Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
2003 August
2003 July
My Links
STOP TCPA!!!!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
"Those who are willing to give up freedom for a little safety deserve neither freedom nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt
digg links, for the techie:
|
| .....why Americans fear the wrong things |
| 08.31.03 (6:30 pm) [edit] |
Why are so many fears in the air, and so many of them unfounded? Why, as crime rates plunged throughout the 1990s, did two-thirds of Americans believe they were soaring? How did it come about that by mid-decade 62 percent of us described ourselves as "truly desperate" about crime-almost twice as many as in the late 1980s, when crime rates were higher? Why, on a survey in 1997, when the crime rate had already fallen for a half dozen consecutive years, did more than half of us disagree with the statement "This country is finally beginning to make some progress in solving the crime problem"?
In the late 1990s the number of drug users had decreased by half compared to a decade earlier; almost two-thirds of high school seniors had never used any illegal drugs, even marijuana. So why did a majority of adults rank drug abuse as the greatest danger to America’s youth? Why did nine out of ten believe the drug problem is out of control, and only one in six believe the country was making progress?
Give us a happy ending and we write a new disaster story. In the late 1990s the unemployment rate was below 5 percent for the first time in a quarter century. People who had been pounding the pavement for years could finally get work. Yet pundits warned of imminent economic disaster. They predicted inflation would take off, just as they had a few years earlier-also erroneously-when the unemployment rate dipped below 6 percent.
We compound our worries beyond all reason. Life expectancy in the United States has doubled during the twentieth century. We are better able to cure and control diseases than any other civilization in history. Yet we hear that phenomenal numbers of us are dreadfully ill. In 1996 Bob Garfield, a magazine writer, reviewed articles about serious diseases published over the course of a year in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and USA Today. He learned that, in addition to 59 million Americans with heart disease, 53 million with migraines, 25 million with osteoporosis, 16 million with obesity, and 3 million with cancer, many Americans suffer from more obscure ailments such as temporomandibular joint disorders (10 million) and brain injuries (2 million). Adding up the estimates, Garfield determined that 543 million Americans are seriously sick-a shocking number in a nation of 266 million inhabitants. "Either as a society we are doomed, or someone is seriously double-dipping," he suggested.
Garfield appears to have underestimated one category of patients: for psychiatric ailments his figure was 53 million. Yet when Jim Windolf, an editor of the New York Observer, collated estimates for maladies ranging from borderline personality disorder (10 million) and sex addiction (11 million) to less well-known conditions such as restless leg syndrome (12 million) he came up with a figure of 152 million. "But give the experts a little time," he advised. "With another new quantifiable disorder or two, everybody in the country will be officially nuts."
Indeed, Windolf omitted from his estimates new-fashioned afflictions that have yet to make it into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association: ailments such as road rage, which afflicts more than half of Americans, according to a psychologist’s testimony before a congressional hearing in 1997.
The scope of our health fears seems limitless. Besides worrying disproportionately about legitimate ailments and prematurely about would-be diseases, we continue to fret over already refuted dangers. Some still worry, for instance, about "flesh-eating bacteria," a bug first rammed into our consciousness in 1994 when the U.S. news media picked up on a screamer headline in a British tabloid, "Killer Bug Ate My Face." The bacteria, depicted as more brutal than anything seen in modern times, was said to be spreading faster than the pack of photographers outside the home of its latest victim. In point of fact, however, we were not "terribly vulnerable" to these "superbugs," nor were they "medicine’s worst nightmares," as voices in the media warned.
Group A strep, a cyclical strain that has been around for ages, had been dormant for half a century or more before making a comeback. The British pseudoepidemic had resulted in a total of about a dozen deaths in the previous year. Medical experts roundly rebutted the scares by noting that of 20 to 30 million strep infections each year in the United States fewer than 1 in 1,000 involve serious strep A complications, and only 500 to 1,500 people suffer the flesh-eating syndrome, whose proper name is necrotizing fasciitis. Still the fear persisted. Years after the initial scare, horrifying news stories continued to appear, complete with grotesque pictures of victims. A United Press International story in 1998 typical of the genre told of a child in Texas who died of the "deadly strain" of bacteria that the reporter warned "can spread at a rate of up to one inch per hour."
The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things
by Barry Glassner
|
|
|
| |
| ...the death penalty and the innocent...are they ever victims? |
| 08.26.03 (5:47 pm) [edit] |
TRUE
The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. There is considerable evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since 1973, at least 88 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 650 people have been executed. Thus, for every seven people executed, we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. These statistics represent an intolerable risk of executing the innocent. If an automobile manufacturer operated with similar failure rates, it would be run out of business.
Our capital punishment system is unreliable. A recent study by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely acquitted.
Many of the releases of innocent defendants from death row came about as a result of factors outside of the justice system. Recently, journalism students in Illinois were assigned to investigate the case of a man who was scheduled to be executed, after the system of appeals had rejected his legal claims. The students discovered that one witness had lied at the original trial, and they were able to find the true killer, who confessed to the crime on videotape. The innocent man who was released was very fortunate, but he was spared because of the informal efforts of concerned citizens, not because of the justice system.
In other cases, DNA testing has exonerated death row inmates. Here, too, the justice system had concluded that these defendants were guilty and deserving of the death penalty. DNA testing became available only in the early 1990s, due to advancements in science. If this testing had not been discovered until ten years later, many of these inmates would have been executed. And if DNA testing had been applied to earlier cases where inmates were executed in the 1970s and 80s, the odds are high that it would have proven that some of them were innocent as well.
Society takes many risks in which innocent lives can be lost. We build bridges, knowing that statistically some workers will be killed during construction; we take great precautions to reduce the number of unintended fatalities. But wrongful executions are a preventable risk. By substituting a sentence of life without parole, we meet society's needs of punishment and protection without running the risk of an erroneous and irrevocable punishment.
FALSE
There is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals were added to our death penalty system in the 1970s. Even if such executions have occurred, they are very rare. Imprisoning innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. If improvements are needed in the system of representation, or in the use of scientific evidence such as DNA testing, then those reforms should be instituted. However, the need for reform is not a reason to abolish the death penalty.
Besides, many of the claims of innocence by those who have been released from death row are actually based on legal technicalities. Just because someone's conviction is overturned years later and the prosecutor decides not to retry him, does not mean he is actually innocent.
If it can be shown that someone is innocent, surely a governor would grant clemency and spare the person. Hypothetical claims of innocence are usually just delaying tactics to put off the execution as long as possible. Given our thorough system of appeals through numerous state and federal courts, the execution of an innocent individual today is almost impossible. Even the theoretical execution of an innocent person can be justified because the death penalty saves lives by deterring other killings.
|
|
|
| |
| is the death penalty unfairly used? |
| 08.25.03 (7:36 pm) [edit] |
TRUE:
In practice, the death penalty does not single out the worst offenders. Rather, it selects an arbitrary group based on such irrational factors as the quality of the defense counsel, the county in which the crime was committed, or the race of the defendant or victim.
Almost all defendants facing the death penalty cannot afford their own attorney. Hence, they are dependent on the quality of the lawyers assigned by the state, many of whom lack experience in capital cases or are so underpaid that they fail to investigate the case properly. A poorly represented defendant is much more likely to be convicted and given a death sentence.
With respect to race, studies have repeatedly shown that a death sentence is far more likely where a white person is murdered than where a black person is murdered. The death penalty is racially divisive because it appears to count white lives as more valuable than black lives. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 158 black defendants have been executed for the murder of a white victim, while only 11 white defendants have been executed for the murder of a black victim. Such racial disparities have existed over the history of the death penalty and appear to be largely intractable.
It is arbitrary when someone in one county or state receives the death penalty, but someone who commits a comparable crime in another county or state is given a life sentence. Prosecutors have enormous discretion about when to seek the death penalty and when to settle for a plea bargain. Often those who can only afford a minimal defense are selected for the death penalty. Until race and other arbitrary factors, like economics and geography, can be eliminated as a determinant of who lives and who dies, the death penalty must not be used.
FALSE:
Discretion has always been an essential part of our system of justice. No one expects the prosecutor to pursue every possible offense or punishment, nor do we expect the same sentence to be imposed just because two crimes appear similar. Each crime is unique, both because the circumstances of each victim are different and because each defendant is different. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a mandatory death penalty which applied to everyone convicted of first degree murder would be unconstitutional. Hence, we must give prosecutors and juries some discretion.
In fact, more white people are executed in this country than black people. And even if blacks are disproportionately represented on death row, proportionately blacks commit more murders than whites. Moreover, the Supreme Court has rejected the use of statistical studies which claim racial bias as the sole reason for overturning a death sentence.
Even if the death penalty punishes some while sparing others, it does not follow that everyone should be spared. The guilty should still be punished appropriately, even if some do escape proper punishment unfairly. The death penalty should apply to killers of black people as well as to killers of whites. High paid, skillful lawyers should not be able to get some defendants off on technicalities. The existence of some systemic problems is no reason to abandon the whole death penalty system.
|
|
|
| |
| limitations on the death penalty.... |
| 08.24.03 (6:07 pm) [edit] |
Limitations within the United States
After World War II, many European countries abandoned or restricted the death after signing and ratifying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent human rights treaties. The U.S. retained the death penalty, but established limitations on capital punishment.
In 1977, the United States Supreme Court held in Coker v. Georgia (433 U.S. 584) that the death penalty is an unconstitutional punishment for the rape of an adult woman when the victim was not killed. Other limits to the death penalty followed in the next decade.
Mental Illness and Mental Retardation
In 1986, the Supreme Court banned the execution of insane persons in Ford v. Wainwright (477 U.S. 399). However, in 1989, the Court held that executing persons with mental retardation was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment in Penry v. Lynaugh (492 U.S. 584). Mental retardation would instead be a mitigating factor to be considered during sentencing.
Race
Race became the focus of the criminal justice debate when the Supreme Court held in Batson v. Kentucky (476 U.S. 79 (1977)) that a prosecutor who exercises his or her perogatory challenges to remove a disproportionate number of citizens of the same race in selecting a jury is required to show neutral reasons for the strikes.
Race was again in the forefront when the Supreme Court decided a 1987 case, McCleskey v. Kemp (481 U.S. 279). McCleskey argued that there was racial discrimination in the application of Georgia's death penalty by presenting a statistical analysis showing a pattern of racial disparities in death sentences, based on the race of the victim. The Supreme Court held, however, that racial disparities would not be recognized as a constitutional violation of “equal protection of the law” unless intentional racial discrimination against the defendant could be shown.
Juveniles
In the late 1980s, the Supreme Court decided three cases regarding the constitutionality of executing juvenile offenders. In 1988, in Thompson v. Oklahoma (487 U.S. 815), four Justices held that the execution of offenders aged fifteen and younger at the time of their crimes was unconstitutional. The fifth vote was Justice O'Connor's concurrence, which restricted Thompson to states without a specific minimum age limit in their death penalty statute. The combined effect of the opinions by the four Justices and Justice O'Connor in Thompson is that no state without a minimum age in its death penalty statute can execute someone who was under sixteen at the time of the crime.
The following year, the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the death penalty for crimes committed at age sixteen or seventeen. (Stanford v. Kentucky, and Wilkins v. Missouri (collectively, 492 U.S. 361)). At present, 15 states bar the execution of anyone under 18 at the time of his or her crime.
In 1992, the United States ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 6(5) of this international human rights treaty requires that the death penalty not be used on those who committed their crimes when they were below the age of 18. However, although the U.S. ratified the treaty, they reserved the right to execute juvenile offenders.
|
|
|
| |
| should they die...current issues with the death penalty? |
| 08.23.03 (4:32 pm) [edit] |
Innocence
The Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of executing someone who claimed actual innocence in Herrera v. Collins (506 U.S. 390 (1993)). Although the Court left open the possibility that the Constitution bars the execution of someone who conclusively demonstrates that he or she is actually innocent, the Court noted that such cases would be very rare. The Court held that, in the absence of other constitutional violations, new evidence of innocence is no reason for federal courts to order a new trial. The Court also held that an innocent inmate could seek to prevent his execution through the clemency process, which, historically, has been "the 'fail safe' in our justice system." Herrera was not granted clemency, and he was executed in 1993.
Public Support
Support for the death penalty has fluctuated throughout the century. According to Gallup surveys, in 1936 61% of Americans favored the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. Support reached an all-time low of 42% in 1966. Throughout the 70s and 80s, the percentage of Americans in favor of the death penalty increased steadily, culminating in an 80% approval rating in 1994. Since 1994, support for the death penalty has declined. Today, 66% of Americans support the death penalty. However, research shows that public support for the death penalty drops when poll respondents are given the two choices a juror in the penalty phase of a typical capital trial would be given: death or “life imprisonment with absolutely no possibility of parole.” Given that choice, support for the death penalty drops to around 50%.
Religion and the Death Penalty
In the 1970s, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), representing more then 10 million conservative Christians and 47 denominations, and the Moral Majority, were among the Christian groups supporting the death penalty. NAE's successor, the Christian Coalition, also supports the death penalty. Today, Fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches, as well as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), support the death penalty — typically on biblical grounds, specifically citing the Old Testament (Bedau, 1997). Although formerly also a supporter of capital punishment, the Roman Catholic Church now opposes the death penalty. In addition, most Protestant denominations, including Baptists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and the United Church of Christ, oppose the death penalty.
Women and the Death Penalty
Women have, historically, not been subject to the death penalty at the same rate as men. From the first woman executed in the U.S., Jane Champion, who was hanged in James City, Virginia in 1632, to the 1998 executions of Karla Faye Tucker in Texas and Judi Buenoano in Florida, women have constituted only 3% of U.S. executions. In fact, only five women have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated. (O'Shea, 1999, with updates by DPIC).
|
|
|
| |
| knowledge if two-fold... |
| 08.22.03 (2:17 pm) [edit] |
Knowledge is two-fold, and consists not only in an affirmation of what is true, but in the negation of that which is false.
* Charles Caleb Colton
|
|
|
| |
| he/she who possess knowledge... |
| 08.21.03 (3:29 pm) [edit] |
A man can only attain knowledge with the help of those who possess it. This must be understood from the very beginning. One must learn from him who knows.
* George Gurdjieff
|
|
|
| |
| two kinds of people....... |
| 08.20.03 (4:08 pm) [edit] |
There are only two kinds of people who are really fascinating--people who know absolutely everything, and people who know absolutely nothing.
* Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
| |
| knowledge is power? |
| 08.18.03 (8:24 pm) [edit] |
Knowledge is like money: to be of value it must circulate, and in circulating it can increase in quantity and, hopefully, in value.
* Louis L'Amour
|
|
|
| |
| .... |
| 08.16.03 (7:07 pm) [edit] |
a great quote, from "Monster's Ball"
"Portraits captures a person better than a photo...
Truely takes a human being, to see, a human being."
|
|
|
| |
| does it affect all of us? |
| 08.13.03 (6:43 pm) [edit] |
While much is being done to promote respect for diversity and to combat crimes based on bias, much more is needed. Federal, state, and local governments, educational, religious, community, and business organizations, and individual citizens all should assume even more responsibility to make sure that no individuals in our country are injured because of who they are.
Here are some recommendations for action by every sector of society:
1) Exercise national leadership: National leaders from every sector of society - including government, business, labor, religion, and education - should use their prestige and influence to encourage efforts to promote tolerance and harmony and to combat bigotry. Although much progress toward reducing hate-crime violence and discrimination in American life has been achieved over the past 30 years, steps must be taken now to avoid losing ground. We strongly urge President Clinton to convene a White House conference in 1997 to focus on more effective ways of fighting ongoing discrimination, bigotry and intolerance, and to identify ways that all persons in this country, both citizens and immigrants, can live and work together in greater harmony.
2) Enforce existing laws: The nation must reprioritize the enforcement of federal and state civil rights laws. The recent revelations about pervasive discrimination and personal abuse against African-Americans at Texaco are another reminder that bias and bigotry are still part of American life. The fact that a tape leaked by a disgruntled former executive confirms earlier allegations by black employees is one more indication, if any were needed, that claims of discrimination should be thoroughly investigated, not casually dismissed.
Unfortunately, discrimination in employment, housing, and even public accommodations is still prevalent, as evidenced by similar incidents at companies ranging from the national restaurant chain, Denny's, to real estate agencies throughout the country. In August 1996, the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. settled a law-suit filed by eleven Hispanic men, all U.S. citizens, who were forced by Wal-Mart store personnel to leave a Wal-Mart store in Amory, Mississippi, and informed that it was the store's policy not to serve Mexicans.
Existing civil rights laws against all forms of discrimination are an important part of America's effort against bigotry, bias and hate crimes. These laws should be aggressively enforced. Moreover, significant increases in funding for all federal civil rights enforcement agencies is essential and should be included in the FY '98 budget. Offices such as the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the EEOC, the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Fair Housing Enforcement Office, the Department of Agriculture's Office of Civil Rights are illustrative of those offices that need increased funding to address both the short and long-term problems associated with discrimination and with hate crime violence in the United States.
3) Renew America's commitment to vigorously combat hate crimes: Congress should renew the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA) without a sunset provision, and expand its coverage to include gender. This will make an important statement that America will not tolerate hate crimes. It will also provide a continued mandate for law enforcement agencies at every level of government and communities and citizens all across the country to continue monitoring, preventing, prosecuting, and, in every way, combating hate crimes. In giving the HCSA a permanent mandate, Congress should provide more funding for training assistance and implementation. This will help all 16,000 law enforcement agencies throughout the nation participate in reporting hate crimes.
a) Reauthorize U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Congress should reauthorize the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The Commission identifies, analyzes, and reports on the major civil and human rights problems confronting the nation; including the persistence of bigotry and discrimination, tensions among different groups, and hate crimes motivated by bigotry and influence.
Since 1990, the Commission has been especially effective, holding hearings on racial and ethnic tensions in major metropolitan areas and in the Mississippi-Delta region. It has also been vigilant in response to the church fires. In fact, the recent findings of the Commission have sparked a renewed discussion about the persistence of racism in American society.
b) Restore funding for Community Relations Service. Congress should also restore funding for the Community Relations Service (CRS) of the Department of Justice, whose budget has been cut in half after some members of Congress sought to eliminate it entirely. CRS works to resolve group conflicts and racial tensions in communities across the country. It offers mediation and technical assistance to communities trying to address hate motivated incidents. It is an invaluable resource that must be preserved and strengthened.
c) Improve data collection. For the HCSA, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the Community Relations Service and other efforts against discrimination and intolerance to succeed, the nation needs accurate and
up-to-date demographic information about the racial, ethnic, and religious composition of the population. The need for federal data is essential to effective enforcement of civil rights laws. That is why it is so important that Congress allow the Census Bureau to take all available steps to reduce the persistent, disproportionate undercount of racial minorities and the poor in the 2000 census. With guidance from state and local officials and business and community leaders, the bureau has developed a plan to make sure that every person is counted, including those who historically have been hardest to reach. Congress should approve, not impede this plan, including census efforts at "sampling" residents in low-income communities.
4) Expand coverage of federal criminal civil rights statutes: Federal criminal civil rights statutes should also be expanded to remove the requirement that victims be engaged in a federally protected activity at the time of the crime. Coverage of the law should be expanded to include gender, sexual orientation and immigration status. Law enforcement agencies should also consider identifying specific ethnic groups, such as Arab-Americans, who have been targets of hate violence. The coverage of state laws should also be expanded along these lines. Unless all hate-motivated incidents are identified, monitored, and documented, the full extent of the severity and prevalence of this violence cannot be adequately addressed.
Tougher hate crime laws should be enacted at both the state and local levels, including "penalty-enhancement" provisions that impose harsher punishments for criminal acts motivated by bigotry. While bigotry cannot be outlawed, if it leads to criminal conduct, that conduct can and should be punished. Hate crime statutes demonstrate an important community commitment to confront crimes prompted by prejudice. Police departments should be required to enforce these laws, and prosecutors should utilize them when appropriate.
5) Create hate crime units: Local police departments should create hate crime units, with specially trained officers and outreach efforts to minority communities. These units are indispensable for preventing, investigating, and prosecuting hate crimes, for convincing potential offenders and potential victims alike that communities are committed to combating hate crimes. There should also be victim assistance programs for those who suffer from hate crimes.
6) Encourage communities to participate: Congress and the Administration should encourage local law enforcement agencies to participate in the HCSA data collection effort. They can require that Department of Justice technical assistance grants be dependent on participation in the HCSA data collection effort. And they can also make such participation a requirement for receiving funds from the Justice Department's Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). Additional federal funding should be included to cover the costs of local law enforcement participation.
Linking community policing to the effort against bias-related crimes can be especially effective. Hate violence can be addressed effectively through a combination of presence, prevention, and outreach to the community that is the hallmark of community policing. Congress and the Administration should see that new officers hired and trained under the COPS initiative begin to receive training in how to identify, report, and respond to hate violence.
Communities should also encourage efforts by businesses, labor unions, civic groups and concerned citizens. The response by communities, companies, civic organizations, and ordinary citizens to the arsons of African-American churches is a model for how America should answer hate crimes. Schools, businesses,
congregations, and communities all across America should initiate or intensify efforts to promote respect for diversity and to discourage acts of intolerance. The projects described in this report, as well as other efforts by the NAACP, National Council of La Raza, the Anti-Defamation League, and National Urban League, among others, are all models for what can and must be done.
7) Debate the issues with reason, not rancor: In a democracy, there should be free and open debate about public issues. Political questions about immigration, abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights among others can and should be debated. But Americans of all backgrounds and viewpoints should find ways to debate these issues without demonizing one another. Public debate should be an appeal to reason, not an incitement to violence.
8) Prepare the next generation of Americans for a diverse society: The disturbingly large number of young people who commit hate crimes underscores the need for educational programs on the importance of civic responsibility, cultural diversity, and a respect of cultural differences in the United States. As the Citizens" Commission on Civil Rights has urged, the federal government should promote democracy-building and citizenship initiatives - efforts such as teaching about the Bill of Rights and the parts that many different groups have played in our national history. The Department of Education should make information available about successful prejudice-reduction and hate crime prevention programs and resources. Local communities and school systems should offer programs on prejudice awareness, religious tolerance, conflict resolution, and multicultural education.
9) Use the Internet to Educate: Like many persons in our society, we are increasingly concerned about the use of the Internet to promote doctrines espousing hatred and violence. We also appreciate, however, the importance of the First Amendment to our Constitution in protecting the speech of all in our pluralistic society. In that regard, the Internet is a marketplace of ideas and information - the public forum of the future. Moreover, the Internet has a growing utilization among young people, and therefore, must be considered in any serious public education campaign to address the problem of hate-related violence in America.
Recognizing the limitations of what government can or should do in addressing the problem of hate speech on the Internet, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Leadership Conference Education Fund have proposed direct action. We will construct an Internet web-site devoted to civil rights and a greater understanding of the importance of civil rights laws in building the "more perfect union" which is our national promise. The LCCR/LCEF plan to develop what may be called "the definitive civil rights web-site," means that in addition to its own content, the new web-page will connect to the existing web-sites of LCCR members, thereby expanding its reach considerably.
10) Comply with International Law: Racism in America, and hate crimes as tangible evidence of racism, has attracted the attention of the international community. In 1994, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance came on mission to the United States and last year filed an extensive report citing a "pattern of increased racist violence" in the U.S. The report concludes that "racism and racial discrimination persist in American society," despite the fact that "knowledge of the extent of racist violence in the United States continues to suffer from the lack of a uniform and accurate source of information."
In its periodic reports to the U.N. treaty monitoring bodies, the government should fully detail the extent of the hate crime problem in America - not just cite to laws on the books that criminalize hate crimes - and outline steps it is taking to eliminate the causes of hate crimes through increased enforcement, expansion of existing law, and educational programs. The U.S. should file its delinquent report on compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and should actively seek the participation of civil rights groups in the U.S. in the preparation of this report.
These recommendations themselves are intended as a starting-point for a national discussion on how Americans can not only prevent hate crimes but promote positive relationships among people of every heritage. In this effort, the sponsors of this study are eager to work together with other Americans of goodwill.
|
|
|
| |
| any questions...... |
| 08.12.03 (3:28 pm) [edit] |
|
|
|
| |
| something lite today..... |
| 08.11.03 (7:44 pm) [edit] |
i'm not one for fluf but this site's funny....
http://www.manicbaby.com/" title="http://www.manicbaby.com/" target="_blank"http://www.manicbaby.com/
:lol:
|
|
|
| |
| 10 Ways to Fight Hate |
| 08.10.03 (9:22 pm) [edit] |
10 Ways to Fight Hate
1. ACT. Do something in the faceof hatred, apathy will beinterpreted as acceptance-by the haters, the public and, worse, the victim. Decency must be excercised, too. If it isn't, hate invariably persists.
2. UNITE. Call a friend or co-worker. Organize a group of allies from churches, schools,clubs and other civic sources. Create a diverse coalition. Include children, police and the media. Gather ideas from everyone, get everyone involved.
3. SUPPORT THE VICTIMS. Hate-crime victims are especially vulnerable, fearful and alone. Let them know you care. Surround them with people they feel comfortable with. If you're a victim, report every incident and ask for help.
4. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Determine if a hate group is involved, and research its symbols and agenda. Seek advice from anti-hate organizations. Accurate information can then be spread to the community.
5. CREATE AN ALTERNATIVE. Do NOT attend a hate rally. Find another outlet for anger and frustration and people's desire to do something. Hold a unity rally or parade. Find a news hook, like a "hate-free" zone.
6. SPEAK UP. You, too, have First Amendment rights. Hate must be exposed and denounced. Buy an ad. Help news organizations achieve balance and depth. Do not debate hate mongers in conflict-driven talk shows.
7. LOBBY LEADERS. Persuade politicians, business and community leaders to take a stand against hate. Early action creates a positive reputation for the community, while unanswered hate will eventiually be bad for business.
8. LOOK LONG RANGE. Create a "bias response" team. Hold annual events, such as a parade or culture fair, to celebrate your community's diversity and harmony. Build something the community needs. Create a website.
9. TEACH TOLERANCE. Bias is learned early,usually at home. But children from different cultures can be in-fluenced by school programs and curricula. Sponsor an "I have a dream" contest. Target youths who may be tempted by skinheads or other hate groups.
10. DIG DEEPER. Look into issues that divide us: economic inequality, immigration, homosexuality. Work against discrimination in housing, employment, education. Look inside yourself for prejudices and stereotypes.
|
|
|
| |
| Hate Crimes |
| 08.09.03 (7:57 pm) [edit] |
What is a hate crime?
A hate crime is an unlawful act motivated by bias. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act — hate crimes legislation pending in Congress — broadens the legal definition. It describes a "hate crime" as a violent act causing death or bodily injury "because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability" of the victim. Current law does not include sexual orientation, gender or disability.
Aren't all crimes hate crimes?
Hate crimes send a threatening message to whole communities. The key difference between hate crimes and other crimes is that the offender is motivated by the victim's personal characteristics.
How often do these crimes occur?
Hate crimes based on sexual orientation make up the third highest category after race and religion.
Evidence indicates that hate crimes are underreported. Yet statistics still show that nearly 75,000 hate crimes have been reported to the FBI since 1991, with 9,730 incidents reported in 2001, the FBI's most recent reporting period. Race-related hate crimes were by far the most common, representing nearly 53.8 percent of all reported cases. Hate crimes based on ethnicity/national origin represented 21.6 percent and those based on religion represented 18.8 percent. Hate crimes against gay, lesbian and bisexual Americans constituted about 14.3 percent of all reported hate crimes, with 1,393 reported in 2001.
Statistics are lower than the actual number of occurrences of hate-motivated violence. Click here [http://www.hrc.org/issues/hat...], to view the 2001 FBI hate crimes statistics.
Where do hate crimes usually occur?
According to the FBI in 2000, 29 percent of reported hate crimes occurred in residential properties; 19 percent occurred on highways, roads, alleys or streets; and 10 percent occurred at schools and colleges. The remaining 26 percent occur in other locations.
For more detailed information, visit HRC's background [http://www.hrc.org/issues/hat...] reports on hate crimes.
For detailed statistics, go to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports page and scroll down to "Hate Crimes Statistics [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.ht...]."
|
|
|
| |
| Domestic Security and Enhancement Act [Patriot Act II] |
| 08.08.03 (8:59 pm) [edit] |
* The government would no longer be required to disclose the identity of anyone, even an American citizen, detained in connection with a terror investigation – until criminal charges are filed, no matter how long that takes (sec 201).
* Current court limits on local police spying on religious and political activity would be repealed (sec. 312).
The government would be allowed to obtain credit records and library records without a warrant (secs. 126, 128, 129).
* Wiretaps without any court order for up to 15 days after terror attack would be permissible. (sec. 103).
* Release of information about health/safety hazards posed by chemical and other plants would be restricted (sec. 202).
* The reach of an already overbroad definition of terrorism would be expanded – individuals engaged in civil disobedience could risk losing their citizenship (sec. 501); their organization could be subject to wiretapping (secs. 120, 121) and asset seizure (secs. 428, 428).
* Americans could be extradited, searched and wiretapped at the behest of foreign nations, whether or not treaties allow it (sec. 321, 322).
* Lawful immigrants would be stripped of the right to a fair deportation hearing and federal courts would not be allowed to review immigration rulings (secs. 503, 504).
|
|
|
| |
| patriot act, part II.... |
| 08.07.03 (2:11 pm) [edit] |
The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas
The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas:
Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by a third parties. (Section 215)
Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
"Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).
1. Expanded access to personal records held by third parties
One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens' activities being held by a third party. At a time when computerization is leading to the creation of more and more such records, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers.
Unchecked power
The result is unchecked government power to rifle through individuals' financial records, medical histories, Internet usage, bookstore purchases, library usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record. Making matters worse:
The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
The FBI does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for "probable cause" that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All the government needs to do is make the broad assertion that the request is related to an ongoing terrorism or foreign intelligence investigation.
Judicial oversight of these new powers is essentially non-existent. The government must only certify to a judge - with no need for evidence or proof - that such a search meets the statute's broad criteria, and the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
Surveillance orders can be based in part on a person's First Amendment activities, such as the books they read, the Web sites they visit, or a letter to the editor they have written.
A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.
Why the Patriot Act's expansion of records searches is unconstitutional
Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several ways. It:
Violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.
Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech.
Violates the Fourth Amendmentby failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
2. More secret searches
For centuries, common law has required that the government can't go into your property without telling you, and must therefore give you notice before it executes a search. That "knock and announce" principle has long been recognized as a part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
The Patriot Act, however, unconstitutionally amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the subjects, at least until long after the search has been executed. This means that the government can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their property, take photographs, and in some cases even seize property - and not tell them until later.
Notice is a crucial check on the government's power because it forces the authorities to operate in the open, and allows the subject of searches to protect their Fourth Amendment rights. For example, it allows them to point out irregularities in a warrant, such as the fact that the police are at the wrong address, or that the scope of the warrant is being exceeded (for example, by rifling through dresser drawers in a search for a stolen car). Search warrants often contain limits on what may be searched, but when the searching officers have complete and unsupervised discretion over a search, a property owner cannot defend his or her rights.
Finally, this new "sneak and peek" power can be applied as part of normal criminal investigations; it has nothing to do with fighting terrorism or collecting foreign intelligence.
3. Expansion of the intelligence exception in wiretap law
Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without proving probable cause, as the Fourth Amendment explicitly requires.
A 1978 law called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created an exception to the Fourth Amendment's requirement for probable cause when the purpose of a wiretap or search was to gather foreign intelligence. The rationale was that since the search was not conducted for the purpose of gathering evidence to put someone on trial, the standards could be loosened. In a stark demonstration of why it can be dangerous to create exceptions to fundamental rights, however, the Patriot Act expanded this once-narrow exception to cover wiretaps and searches that DO collect evidence for regular domestic criminal cases. FISA previously allowed searches only if the primary purpose was to gather foreign intelligence. But the Patriot Act changes the law to allow searches when "a significant purpose" is intelligence. That lets the government circumvent the Constitution's probable cause requirement even when its main goal is ordinary law enforcement.
The eagerness of many in law enforcement to dispense with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment was revealed in August 2002 by the secret court that oversees domestic intelligence spying (the "FISA Court"). Making public one of its opinions for the first time in history, the court revealed that it had rejected an attempt by the Bush Administration to allow criminal prosecutors to use intelligence warrants to evade the Fourth Amendment entirely. The court also noted that agents applying for warrants had regularly filed false and misleading information. That opinion is now on appeal.
4. Expansion of the "pen register" exception in wiretap law
Another exception to the normal requirement for probable cause in wiretap law is also expanded by the Patriot Act. Years ago, when the law governing telephone wiretaps was written, a distinction was created between two types of surveillance. The first allows surveillance of the content or meaning of a communication, and the second only allows monitoring of the transactional or addressing information attached to a communication. It is like the difference between reading the address printed on the outside of a letter, and reading the letter inside, or listening to a phone conversation and merely recording the phone numbers dialed and received.
Wiretaps limited to transactional or addressing information are known as "Pen register/trap and trace" searches (for the devices that were used on telephones to collect telephone numbers). The requirements for getting a PR/TT warrant are essentially non-existent: the FBI need not show probable cause or even reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. It must only certify to a judge - without having to prove it - that such a warrant would be "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. And the judge does not even have the authority to reject the application.
The Patriot Act broadens the pen register exception in two ways:
"Nationwide" pen register warrants
Under the Patriot Act PR/TT orders issued by a judge are no longer valid only in that judge's jurisdiction, but can be made valid anywhere in the United States. This "nationwide service" further marginalizes the role of the judiciary, because a judge cannot meaningfully monitor the extent to which his or her order is being used. In addition, this provision authorizes the equivalent of a blank warrant: the court issues the order, and the law enforcement agent fills in the places to be searched. That is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment's explicit requirement that warrants be written "particularly describing the place to be searched."
Pen register searches applied to the Internet
The Patriot Act applies the distinction between transactional and content-oriented wiretaps to the Internet. The problem is that it takes the weak standards for access to transactional data and applies them to communications that are far more than addresses. On an e-mail message, for example, law enforcement has interpreted the "header" of a message to be transactional information accessible with a PR/TT warrant. But in addition to routing information, e-mail headers include the subject line, which is part of the substance of a communication - on a letter, for example, it would clearly be inside the envelope.
The government also argues that the transactional data for Web surfing is a list of the URLs or Web site addresses that a person visits. For example, it might record the fact that they visited "www.aclu.org" at 1:15 in the afternoon, and then skipped over to "www.fbi.gov" at 1:30. This claim that URLs are just addressing data breaks down in two different ways:
Web addresses are rich and revealing content. The URLs or "addresses" of the Web pages we read are not really addresses, they are the titles of documents that we download from the Internet. When we "visit" a Web page what we are really doing is downloading that page from the Internet onto our computer, where it is displayed. Therefore, the list of URLs that we visit during a Web session is really a list of the documents we have downloaded - no different from a list of electronic books we might have purchased online. That is much richer information than a simple list of the people we have communicated with; it is intimate information that reveals who we are and what we are thinking about - much more like the content of a phone call than the number dialed. After all, it is often said that reading is a "conversation" with the author.
Web addresses contain communications sent by a surfer. URLs themselves often have content embedded within them. A search on the Google search engine, for example, creates a page with a custom-generated URL that contains material that is clearly private content, such as: http://www.google.com/search?...+orientation
Similarly, if I fill out an online form - to purchase goods or register my preferences, for example - those products and preferences will often be identified in the resulting URL.
The erosion of accountability
Attempts to find out how the new surveillance powers created by the Patriot Act were implemented during their first year were in vain. In June 2002 the House Judiciary Committee demanded that the Department of Justice answer questions about how it was using its new authority. The Bush/Ashcroft Justice Department essentially refused to describe how it was implementing the law; it left numerous substantial questions unanswered, and classified others without justification. In short, not only has the Bush Administration undermined judicial oversight of government spying on citizens by pushing the Patriot Act into law, but it is also undermining another crucial check and balance on surveillance powers: accountability to Congress and the public.
Non-surveillance provisions
Although this fact sheet focuses on the direct surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act, citizens should be aware that the act also contains a number of other provisions. The Act:
Puts CIA back in business of spying on Americans. The Patriot Act gives the Director of Central Intelligence the power to identify domestic intelligence requirements. That opens the door to the same abuses that took place in the 1970s and before, when the CIA engaged in widespread spying on protest groups and other Americans.
Creates a new crime of "domestic terrorism." The Patriot Act transforms protesters into terrorists if they engage in conduct that "involves acts dangerous to human life" to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." How long will it be before an ambitious or politically motivated prosecutor uses the statute to charge members of controversial activist groups like Operation Rescue or Greenpeace with terrorism? Under the Patriot Act, providing lodging or assistance to such "terrorists" exposes a person to surveillance or prosecution. Furthermore, the law gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to detain or deport any non-citizen who belongs to or donates money to one of these broadly defined "domestic terrorist" groups.
Allows for the indefinite detention of non-citizens. The Patriot Act gives the attorney general unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants. The attorney general can order detention based on a certification that he or she has "reasonable grounds to believe" a non-citizen endangers national security. Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial.
|
|
|
| |
| patriot act, part 1........... |
| 08.06.03 (2:36 pm) [edit] |
[i]today is the first of a series i'll add regarding the patriot act... all info is taken from the ACLU's web page [www.aclu.org] so if you have questions about the validitiy of the data....ask them. [/i]
What is the USA PATRIOT Act?
Just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, a panicked Congress passed the "USA/Patriot Act," an overnight revision of the nation's surveillance laws that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court.
Why Congress passed the Patriot Act
Most of the changes to surveillance law made by the Patriot Act were part of a longstanding law enforcement wish list that had been previously rejected by Congress, in some cases repeatedly. Congress reversed course because it was bullied into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack.
The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it. The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks - a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily.
Congress and the Administration acted without any careful or systematic effort to determine whether weaknesses in our surveillance laws had contributed to the attacks, or whether the changes they were making would help prevent further attacks. Indeed, many of the act's provisions have nothing at all to do with terrorism.
|
|
|
| |
| a "real" friend....? |
| 08.05.03 (2:39 pm) [edit] |
What is one?
"A real friend is one who walks in when the rest of the world walks out." --Walter Winchell
"True friends are the people that are there for you unconditionally. They are the people that never question you and support you no matter what the circumstances are. They are the people worth living for." -unknown
"Truly great friends are hard to find, difficult to leave, and impossible to forget." -G. Randolf
|
|
|
| |
| r u positive? |
| 08.05.03 (1:27 pm) [edit] |
"Positive means 'wrong' at the top of your voice."
-Source Unknown
|
|
|
| |
| good fortune... |
| 08.04.03 (2:36 pm) [edit] |
"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think."
-Hitler
|
|
|
| |
| patriotism... |
| 08.03.03 (8:35 pm) [edit] |
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them!
--Albert Einstein
|
|
|
| |
| media..... |
| 08.01.03 (2:38 pm) [edit] |
"Film and television, newspapers, books and radio together have an influence over individuals that was unimagined a hundred years ago. This power confers great responsibility on all who work in the media...[as well as] each of us who, as individuals, listen and read and watch....it is not the case that we have no power over what we take from the media. When the media focuses too closely on the negative aspects of human nature, there is a danger that we become persuaded that violence and agression are its principle characteristics...good news is not remarked on precisely because there is so much of it." Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso's) 1999 book Ancient Wisdom, Modern World": Ethics For A New Millennium" p.210-212
|
|
|
| |
|
QUOTE:
Stupidity has a bad habit of getting its way. --"The Day After"
QUOTE: Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor.
– A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"
QUOTE: War: A wretched debasement of all the pretenses of civilization.
– General Omar Bradley
I hope....that mankind will at length, as they call themselves responsible creatures, have the reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats...
– Benjamin Franklin
"There must be security for all, or no one is secure. Now this does not mean giving up any freedom, except the freedom to act irresponsibly."-- Klaatu, The Day The Earth Stood Still, 1951.
|
