acts, war, closing factories, deteriorating healthcare in ALL ITS STAGES, diving currency exchange rate... and then say that the "economy is sound" (I will never let go of this one).

If President Bush were reelected for a third period, by the end of it the U.S. would be a third world country and Mexico would be pulling higher and higher walls to keep Americans from illegally immigrating.

And all this, because while everybody is equal before the Law and the Law is obligatory for everybody, one man is above it, and therefore superior to all his fellows: the President.




Love to All,



Locky The Bunny