Well, life is busy..
obiwan2009
Well, life is busy, but I found a paper with 56 reasons the author disagrees with him, him referring to our current president.

Out of those few, I do disagree with a number of them, but there does not exist the general thrust of the War on Terror?  What specific offenses must a person commit to cross the line from an ordinary criminal and become a terrorist?  What people are consulted, in the CIA, the FBI, or whomever, to prove a person guilty, and shouldn't the due process be shared?  How dangerous is "too dangerous" to carry out due process on a terrorist?  What makes the difference between Timothy McVeigh and Anwar Al-Alwaki? both of them did preach, and supposedly allegedly carried out terrorism, or at least planned, the killing of numerous Americans. How about the possibility of trying a sniper shot to kill targets, which, given the skill of a sniper, would at least go to show that we likely at least killed the person we said we would kill, and if the visual (which drones could "see) wouldn't have to kill a whole building full of people?  Or how about just explaining the death of his sixteen-year old son (which, according to the ACLU, and his grandfather) died hundreds of miles from the place that his father was killed?  At least answer for the killing?

Again, I am not here to consider myself an expert on Civil Rights as those who run the ACLU, but at the same time, it just irks me to consider sitting back and classifying the actions of our political figures as inherently righteous without second thought.  I do feel the need to be an informed citizen, however, and do feel that it is critical that we think about where, given the Ten Years of the War on Terror and Emergency Powers to run the battle run, where are the limits?  Where is the conditions for the war being over?

Second, I also feel it important that people hear the offensive material from Anwar Al-Awlaki, not because I agree with it.  As a matter of fact, I vehemently disagree with it, just as I disagreed with what Hitler wrote in Mein Kempf with disgust.  However, there is an important value to this, because as the old saying goes, "Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.  Hitler's Mein Kempf and Anwar Al-Awlaki both gave the patterns of disturbing bigotry and paranoia in what they wrote, in my next article, I plan to write my full commentary on why I disagree with Alwaki vehemently in what he writes, but in the meantime, the link is here.  I offer you my full warning, if you do not feel you are up to the critical thinking neccessary to handle this material, then do not view this.  However, I hope that you do, and recognize the offensive nature and understand and think on why you can counter the awful principles delivered by Al-Awlaki, and hear something that Obama and the CIA would not present this alleged speech of Al-Awlaki, even when this message, in some form, could have been organized into a decent case or grounds for arrest, much less the targeted killing to him and the surrounding collateral damage.



Similarities between Nazis and Communists, who would have thought?
obiwan2009
   Well, today was interesting, especially the newest rant that popped into my head.  So what if all of those regimes that were so tyrannical, really weren't all that different?  More or less, that part led me to today's post.  In observation, I noticed the following similarities between the fascist regime in Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Regime in Russia.  References are made between the Communist Manifesto and the Fascist Manifesto.

1) Abolition and Conversion of Private to Public Property

Communist Manifesto:

"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."

Fascist Manifesto:

"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."

2) Income Tax

Communist Manifesto:

"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

Fascist Manifesto:

"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."

Inheritance:

Communist Manifesto:

"Abolition of all rights of inheritance."

Fascist Manifesto:

"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished."

Nationalism (Ethnic Identity)

Communist Manifesto:

"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."

Fascist Manifesto:

"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."

These are the three points for discussion today, as duty calls a little busy today to submit a total of ten, but the interesting note here is that on two out of the three points, the Nazi Regime and the Soviet Regime were essentially the same.  Both the Nazi and the Communist Law demanded that inheritance of property be eliminated, and that income be earned strictly from labor, and inequalities ironed out.  Also in common was an extremely steep income tax to equalize the levels of income among the various workers.  While the Nazi regime was almost a polar opposite in penalizaing individuals for not having some family pedigree which shows an individual to have a long family history living in Germany, the economics in terms of taxation and abolition of income not earned directly from work is incredibly similar.

Sources:

http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/ajb/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Fascist_manifesto.html

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

Either way, this week has been quite busy, but look forward to part 2 come next weekend...

Well, I am busy but...
obiwan2009
      Today well, I am busy, the title says it all.  However, I have heard plenty of people bring to me the false analogy comparing hate crimes to degrees of conviction, including murder, as being all a matter of intent, however, today's point is to point out that there are some flaws to using this analogy.  First of all, the degrees of murder, are based, in comparison to what constitutes a hate crime, on matters external to the person charged.

     The following factors are applied in determining the degree of a murder conviction:  - acts surrounding the murder, how clear could it be to the accused that his/her actions could actually kill.  Was the person in a state of impulse, and could the act be considered self-defense?  Again, the strong pattern here is that all of these involve observation and details surrounding the crime, as factors of location, knowledge aforehand, and efficiency

     Now, let's turn the page to a general "hate crime".  In this situation, it's largely a measure of trying to interpret internal information about the perpetrator, if possible.  Again, perhaps the perpetrator had a journal, but then again, if he did not, what interpretation is there? What did he/she supposedly do?  What if the person wasn't involved with an obvious "hate group".  In this case, they are primarily internal attributes that could potentially be interpreted a variety of ways, depending on the supposed specific hate the person supposedly had.

     That being said any fully intentional, or premeditated crimes are hateful acts, and should not be condoned, but hopefully this offers a little glance, and my little insight, on what is a pretty flawed analogy.

Ahhh.... yes, unity
obiwan2009
Sometimes there is the wonder, upon observation. of how the universe is operated?  Organized? Chaotic?  Something perhaps unresolveable, but perhaps also, regardless of which way you would wish to take it, a great beauty to behold.

(no subject)
obiwan2009
Yep, hello world, the most basic phrase they tell you in that basic java course oh so LOOOONNNNGGGG ago?  Well, that's my phrase for today as a new user.

You are viewing obiwan2009