Morality & Values

Dean Striker

Dean Striker — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:25:34 -0700

THE LIGHTER SIDE OF DICK BLOSSOM BABY a satire

alan stuart2 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:52:39 -0700

Dick Blossom Baby returned from his travels spreading good will and cheer throughout the Middle East, as is his custom around this time each year. All of the countries he visits have long-standing traditions in place to ensure that he is never disappointed. Knowing that he is but a mere humble spokesperson representing his president whom he worships and adores there is a request that will not be granted, within reason of course.
Rumors have it, he finds soaking in the perpetual sparkling flowing fountains located in his favorite respite hide-away places only the rich and famous can attend, such as Jerusalem, Golan Heights and of course floating upon the Dead Sea.
He is often quoted as saying after these relaxing soaking trips that he feels as though his “batteries have been recharged” and that “walking in JC’s footsteps really kinds of gets to him.”
Always on the move, he delighted the people in neighboring Palestine where they greeted him as usual with throngs of well-wishers who that were so overcome with good tidings for him; in some places, the crowds were so overjoyed, at times they had to be moved and restrained behind chain link fences.
After constantly badgering his annoying keepers, they finally allowed him to go mingle amidst some of the shopkeepers in an outdoor market that had reminded him of one he had just yesterday walked thru unaccompanied in Bagdad and wanted to purchase some souvenirs. He was especially interested in those vests that all the young people seemed to be wearing in all of the countries he had been visiting, certain that all he brought them to would be delighted at their uniqueness.
Delighted over this outpouring of adoration he had one of his faithful dedicated freshly castrated Nubian associates contact the King of Arabia to postpone his arrivals there telling his aid ever so politely to “make up some fucking excuse or the other.” His new associate never having heard of such a thing, simply following instructions, called and left the message, verbatim.
Not daunted by such trivial things as schedules, Dick Blossom Baby left the confines of his security detail, bulletproof vehicles and even his “every ready battery charged defibrillator” behind to walk the streets of the Gaza Strip in search for a quiet Bistro to have luch with his friends.
The display of rockets bursting in the air over his head almost brought tears to his eyes that they had gone to all of this trouble just for him. Just the sight of the children and mothers running and screaming as they ran in his direction with open arms, really gave his heart that extra boost he so often needed.
The numbers of people shared tearful joyful goodbyes at the airport where yet again he was surprised in attendance. How he wished yet again he could read the language, the signs they were waving were so colorful and numerous, he just knew they had the kindest of messages. Atop the steps of Air Force Two he turned to wave his final good-bye when he saw what these wonderful people had done as a parting gesture his composure finally cracked and a tear fell down his check.
In the twilight that was now falling, all of the terrific people had taken off their outer jackets in this chill night air, lying them on the ground to spell out a farewell message just for him. He thought again about not being able to read what it said as he ducked and went into the plane then the door closed behind him and he forgot all about the message.
Had he bothered to look out of any the many windows, the message written very precisely so he would understand, it simply said:
FUK U GO HOM

Human Rights Daze

OurFuture.org Staff — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:02:29 -0800

Norman Solomon is a columnist and author. His latest book is "Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State."

The chances are slim that you saw much news coverage of Human Rights Day when it blew past the media radar -- as usual -- on Dec. 10.

Human rights may be touted as a treasured principle in the United States, but the assessed value in medialand is apt to fluctuate widely on the basis of double standards and narrow definitions. Every political system, no matter how repressive or democratic, is able to amp up public outrage over real or imagined violations of human rights. News media can easily fixate on stories of faraway injustice and cruelty. But the lofty stances end up as posturing to the extent that a single standard is not applied.

When U.S.-allied governments torture political prisoners, the likelihood of U.S. media scrutiny is much lower than the probability of media righteousness against governments reviled by official Washington.

But what are "human rights" anyway? In the USA, we mostly think of them as freedom to speak, assemble, worship and express opinions. Of course those are crucial rights. Yet they hardly span the broad scope that's spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

That document -- adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on Dec. 10, 1948 -- affirms "human rights" in the ways that U.S. media outlets commonly illuminate the meaning of the term. But the Declaration of Human Rights also defines the rights of all human beings to include "freedom from fear and want" -- and not only as generalities.

For instance, the first clause of Article 23 states: "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."

And: "Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work"; the right "to form and to join trade unions"; and, overall, "an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection."

Perhaps the farthest afield from the customary U.S. media parameters is Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which insists: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Measured with such yardsticks for human rights, the United States falls far short of many countries. If American news media did a better job of reporting on human rights in all their dimensions, we'd be less self-satisfied as a nation -- and more outraged about the widespread violations of human rights that persist in our midst every day.

The human consequences of those violations are incalculable, but they're largely removed from the center stage of dramas that fill news pages and newscasts. This downplaying of economic human rights is not mere happenstance. The violations are systemic -- within a system that thrives on extreme inequities, creating enormous profits for corporations and enriching some individuals along the way. Within the boundaries of dominant news media and mainline political discourse, the "issue" of human rights is in a narrow box. It severely limits the humanity of our social order.

Eric Lotke

Eric Lotke — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:22:48 -0800

Eric Lotke is Research Director at the Campaign for America's Future. Before coming to CAF, he worked over a decade in and around the criminal justice system. As Policy Director at the Justice Policy Institute and a Soros Senior Justice Fellow, he authored path breaking research on the demographics of incarceration, patterns of youth homicide, and the fiscal and electoral impact of the U.S. Census Bureau counting people in prison where they are confined rather than their original homes. As Executive Director of D.C. Prisoners’ Legal Services Project, Mr. Lotke represented inmates in a groundbreaking class action lawsuit against the private Corrections Corporation of America, and he pioneered litigation over excessive, non-competitive pricing of prison phone calls. Mr. Lotke has been an adjunct professor at Georgetown and George Washington Universities, and a judicial clerk on the Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Most recently, Mr. Lotke published a novel, 2044. 2044 starts where George Orwell’s 1984 left off. The problem isn’t Big Brother and the leviathan government. The problem is Big Brother Inc., and the all-powerful marketplace.

Molly Swartz

Anita Chariw2 — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:59:21 -0800

After receiving a B.A. in Religious Studies from Yale University in 2006, Molly Swartz moved to D.C. to work for Restructuring Associates Inc., a labor-management consulting firm. In this position, she researched and wrote reports and speeches on organizational development, labor relations, and business innovation for clients in the healthcare, airline, and utility industries. In search of more political work, Molly joined the Campaign for America's Future as a Policy Research Associate in 2007.

Hate Crimes Expansion Dropped from Defense Bill

OurFuture.org Staff — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 07:54:03 -0800

Congressional maneuvering caused Democratic leadership to drop a measure expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation and gender identity from a defense appropriations bill.

Presidential Faith Test

OurFuture.org Staff — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 07:00:04 -0800

Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy is the president of The Interfaith Alliance, and host of State of Belief on Air America Radio.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's speech Thursday was more evidence to support what I have already thought about the use of faith in the presidential race.

The attention given to Romney's Mormon faith is unfortunately not the only example of the disproportionate role that religion has played in the 2008 presidential election. Senator John McCain has referred to the U.S. as a Christian nation, senators Clinton and Obama continue to work aggressively to secure the endorsements of clergy, and I am anxious to know what Rudy Giuliani promised Pat Robertson to receive his endorsement.

But this week, the story is about Mitt Romney and his speech. Romney sought to allay any fears that he will use the government to advance his religion or that his political decisions will be made on the basis of theology. Great. Now, I would like Romney to get on with talking about the issues on which the presidency should be decided-issues such as the economy, health care, war and terrorism.

Even before delivering the speech, comparisons were being made to John F. Kennedy's historic speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association during the 1960 election. That speech helped alleviate voters' doubts and concerns about the possibility of a Catholic president. The parallel was not lost on Romney, who referred to Kennedy in his speech, and I think he should be commended for saying, "I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith."

This election is not and should not be about any candidate's religion. Indeed, Article VI of the Constitution prohibits a religious test for public office. The Founders of our nation outlined a variety of qualifications for public office, including age, citizenship and residency. But they specifically exempted religion from qualifying or disqualifying a candidate. With brilliant prescience, the pragmatic visionaries anticipated an America with vast religious diversity. They knew the dangers of entanglement between the institutions of religion and government, and they sought to prohibit such dangers in a manner that protected the integrity of government and the sanctity of religion.

Romney's rhetoric was eloquent. Now what about his actions? Romney needs to pay heed to the warning he has sounded. So, let's watch. While in his speech Romney declared that religious doctrine should not determine public policy, a few lines later he articulated a ringing promise that his religious convictions would inform his political decisions if he is elected to sit in the Oval Office. He gave no hint of recognizing the rights and freedoms of people who embrace no religion. It's disappointing - although hardly unexpected - that certain sections of Romney's speech were designed to pander to the Religious Right. It also struck me as a cheap shot when he spoke out against those who would defend a high wall between church and state.

Whoever is elected president will stand in the great tradition of national leadership only by underscoring his or her commitment to the founders' vision and, thus, their commitment to assuring separation between the dictates of his religious faith, and the promise that every president must make to protect and defend the Constitution.

I do commend Romney for stressing the importance of religious freedom as a campaign issue. I hope his words will inspire and encourage other candidates to pledge their support to religious freedom as well and, along with Romney, to campaign in such a way that we have confidence that they have meant what they said.

Uncle Sam Wants You, But Pays Off Mom and Dad

Bill Scher — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:05:42 -0800

35.5 Million Americans Went Hungry in '06

Alexandra Walker — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:07:21 -0800

Faith-Based Boondoggle

Toby Chaudhuri — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:48:13 -0800