Don’t Boycott Israel
The very idea is repellent.
Jack Guez / AFP-Getty Images
If you follow the news closely enough, you might have caught a small item recently noting that Meg Ryan had canceled a scheduled appearance at a film festival in Jerusalem to protest Israeli policy. This was significant not because anyone should care what the nose-crinkling movie star thinks about the Mideast but precisely because no one does. Ryan, a conventional Hollywood Democrat, is a barometer of celebrity politics. Her sort of sheeplike, liberal opinion once reflexively favored Israel. Now it’s dabbling in the repellent idea of shunning the entire country.
Support for the Israeli cultural boycott has been growing in surprising places lately. After the Gaza flotilla incident in June, rock bands including the Pixies canceled performances at a music festival in Tel Aviv. Elvis Costello announced in May that he was canceling two upcoming performances to protest the treatment of Palestinians. Unlike Ryan, Costello is a thoughtful person whose views are worthy of respect. So why, exactly, do I think he’s wrong, too? Why is a private embargo—which includes an academic boycott and the push for divestment on the anti-apartheid model—an unacceptable way for outsiders to protest Israeli treatment of Palestinians?
One argument is that academic boycotts are intrinsically unacceptable because they violate the principles of free expression and the universality of science and learning. A parallel objection applies to cultural boycotts, which directly target the most forward-thinking members of a society. In the case of Israel, shunning writers like Amos Oz and David Grossman, who serve as national consciences, seems not only intrinsically vile but actively counterproductive. On the other hand, it would be hard to justify a blanket rule that cultural and academic sectors are always off-limits. In authoritarian societies, cultural institutions do tend to become ideological proxies—think of the National Ballet in Cuba, or the East German gymnastics team.
An even weaker case against the cultural boycott is that it’s unlikely to work. While it’s certainly true that cultural sanctions on their own are more inconvenience than lethal weapon, they can have a real impact. In South Africa, cultural and, in particular, sports sanctions—banning the country from the Olympics and from international cricket and rugby competitions—were an effective form of pressure. When it comes to Israel, it’s hard to predict what effect cultural and academic isolation might have. Some Israelis take international rejection as an affirmation, concluding that amid a sea of hostility their only recourse is self-sufficiency. On the other hand, opponents of the Netanyahu government cite global opprobrium as an argument for a different political course.
Perhaps boycotts should be off-limits as a tactic against democratic societies, where other means of peaceful protest exist. But here, too, it’s hard to come up with a blanket rule. The immediate resort to sanctions when an elected government—say, Arizona’s—does something objectionable seems extreme and disproportionate. Yet an elected democracy like the Milosevic regime in Serbia can oppress ethnic minorities or commit genocide as well as an unelected one. And, indeed, one could argue that only in a democracy are the people truly responsible for the actions of their government.
The stronger case against a cultural boycott of Israel is based on consistency, proportionality, and history. That supporters of this boycott seldom focus on China or Syria or Zimbabwe—or other genuinely illegitimate regimes that systematically violate human rights—underscores their bad faith. Boycotters are not trying to send the specific message, “We object to your settlement policy in the West Bank.” What they’re saying is, “We consider your country so intrinsically reprehensible that we are going to treat all of your citizens as pariahs.” Like the older Arab economic boycott of Israel, which dates back to the 1940s, the cultural boycott is a weapon designed not to bring peace but to undermine the country.
Because Israel is a refuge for Jews persecuted everywhere else, this kind of existential challenge is hard to disassociate from anti-Semitism—even if Ryan and Costello intend nothing of the kind. When people are trying to murder you because of your religion, it is difficult to credit the bona fides of those who merely want to shun you because of your government.
Facebook Tweet Digg print email comments Your Email
Their Email
Cancel Email Sent Unable to Send Email Invalid Email Address Next: Afghanistan Wants to See the Money »
More on Newsweek
The New 'Mad Men' Likes It Rough 10 Ways Facebook Can Ruin Your Life $13/Month Car Insurance?
Insurance deal just passed now allows you to get car insurance for $13
CarInsuranceFinder.orgThree-bureau credit monitoring
Monitor your credit and get 3 credit scores Free!
Equifax.comHillsboro: Mom turns $97 into $6,012
Sounds Impossible? That’s what we thought until we heard her…
news10reports.com
Use my avatar from...
No avatar
My computer
My Facebook Profile
My Google Profile
My Twitter Account
My FriendFeed Account
My Yahoo! Account
Gravatar email
Login
Login with:
My Facebook Profile
My Google Profile
My Twitter Account
My FriendFeed Account
My Yahoo! Account
My Blogger Account
My JS-Kit Account
My Haloscan Account
My OpenID
Login required, click here to begin
Share
Share with:
This Page
My Facebook Friends
My Google Friends
My Twitter Followers
My FriendFeed Followers
My Yahoo! Friends
This Page
Follow
Leave a comment@Controls
Comments 451 ItemsAdmin
Log In
Follow
Moderation
General Settings
Admin Notices
– Ira
Is Jacob Weisberg the voice of Newsweek? We know Jacob Weisberg is a pro-Israel reporter and has always been. We never heard him defending Palestinian people against Israel's oppression. Where is he when innocent Palestinians are killed by Israel army? If Newsweek stands by his reporter then I don't have other choice than canceling my Newsweek Subscription.
Today, 11:24:38 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate kittycat
I see Newsweek/Weisberg still have not corrected their flawed story. Oh well, I'll just repeat what I said before untill they do rectify.
FYI Newsweek people: Meg Ryan never accepted an invitation to attend the Jerusalem Film Festival. So claiming she cancelled her appearance is nonsense. It seems mr Weisberg never bothered to fact-check his story.
Fortunatly, his collegue from the Jewish Journal DID check the story and guess what: it was false. You can read about it here: http://www.jewishjournal.com/rob_eshman/article/agent_questions_20100720/
Turns out some 'official' working for the film festival made false claims about both Meg Ryan and Dustin Hoffman.
So what boycot, mister Weisberg? Why the uncalled for and childish name-calling? Do you have a problem with women in general?
Today, 10:13:58 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate ex mea sententia
"Because Israel is a refuge for Jews persecuted everywhere else, this kind of existential challenge is hard to disassociate from anti-Semitism—even if Ryan and Costello intend nothing of the kind. When people are trying to murder you because of your religion, it is difficult to credit the bona fides of those who merely want to shun you because of your government."
Nice use of the Al Sharpton defense. I guess Israel is free to do what it pleases because if I dare criticize its actions, I might risk appearing as an anti-Semitic Jew hater. Mr. Weisberg you're a smart man and you know better. I suggest (although you probably are not reading this and I am wasting my time) that next time you do not rely on such a crutch. As you would say, "the very idea is repellent."
The argument that because these people don't boycott China, Zimbabwe, or Syria, they should not boycott Israel is interesting. It is often proudly proclaimed that Israel is the only democracy and free and open society in the middle east. Yet it is to be held to the same low standard as China, a communist country, Zimbabwe, or Syria?
As Peter Beinart would say, you check your liberal ideology at Zionism's door.
Today, 10:10:07 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate Paul
The idea that the majority cannot oppress a minority just because the government is democratic is frankly stupid. Were a democratic nation today to allow slavery, any sort of boycott, political pressure, or other non-violent means of underscoring our disapproval would be absolutely justified.
Argue such ideas on the merits of the need for change. It is stupid to claim that the idea of a boycott is a bad idea solely because a nation is democratic.
Today, 9:33:52 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate Jim
When will we Americans realize the heavy price we paid for our support of Israel? Al Qaida attacked us on 9/11 primarily because of our support of Israel. You don't have to take my word. Just listed to the many tapes released by Bin Laden himself. After 9/11, jewish journalists like Jeff Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, Safire, Bill Kristol, and other jews engaged in a non-stop propaganda that the Arabs hate us because of our freedom. These Jewish journalists conspired with Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Wolfowitz and other members of the Jewish Lobby to force America to go to war against Iraq, a country which posed no threat to America. The jews were pushing for the Iraq war for the sole benefit of Israel, which resulted in the death of more than 4000 troops. Now the same gang is pushing us to attack Iran, again for the sole benefit of Israel. When are we Americans going to stand up and say NO!
Today, 9:23:08 PM– Flag – Like – Reply – Delete – Edit – Moderate
More
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Clinton Signals U.S. Role in China Territorial Disputes After Asean Talks
Clinton Signals U.S. Role in China Territorial Disputes After Asean Talks
By Daniel Ten Kate and Nicole Gaouette - Jul 23, 2010
Email Share Print
U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Nelson Ching/Bloomberg
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said resolving territorial disputes off China’s southern coast is “a leading diplomatic priority,” signaling her intention to intercede in a region claimed in full by the Chinese government.
Ending disagreements in the South China Sea “is pivotal to regional stability” and ensuring “unimpeded commerce,” Clinton told the 27-member Asean Regional Forum in Hanoi today, according to a State Department transcript.
“If you look at a map of this region, there are many countries that are increasing their trade, their commercial maritime traffic,” Clinton told reporters after her meetings, which included a bilateral discussion with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi “There is a concern that we all abide by the international rules.”
The Chinese government considers the entire South China Sea as its own, dismissing rival claims to islands such as the Spratlys, and is building a blue-water fleet to project power beyond its own borders. China told Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP Plc to halt exploration in offshore areas that Vietnam considers part of its territory, according to U.S. government agencies.
“China’s assertiveness has caused anxieties in the region,” said Carlyle A. Thayer, professor of politics at the Australian Defense Force Academy in Canberra. Countries around Asia “are quite happy the U.S. is doing the heavy lifting.”
In their separate meeting, Yang said China was willing to discuss all of the issues raised by Clinton, including the South China Sea, a U.S. administration official traveling with Clinton said on condition of anonymity. China prefers such issues to be discussed bilaterally, the official said.
‘Core Interest’ Status
Raising the South China Sea to the level of a “core interest” would put it on the same standing as Taiwan, which China views as a breakaway province to be reunited by force, if necessary. China cut military links with the U.S. in January in protest at arms sales to Taiwan.
China has also protested military exercises by the U.S. off the coast of South Korea that Gates said are aimed at deterring further acts of aggression by North Korea after the sinking of a South Korean warship in March.
In a show of the U.S.’ strategic commitment to the region, Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, together with Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior defense officials met in Seoul on June 21 on the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War.
U.S. Naval Force
The 97,000-ton USS George Washington and three destroyers arrived in the country the same day, ahead of military exercises due next week that will involve F-22 stealth fighter-bombers and hundreds of other aircraft, ships and thousands of U.S. and Korean personnel.
The U.S. drills mask a hidden aim to “pressurize and contain other big powers by force of arms in the region,” the state-run Korea Central News Agency said July 21. North Korea denies any involvement in the sinking and today accused the U.S. of “gunboat diplomacy” in sending the George Washington to the region.
“There will be a physical response against the steps imposed by the United States militarily,” Ri Tong Il, an official with North Korea’s delegation to the Asean Regional Forum, told reporters in Hanoi today.
China, North Korea’s main ally and source of economic support, is “firmly opposed” to any threatening foreign military activities in waters off its shores, the foreign ministry said in a statement posted on its website. It has so far refused to join international condemnation of North Korea for the ship sinking.
Claims Disputed
Asean Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan said there was “very, very open, sometimes heated discussion” in the forum on issues including the Korean peninsula and South China Sea.
The Chinese government formally disputed the claims of Vietnam and Malaysia to part of the South China Sea’s Spratly Islands when it submitted a map to the United Nations last year asserting ownership over most of the sea. Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan also lay claim to all or part of the island chain, which may contain oil and gas reserves.
There is a growing chorus among Southeast Asian countries to begin a more substantive process for settling disputes, said the U.S. official.
China has beefed up its military over the past decade, enhancing the capability to deter U.S. ships and enforce territorial claims off its shores. Last year, Chinese fishing boats harassed two U.S. naval vessels in the South China Sea, where American forces have patrolled since World War II.
Taiwan, Tibet
Chinese officials told U.S. counterparts in March they consider the sea a “core interest” on par with Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang, Kyodo News reported on July 3, citing unidentified officials.
“The development of China’s national defense capabilities is not aimed at challenging, threatening or invading any other country but at, first and foremost, maintaining its own security,” the PLA’s Ma said in Singapore.
Clinton yesterday discussed military cooperation with Vietnam and Gates restored ties with special forces in Indonesia. The two countries border the South China Sea.
“The United States supports a collaborative diplomatic process by all claimants for resolving the various territorial disputes without coercion,” Clinton said. “We oppose the use or threat of force by any claimant.”
Asean foreign ministers are negotiating an agreement with China on a code of conduct in the sea to build on a 2002 accordthat called for disputes to be resolved peacefully. Ministershope the deal can be concluded by year’s end, Asean’s Surin said yesterday.
Open shipping lanes in the sea are “really the lifeline of our commerce, of our transport for all of us,” Surin told reporters in Hanoi. China, Japan and South Korea “recognize that 85 to 90 percent of their energy source comes either from or through Southeast Asia,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Daniel Ten Kate in Hanoi at dtenkate@bloomberg.net
By Daniel Ten Kate and Nicole Gaouette - Jul 23, 2010
Email Share Print
U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Nelson Ching/Bloomberg
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said resolving territorial disputes off China’s southern coast is “a leading diplomatic priority,” signaling her intention to intercede in a region claimed in full by the Chinese government.
Ending disagreements in the South China Sea “is pivotal to regional stability” and ensuring “unimpeded commerce,” Clinton told the 27-member Asean Regional Forum in Hanoi today, according to a State Department transcript.
“If you look at a map of this region, there are many countries that are increasing their trade, their commercial maritime traffic,” Clinton told reporters after her meetings, which included a bilateral discussion with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi “There is a concern that we all abide by the international rules.”
The Chinese government considers the entire South China Sea as its own, dismissing rival claims to islands such as the Spratlys, and is building a blue-water fleet to project power beyond its own borders. China told Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP Plc to halt exploration in offshore areas that Vietnam considers part of its territory, according to U.S. government agencies.
“China’s assertiveness has caused anxieties in the region,” said Carlyle A. Thayer, professor of politics at the Australian Defense Force Academy in Canberra. Countries around Asia “are quite happy the U.S. is doing the heavy lifting.”
In their separate meeting, Yang said China was willing to discuss all of the issues raised by Clinton, including the South China Sea, a U.S. administration official traveling with Clinton said on condition of anonymity. China prefers such issues to be discussed bilaterally, the official said.
‘Core Interest’ Status
Raising the South China Sea to the level of a “core interest” would put it on the same standing as Taiwan, which China views as a breakaway province to be reunited by force, if necessary. China cut military links with the U.S. in January in protest at arms sales to Taiwan.
China has also protested military exercises by the U.S. off the coast of South Korea that Gates said are aimed at deterring further acts of aggression by North Korea after the sinking of a South Korean warship in March.
In a show of the U.S.’ strategic commitment to the region, Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, together with Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior defense officials met in Seoul on June 21 on the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War.
U.S. Naval Force
The 97,000-ton USS George Washington and three destroyers arrived in the country the same day, ahead of military exercises due next week that will involve F-22 stealth fighter-bombers and hundreds of other aircraft, ships and thousands of U.S. and Korean personnel.
The U.S. drills mask a hidden aim to “pressurize and contain other big powers by force of arms in the region,” the state-run Korea Central News Agency said July 21. North Korea denies any involvement in the sinking and today accused the U.S. of “gunboat diplomacy” in sending the George Washington to the region.
“There will be a physical response against the steps imposed by the United States militarily,” Ri Tong Il, an official with North Korea’s delegation to the Asean Regional Forum, told reporters in Hanoi today.
China, North Korea’s main ally and source of economic support, is “firmly opposed” to any threatening foreign military activities in waters off its shores, the foreign ministry said in a statement posted on its website. It has so far refused to join international condemnation of North Korea for the ship sinking.
Claims Disputed
Asean Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan said there was “very, very open, sometimes heated discussion” in the forum on issues including the Korean peninsula and South China Sea.
The Chinese government formally disputed the claims of Vietnam and Malaysia to part of the South China Sea’s Spratly Islands when it submitted a map to the United Nations last year asserting ownership over most of the sea. Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan also lay claim to all or part of the island chain, which may contain oil and gas reserves.
There is a growing chorus among Southeast Asian countries to begin a more substantive process for settling disputes, said the U.S. official.
China has beefed up its military over the past decade, enhancing the capability to deter U.S. ships and enforce territorial claims off its shores. Last year, Chinese fishing boats harassed two U.S. naval vessels in the South China Sea, where American forces have patrolled since World War II.
Taiwan, Tibet
Chinese officials told U.S. counterparts in March they consider the sea a “core interest” on par with Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang, Kyodo News reported on July 3, citing unidentified officials.
“The development of China’s national defense capabilities is not aimed at challenging, threatening or invading any other country but at, first and foremost, maintaining its own security,” the PLA’s Ma said in Singapore.
Clinton yesterday discussed military cooperation with Vietnam and Gates restored ties with special forces in Indonesia. The two countries border the South China Sea.
“The United States supports a collaborative diplomatic process by all claimants for resolving the various territorial disputes without coercion,” Clinton said. “We oppose the use or threat of force by any claimant.”
Asean foreign ministers are negotiating an agreement with China on a code of conduct in the sea to build on a 2002 accordthat called for disputes to be resolved peacefully. Ministershope the deal can be concluded by year’s end, Asean’s Surin said yesterday.
Open shipping lanes in the sea are “really the lifeline of our commerce, of our transport for all of us,” Surin told reporters in Hanoi. China, Japan and South Korea “recognize that 85 to 90 percent of their energy source comes either from or through Southeast Asia,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Daniel Ten Kate in Hanoi at dtenkate@bloomberg.net
Shanshan Du, Ex-GM Worker, Allegedly Tried To Sell Hybrid Car Secrets To Chinese Companies
Shanshan Du, Ex-GM Worker, Allegedly Tried To Sell Hybrid Car Secrets To Chinese Companies
ED WHITE | 07/23/10 02:32 AM |
DETROIT — A former General Motors engineer and her husband conspired to steal trade secrets about hybrid technology and use the information to make private deals with Chinese competitors, according to a federal indictment unsealed Thursday.
Shanshan Du and Yu Qin, both of Troy, were indicted on conspiracy, fraud and other charges. They had been under scrutiny for years and were charged in 2006 with destroying documents sought by investigators, a case that was dropped while a broader probe was pursued.
The indictment says Du, who was hired at GM in 2000, purposely sought a transfer in 2003 to get access to hybrid technology and began copying documents by the end of that year.
In 2005, she copied thousands of documents, five days after getting a severance offer from the automaker, according to the indictment.
By that summer, Qin was telling people he had a deal to provide hybrid technology to Chery Automobile, a GM competitor in China, the indictment says. The couple had set up their own company, Millennium Technology International.
Outside court, Assistant U.S. Attorney Cathleen Corken said there's no indication the Chinese benefited.
Jin Yibo, a Chery spokesman in China, said early Friday that the company saw a news report about the case but knew nothing else about it.
"We are surprised about why anyone connected this with Chery. This is ridiculous," Jin said.
Du, 51, and Qin, 49, were arrested Thursday and remained mostly silent during a court appearance where they waived a reading of the indictment. Not-guilty pleas were entered for them. The maximum penalty if convicted is 20 years in prison.
Story continues below
"Theft of trade secrets is a threat to national security," Andrew Arena, head of the FBI in Detroit, said in a statement.
Du's attorney, Robert Morgan, declined to comment. Qin's attorney, Frank Eaman, said he was "completely surprised" by the indictment.
"This investigation has been going on so long I figured if they had a basis they would have charged them a long time ago," Eaman said.
Corken said GM learned about the alleged theft and called the FBI. GM estimates the value of the stolen information at $40 million.
In May 2006, Du and Qin were charged with destroying records to stifle an investigation of them. FBI agents followed them to a major grocery store where Qin approached a Dumpster, according to a court filing at the time. Agents later retrieved shredded documents.
That criminal complaint was dropped less than two months later, a common move when investigators want to further develop a case. The indictment includes an obstruction of justice charge against Qin for the alleged Dumpster incident.
Du and Qin, both U.S. citizens, were released on bond and ordered to mostly stay in the Detroit area.
ED WHITE | 07/23/10 02:32 AM |
DETROIT — A former General Motors engineer and her husband conspired to steal trade secrets about hybrid technology and use the information to make private deals with Chinese competitors, according to a federal indictment unsealed Thursday.
Shanshan Du and Yu Qin, both of Troy, were indicted on conspiracy, fraud and other charges. They had been under scrutiny for years and were charged in 2006 with destroying documents sought by investigators, a case that was dropped while a broader probe was pursued.
The indictment says Du, who was hired at GM in 2000, purposely sought a transfer in 2003 to get access to hybrid technology and began copying documents by the end of that year.
In 2005, she copied thousands of documents, five days after getting a severance offer from the automaker, according to the indictment.
By that summer, Qin was telling people he had a deal to provide hybrid technology to Chery Automobile, a GM competitor in China, the indictment says. The couple had set up their own company, Millennium Technology International.
Outside court, Assistant U.S. Attorney Cathleen Corken said there's no indication the Chinese benefited.
Jin Yibo, a Chery spokesman in China, said early Friday that the company saw a news report about the case but knew nothing else about it.
"We are surprised about why anyone connected this with Chery. This is ridiculous," Jin said.
Du, 51, and Qin, 49, were arrested Thursday and remained mostly silent during a court appearance where they waived a reading of the indictment. Not-guilty pleas were entered for them. The maximum penalty if convicted is 20 years in prison.
Story continues below
"Theft of trade secrets is a threat to national security," Andrew Arena, head of the FBI in Detroit, said in a statement.
Du's attorney, Robert Morgan, declined to comment. Qin's attorney, Frank Eaman, said he was "completely surprised" by the indictment.
"This investigation has been going on so long I figured if they had a basis they would have charged them a long time ago," Eaman said.
Corken said GM learned about the alleged theft and called the FBI. GM estimates the value of the stolen information at $40 million.
In May 2006, Du and Qin were charged with destroying records to stifle an investigation of them. FBI agents followed them to a major grocery store where Qin approached a Dumpster, according to a court filing at the time. Agents later retrieved shredded documents.
That criminal complaint was dropped less than two months later, a common move when investigators want to further develop a case. The indictment includes an obstruction of justice charge against Qin for the alleged Dumpster incident.
Du and Qin, both U.S. citizens, were released on bond and ordered to mostly stay in the Detroit area.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Auschwitz Survivor Recalls Daring 1944 Escape MONIKA SCISLOWSKA
Auschwitz Survivor Recalls Daring 1944 Escape
MONIKA SCISLOWSKA | 07/20/10 09:23 AM |
NOWY TARG, Poland — With every step toward the gate, Jerzy Bielecki was certain he would be shot.
The day was July 21, 1944. Bielecki was walking in broad daylight down a pathway at Auschwitz, wearing a stolen SS uniform with his Jewish sweetheart Cyla Cybulska by his side.
His knees buckling with fear, he tried to keep a stern bearing on the long stretch of gravel to the sentry post.
The German guard frowned at his forged pass and eyed the two for a period that seemed like an eternity – then uttered the miraculous words: "Ja, danke" – yes, thank you – and let Jerzy and Cyla out of the death camp and into freedom.
It was a common saying among Auschwitz inmates that the only way out was through the crematorium chimneys. These were among the few ever to escape through the side door.
The 23-year-old Bielecki used his relatively privileged position as a German-speaking Catholic Pole to orchestrate the daring rescue of his Jewish girlfriend who was doomed to die.
"It was great love," Bielecki, now 89, recalled in an interview at his home in this small southern town 55 miles (85 kilometers) from Auschwitz.
"We were making plans that we would get married and would live together forever."
Bielecki was 19 when the Germans seized him on the false suspicion he was a resistance fighter, and brought to the camp in April 1940 in the first transport of inmates, all Poles.
Story continues below
He was given number 243 and was sent to work in warehouses, where occasional access to additional food offered some chance of survival.
It was two years before the first mass transports of Jews started arriving in 1942. Most of the Jews were taken straight to the gas chambers of neighboring Birkenau, while a few were designated to be forced laborers amid horrific conditions, allowing them to postpone death.
In September 1943 Bielecki was assigned to a grain storage warehouse. Another inmate was showing him around when suddenly a door opened and a group of girls walked in.
"It seemed to me that one of them, a pretty dark-haired one, winked at me," Bielecki said with a broad smile as he recalled the scene. It was Cyla – who had just been assigned to repair grain sacks.
Their friendship grew into love, as the warehouse offered brief chances for more face-to-face meetings.
In a report she wrote for the Auschwitz memorial in 1983, Cybulska recalled that during the meetings they told each other their life stories and "every meeting was a truly important event for both of us."
Cybulska, her parents, two brothers and a younger sister were rounded up in January 1943 in the Lomza ghetto in northern Poland and taken to Auschwitz-Birkenau. Her parents and sister were immediately killed in the gas chambers, but she and her brothers were sent to work.
By September, 22-year-old Cybulska was the only one left alive, with inmate number 29558 tattooed on her left forearm.
As their love blossomed, Bielecki began working on the daring plan for escape.
From a fellow Polish inmate working at a uniform warehouse he secretly got a complete SS uniform and a pass. Using an eraser and a pencil, he changed the officer's name in the pass from Rottenfuehrer Helmut Stehler to Steiner just in case the guard knew the real Stehler, and filled it in to say an inmate was being led out of the camp for police interrogation at a nearby station. He secured some food, a razor for himself and a sweater and boots for Cybulska.
He briefed her on his plan: "Tomorrow an SS-man will come to take you for an interrogation. The SS-man will be me."
The next afternoon, Bielecki, dressed in the stolen uniform, came to the laundry barrack where Cybulska had been moved for work duty. Sweating with fear, he demanded the German supervisor release the woman.
Bielecki led her out of the barrack and onto a long path leading to a side gate guarded by the sleepy SS-man who let them go through.
The fear of being gunned down remained with him in his first steps of freedom: "I felt pain in my backbone, where I was expecting to be shot," Bielecki said.
But when he eventually looked back, the guard was in his booth. They walked on to a road, then into fields where they hid in dense bushes until dark, when they started to march.
"Marching across fields and woods was very exhausting, especially for me, not used to such intensive walks," Cybulska said in her report to Auschwitz as quoted in a Polish-language book Bielecki has written, "He Who Saves One Life ..."
"Far from any settlements, we had to cross rivers," she wrote. "When water was high ... Jurek carried me to the other side."
At one point she was too tired to walk and asked him to leave her.
"Jurek did not want to hear that and kept repeating: 'we fled together and will walk on together,'" she reported, referring to Jerzy by his Polish diminutive.
For nine nights they moved under the cover of darkness toward Bielecki's uncle's home in a village not far from Krakow.
His mother, who was living at the house, was overjoyed to see him alive, though wasted-away after four years at Auschwitz. A devout Catholic, however, she was dead-set against him marrying a Jewish girl.
"How will you live? How will you raise your children?" Bielecki recalls her asking.
To keep her away from possible Nazi patrols, Cybulska was hidden on a nearby farm. Bielecki decided to go into hiding in Krakow – a fateful choice they believed would improve their chances of avoiding capture by the Nazis. The couple spent their last night together under a pear tree in an orchard, saying their goodbyes and making plans to meet right after the war.
After the Soviet army rolled through Krakow in January 1945, Bielecki left the city where he had been hiding from Nazi pursuit and walked 25-miles (40-kilometers) along snow-covered roads to meet Cybulska at the farmhouse.
But he was four days too late.
Cybulska, not aware that the area where she had been hiding had been liberated three weeks before Krakow, gave up waiting for him, concluding her "Juracek" either was dead or had abandoned their plans.
She got on a train to Warsaw, planning to find an uncle in the United States. On the train she met a Jewish man, David Zacharowitz, and the two began a relationship and eventually married. They headed to Sweden, then to Cybulska's uncle in New York, who helped them start a jewelry business. Zacharowitz died in 1975.
In Poland, Bielecki eventually started a family of his own and worked as the director of a school for car mechanics. He had no news of Cybulska and had no way of finding her.
In her report Cybulska said that she was haunted in the years after she left Poland by a wish to see her hometown and to find Jurek, if he was alive.
Sheer chance made her wish come true.
While talking to her Polish cleaning woman in 1982, Cybulska related her Auschwitz escape story.
The woman was stunned.
"I know the story, I saw a man on Polish TV saying he had led his Jewish girlfriend out of Auschwitz," the cleaning lady told Cybulska, according to Bielecki.
She tracked down his phone number and one early morning in May 1983 the telephone rang in Bielecki's apartment in Nowy Targ.
"I heard someone laughing – or crying – on the phone and then a female voice said "Juracku, this is me, your little Cyla," Bielecki recalls.
A few weeks later they met at Krakow airport. He brought 39 red roses, one for each year they spent apart. She visited him in Poland many times, and they jointly visited the Auschwitz memorial, the farmer family that hid her and many other places, staying together in hotels.
"The love started to come back," Bielecki said.
"Cyla was telling me: leave your wife, come with me to America," he recalls. "She cried a lot when I told her: Look, I have such fine children, I have a son, how could I do that?"
She returned to New York and wrote to him: "Jurek I will not come again," Bielecki recalled.
They never met again and she did not reply to his letters.
Cybulska died a few years later in New York in 2002.
In 1985, the Yad Vashem Institute in Jerusalem awarded Bielecki the Righteous Among the Nations title for saving Cybulska. The institute's website account of the escape and its aftermath is consistent with Bielecki's account to The Associated Press.
"I was very much in love with Cyla, very much," Bielecki said. "Sometimes I cried after the war, that she was not with me. I dreamed of her at night and woke up crying."
"Fate decided for us, but I would do the same again."
MONIKA SCISLOWSKA | 07/20/10 09:23 AM |
NOWY TARG, Poland — With every step toward the gate, Jerzy Bielecki was certain he would be shot.
The day was July 21, 1944. Bielecki was walking in broad daylight down a pathway at Auschwitz, wearing a stolen SS uniform with his Jewish sweetheart Cyla Cybulska by his side.
His knees buckling with fear, he tried to keep a stern bearing on the long stretch of gravel to the sentry post.
The German guard frowned at his forged pass and eyed the two for a period that seemed like an eternity – then uttered the miraculous words: "Ja, danke" – yes, thank you – and let Jerzy and Cyla out of the death camp and into freedom.
It was a common saying among Auschwitz inmates that the only way out was through the crematorium chimneys. These were among the few ever to escape through the side door.
The 23-year-old Bielecki used his relatively privileged position as a German-speaking Catholic Pole to orchestrate the daring rescue of his Jewish girlfriend who was doomed to die.
"It was great love," Bielecki, now 89, recalled in an interview at his home in this small southern town 55 miles (85 kilometers) from Auschwitz.
"We were making plans that we would get married and would live together forever."
Bielecki was 19 when the Germans seized him on the false suspicion he was a resistance fighter, and brought to the camp in April 1940 in the first transport of inmates, all Poles.
Story continues below
He was given number 243 and was sent to work in warehouses, where occasional access to additional food offered some chance of survival.
It was two years before the first mass transports of Jews started arriving in 1942. Most of the Jews were taken straight to the gas chambers of neighboring Birkenau, while a few were designated to be forced laborers amid horrific conditions, allowing them to postpone death.
In September 1943 Bielecki was assigned to a grain storage warehouse. Another inmate was showing him around when suddenly a door opened and a group of girls walked in.
"It seemed to me that one of them, a pretty dark-haired one, winked at me," Bielecki said with a broad smile as he recalled the scene. It was Cyla – who had just been assigned to repair grain sacks.
Their friendship grew into love, as the warehouse offered brief chances for more face-to-face meetings.
In a report she wrote for the Auschwitz memorial in 1983, Cybulska recalled that during the meetings they told each other their life stories and "every meeting was a truly important event for both of us."
Cybulska, her parents, two brothers and a younger sister were rounded up in January 1943 in the Lomza ghetto in northern Poland and taken to Auschwitz-Birkenau. Her parents and sister were immediately killed in the gas chambers, but she and her brothers were sent to work.
By September, 22-year-old Cybulska was the only one left alive, with inmate number 29558 tattooed on her left forearm.
As their love blossomed, Bielecki began working on the daring plan for escape.
From a fellow Polish inmate working at a uniform warehouse he secretly got a complete SS uniform and a pass. Using an eraser and a pencil, he changed the officer's name in the pass from Rottenfuehrer Helmut Stehler to Steiner just in case the guard knew the real Stehler, and filled it in to say an inmate was being led out of the camp for police interrogation at a nearby station. He secured some food, a razor for himself and a sweater and boots for Cybulska.
He briefed her on his plan: "Tomorrow an SS-man will come to take you for an interrogation. The SS-man will be me."
The next afternoon, Bielecki, dressed in the stolen uniform, came to the laundry barrack where Cybulska had been moved for work duty. Sweating with fear, he demanded the German supervisor release the woman.
Bielecki led her out of the barrack and onto a long path leading to a side gate guarded by the sleepy SS-man who let them go through.
The fear of being gunned down remained with him in his first steps of freedom: "I felt pain in my backbone, where I was expecting to be shot," Bielecki said.
But when he eventually looked back, the guard was in his booth. They walked on to a road, then into fields where they hid in dense bushes until dark, when they started to march.
"Marching across fields and woods was very exhausting, especially for me, not used to such intensive walks," Cybulska said in her report to Auschwitz as quoted in a Polish-language book Bielecki has written, "He Who Saves One Life ..."
"Far from any settlements, we had to cross rivers," she wrote. "When water was high ... Jurek carried me to the other side."
At one point she was too tired to walk and asked him to leave her.
"Jurek did not want to hear that and kept repeating: 'we fled together and will walk on together,'" she reported, referring to Jerzy by his Polish diminutive.
For nine nights they moved under the cover of darkness toward Bielecki's uncle's home in a village not far from Krakow.
His mother, who was living at the house, was overjoyed to see him alive, though wasted-away after four years at Auschwitz. A devout Catholic, however, she was dead-set against him marrying a Jewish girl.
"How will you live? How will you raise your children?" Bielecki recalls her asking.
To keep her away from possible Nazi patrols, Cybulska was hidden on a nearby farm. Bielecki decided to go into hiding in Krakow – a fateful choice they believed would improve their chances of avoiding capture by the Nazis. The couple spent their last night together under a pear tree in an orchard, saying their goodbyes and making plans to meet right after the war.
After the Soviet army rolled through Krakow in January 1945, Bielecki left the city where he had been hiding from Nazi pursuit and walked 25-miles (40-kilometers) along snow-covered roads to meet Cybulska at the farmhouse.
But he was four days too late.
Cybulska, not aware that the area where she had been hiding had been liberated three weeks before Krakow, gave up waiting for him, concluding her "Juracek" either was dead or had abandoned their plans.
She got on a train to Warsaw, planning to find an uncle in the United States. On the train she met a Jewish man, David Zacharowitz, and the two began a relationship and eventually married. They headed to Sweden, then to Cybulska's uncle in New York, who helped them start a jewelry business. Zacharowitz died in 1975.
In Poland, Bielecki eventually started a family of his own and worked as the director of a school for car mechanics. He had no news of Cybulska and had no way of finding her.
In her report Cybulska said that she was haunted in the years after she left Poland by a wish to see her hometown and to find Jurek, if he was alive.
Sheer chance made her wish come true.
While talking to her Polish cleaning woman in 1982, Cybulska related her Auschwitz escape story.
The woman was stunned.
"I know the story, I saw a man on Polish TV saying he had led his Jewish girlfriend out of Auschwitz," the cleaning lady told Cybulska, according to Bielecki.
She tracked down his phone number and one early morning in May 1983 the telephone rang in Bielecki's apartment in Nowy Targ.
"I heard someone laughing – or crying – on the phone and then a female voice said "Juracku, this is me, your little Cyla," Bielecki recalls.
A few weeks later they met at Krakow airport. He brought 39 red roses, one for each year they spent apart. She visited him in Poland many times, and they jointly visited the Auschwitz memorial, the farmer family that hid her and many other places, staying together in hotels.
"The love started to come back," Bielecki said.
"Cyla was telling me: leave your wife, come with me to America," he recalls. "She cried a lot when I told her: Look, I have such fine children, I have a son, how could I do that?"
She returned to New York and wrote to him: "Jurek I will not come again," Bielecki recalled.
They never met again and she did not reply to his letters.
Cybulska died a few years later in New York in 2002.
In 1985, the Yad Vashem Institute in Jerusalem awarded Bielecki the Righteous Among the Nations title for saving Cybulska. The institute's website account of the escape and its aftermath is consistent with Bielecki's account to The Associated Press.
"I was very much in love with Cyla, very much," Bielecki said. "Sometimes I cried after the war, that she was not with me. I dreamed of her at night and woke up crying."
"Fate decided for us, but I would do the same again."
Tom Phillips - 19th July, 2010 Share| Man hit by six meteorites is being 'targeted by aliens' A Bosnian man who claims he is being targeted by extrat
Tom Phillips - 19th July, 2010
Share|
Man hit by six meteorites is being 'targeted by aliens'
A Bosnian man who claims he is being targeted by extraterrestrials after a series of meteorite strikes on his house has now been hit by a sixth space rock in the space of a few years.
(2)
Related Tags:meteoritehousestrikerockextraterrestrials
Radivoje Lajic and one of the many space rocks of doom to have rained down upon his house
Radivoje Lajic first came to international attention in 2008, shortly after the fifth meteorite had crashed into the roof of his house in the northern village of Gornji Lajici.
And now, within the past month, another rock has hit the roof of his house, in defiance of all the odds - making it six strikes since the plague of meteorites began in 2007.
Experts at Belgrade University have confirmed that all the falling rocks he has handed over were meteorites. They are now trying to work out what exactly it is about his house that particularly attracts them. The strikes always happen when it is raining heavily, he says, never when there are clear skies.
Lajic has his own explanation, of course. After the fifth rock struck his house, he said: 'I am obviously being targeted by extraterrestrials. I don't know what I have done to annoy them but there is no other explanation that makes sense. The chance of being hit by a meteorite is so small that getting hit six times has to be deliberate.'
50-year-old Lajic has had a steel girder reinforced roof put on the house to protect it from the alien bombardment - which he funded by selling one of the meteorites to a university in the Netherlands.
'I have no doubt I am being targeted by aliens,' he adds. 'They are playing games with me. I don't know why they are doing this. When it rains I can't sleep for worrying about another strike.'
Share|
Man hit by six meteorites is being 'targeted by aliens'
A Bosnian man who claims he is being targeted by extraterrestrials after a series of meteorite strikes on his house has now been hit by a sixth space rock in the space of a few years.
(2)
Related Tags:meteoritehousestrikerockextraterrestrials
Radivoje Lajic and one of the many space rocks of doom to have rained down upon his house
Radivoje Lajic first came to international attention in 2008, shortly after the fifth meteorite had crashed into the roof of his house in the northern village of Gornji Lajici.
And now, within the past month, another rock has hit the roof of his house, in defiance of all the odds - making it six strikes since the plague of meteorites began in 2007.
Experts at Belgrade University have confirmed that all the falling rocks he has handed over were meteorites. They are now trying to work out what exactly it is about his house that particularly attracts them. The strikes always happen when it is raining heavily, he says, never when there are clear skies.
Lajic has his own explanation, of course. After the fifth rock struck his house, he said: 'I am obviously being targeted by extraterrestrials. I don't know what I have done to annoy them but there is no other explanation that makes sense. The chance of being hit by a meteorite is so small that getting hit six times has to be deliberate.'
50-year-old Lajic has had a steel girder reinforced roof put on the house to protect it from the alien bombardment - which he funded by selling one of the meteorites to a university in the Netherlands.
'I have no doubt I am being targeted by aliens,' he adds. 'They are playing games with me. I don't know why they are doing this. When it rains I can't sleep for worrying about another strike.'
Monday, July 19, 2010
Nasa satellite 'blinded by biggest ever star explosion seen in space'
Nasa satellite 'blinded by biggest ever star explosion seen in space'
A Nasa satellite was temporarily blinded after the brightest explosion of a star ever witnessed in space, officials admitted.
By Andrew Hough
Published: 2:30PM BST 16 Jul 2010
The brightest gamma-ray burst ever seen in X-rays taken by Nasa's Swift space observatory. Photo: REUTERS The space agency’s orbiting Swift observatory was overwhelmed by glare from the eruption, called a gamma-ray burst.
Such was the power of the last month’s blast that the observatory's software ignored it as if it were an anomaly.
Related Articles
Nasa breakthroughs: the space agency's most thrilling discoveries and pictures
Nasa 'elated' by new telescope's discoveries
Meteor storm 'could damage Hubble and space station'
Nasa solar flare warning: an expert writes
Solar eclipse clashes with Cup final
Nasa discovers 'superheated planet with comet tail' Scientists at Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, in Maryland, said the explosion of X-rays that followed came from a star that died five billion years ago, far beyond our own Milky Way galaxy.
Experts say the timing meant the blast, which astronomers believe was caused by a star collapsing to form a black hole, occurred before the Sun and planets formed.
When a star explodes, radiation travels at the speed of light in all directions. Gamma rays reach Earth first, followed by X-rays.
Light from the flare-up, titled GRB 100621A, reached Earth on June 21 after it had travelled nearly halfway across the universe.
It then hit the satellite, which formed in 2005 to observe the sky with X-ray style eyes.
Observing gamma-ray bursts is one of the satellite's prime objectives but it was not built to cope with such an intensely bright blast.
"The intensity of these X-rays was unexpected and unprecedented," said Neil Gehrels, Swift's principal investigator.
"Just when we were beginning to think that we had seen everything that gamma-ray bursts could throw at us, this burst came along to challenge our assumptions about how powerful their X-ray emissions can be.”
Dr Phil Evans, of Leicester University's space department, added: "The burst was so bright when it first erupted that our data-analysis software shut down.
“So many photons were bombarding the detector each second that it just couldn't count them quickly enough.
"It was like trying to use a rain gauge and a bucket to measure the flow rate of a tsunami. This burst is one for the record books."
When the telescope recovered, Dr Evans and colleagues were able to measure that the distant explosion had been 140 times brighter than the brightest steady source of X-rays, a neutron star 500,000 times closer to Earth.
Professor David Burrows, of Penn State University, who is lead scientist for Swift's X-ray Telescope (XRT), said: "This gamma-ray burst is by far the brightest light source ever seen in X-ray wavelengths at cosmological distances."
A Nasa satellite was temporarily blinded after the brightest explosion of a star ever witnessed in space, officials admitted.
By Andrew Hough
Published: 2:30PM BST 16 Jul 2010
The brightest gamma-ray burst ever seen in X-rays taken by Nasa's Swift space observatory. Photo: REUTERS The space agency’s orbiting Swift observatory was overwhelmed by glare from the eruption, called a gamma-ray burst.
Such was the power of the last month’s blast that the observatory's software ignored it as if it were an anomaly.
Related Articles
Nasa breakthroughs: the space agency's most thrilling discoveries and pictures
Nasa 'elated' by new telescope's discoveries
Meteor storm 'could damage Hubble and space station'
Nasa solar flare warning: an expert writes
Solar eclipse clashes with Cup final
Nasa discovers 'superheated planet with comet tail' Scientists at Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Centre, in Maryland, said the explosion of X-rays that followed came from a star that died five billion years ago, far beyond our own Milky Way galaxy.
Experts say the timing meant the blast, which astronomers believe was caused by a star collapsing to form a black hole, occurred before the Sun and planets formed.
When a star explodes, radiation travels at the speed of light in all directions. Gamma rays reach Earth first, followed by X-rays.
Light from the flare-up, titled GRB 100621A, reached Earth on June 21 after it had travelled nearly halfway across the universe.
It then hit the satellite, which formed in 2005 to observe the sky with X-ray style eyes.
Observing gamma-ray bursts is one of the satellite's prime objectives but it was not built to cope with such an intensely bright blast.
"The intensity of these X-rays was unexpected and unprecedented," said Neil Gehrels, Swift's principal investigator.
"Just when we were beginning to think that we had seen everything that gamma-ray bursts could throw at us, this burst came along to challenge our assumptions about how powerful their X-ray emissions can be.”
Dr Phil Evans, of Leicester University's space department, added: "The burst was so bright when it first erupted that our data-analysis software shut down.
“So many photons were bombarding the detector each second that it just couldn't count them quickly enough.
"It was like trying to use a rain gauge and a bucket to measure the flow rate of a tsunami. This burst is one for the record books."
When the telescope recovered, Dr Evans and colleagues were able to measure that the distant explosion had been 140 times brighter than the brightest steady source of X-rays, a neutron star 500,000 times closer to Earth.
Professor David Burrows, of Penn State University, who is lead scientist for Swift's X-ray Telescope (XRT), said: "This gamma-ray burst is by far the brightest light source ever seen in X-ray wavelengths at cosmological distances."
free speech abridged in the US?
Webcam Hacker Cuffed For Allegedly Spying On Schoolgirls
Late last week, the Associated Press reported that "dozens of blogs by some of China's most outspoken users" had been "abruptly" closed in China, notorious for its strict Internet controls.
But less attention has been given to another blog blackout--this time in the US: As CNET reports, some 73,000 blogs hosted by WordPress blogging platform Blogetery.com, were shut down last week by BurstNet , Blogetery's web hosting company.
According to CNET "nobody seems willing to say why or who is responsible." What is known is that BurstNet informed Blogetery's operator, via email, that the its service had been terminated "by request of law enforcement officials, due to material hosted on the server."
"Please note that this was not a typical case, in which suspension and notification would be the norm. This was a critical matter brought to our attention by law enforcement officials. We had to immediately remove the server," BurstNet additionally told Blogetery (see quotes from the email exchange here).
A BurstNet representative told TorrentFreak that additional information on the shutdown of the blogs cannot be provided. “Simply put: We cannot give him his data nor can we provide any other details. By stating this, most would recognize that something serious is afoot,” the representative reportedly said.
Is this a copyright issue? TorrentFreak notes that Blogetery's owner does "admit to handling many copyright-related cease and desists in the past, albeit in a timely manner as the DMCA requires."
People on Twitter have voiced concerns over the shutdown of the blogs. One user, @Veribatim, tweeted, "I've been researching what happened. Either way tens of thousands of blogs who were not criminal were shut down. Not kosher." Another wrote, "70k+ blogs shut down for no reason, no appeal; and people want MORE gov. control of the internet? #fail"
Get HuffPost Technology On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz!
Know something we don't? E-mail us at technology@huffingtonpost.com
Late last week, the Associated Press reported that "dozens of blogs by some of China's most outspoken users" had been "abruptly" closed in China, notorious for its strict Internet controls.
But less attention has been given to another blog blackout--this time in the US: As CNET reports, some 73,000 blogs hosted by WordPress blogging platform Blogetery.com, were shut down last week by BurstNet , Blogetery's web hosting company.
According to CNET "nobody seems willing to say why or who is responsible." What is known is that BurstNet informed Blogetery's operator, via email, that the its service had been terminated "by request of law enforcement officials, due to material hosted on the server."
"Please note that this was not a typical case, in which suspension and notification would be the norm. This was a critical matter brought to our attention by law enforcement officials. We had to immediately remove the server," BurstNet additionally told Blogetery (see quotes from the email exchange here).
A BurstNet representative told TorrentFreak that additional information on the shutdown of the blogs cannot be provided. “Simply put: We cannot give him his data nor can we provide any other details. By stating this, most would recognize that something serious is afoot,” the representative reportedly said.
Is this a copyright issue? TorrentFreak notes that Blogetery's owner does "admit to handling many copyright-related cease and desists in the past, albeit in a timely manner as the DMCA requires."
People on Twitter have voiced concerns over the shutdown of the blogs. One user, @Veribatim, tweeted, "I've been researching what happened. Either way tens of thousands of blogs who were not criminal were shut down. Not kosher." Another wrote, "70k+ blogs shut down for no reason, no appeal; and people want MORE gov. control of the internet? #fail"
Get HuffPost Technology On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz!
Know something we don't? E-mail us at technology@huffingtonpost.com
Sunday, July 18, 2010
guns are about revolution
Why liberals should love the Second Amendment
by Kaili Joy Gray aka Angry Mouse
Share this on Twitter - Why liberals should love the Second Amendment Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:00:03 AM PDT
Liberals love the Constitution.
Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."
There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.
And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.
Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.
When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.
And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.
Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.
So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.
And this is why:
(Reasons below the fold)
::
No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.
If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people."
First Amendment:
...the right of the people peaceably to assemble
Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...
Ninth Amendment:
...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Tenth Amendment:
...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.
We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.
But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively.
We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.
And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment.
If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?
But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!
Right?
Wrong.
The United States Militia Code:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.
Everyone else. Individuals. The People.
The Founders well understood that the militia is the people, for it was not only the right but the obligation of all citizens to protect and preserve their liberty and to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government.
And fighting against the tyranny of the government is certainly a liberal value.
No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.
All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.
But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.
We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.
But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions.
Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.
Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
What if a member of Congress -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?
Except that such an argument is ridiculous, of course. Liberals would take to the streets, send angry letters to their representatives in Washington, organize marches, call progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, liberals would be up in arms.
And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.
Such a narrow interpretation of this particular right is inconsistent with the otherwise broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And just as conservatives weaken their own arguments about protecting the Second Amendment when they will not fight as vigilantly for protecting all the others, so too do liberals weaken their arguments for civil liberties, when they pick and choose which civil liberties they deem worthy of defense.
No. 3: It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore.
When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.
Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?
Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.
Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment.
And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.
Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.
They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though the Founders certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes.
But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right -- to ensure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens.
No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it.
Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.
Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.
The Second Amendment is obsolete?
What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age?
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"?
It's probably been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal."
And you'd be right.
What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether?
Hell no. And this is why liberals work so hard to get out and rock the vote -- to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. That is our obligation as citizens, to protect against the government infringing upon our rights by making full use of them.
And yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals do not fight to protect that right. Instead them demand more laws. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.
And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.
No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.
In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.
It is the right of revolution.
Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.
To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.
The Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.
We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.
And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is "excessive" or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right.
So.
What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.
No, this is a rallying cry for the Bill of Rights -- for all of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founders meant."
This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.
This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)
This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights.
This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.
Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.
Because we are revolutionaries.
Tags: Second Amendment (all tags)
by Kaili Joy Gray aka Angry Mouse
Share this on Twitter - Why liberals should love the Second Amendment Sun Jul 04, 2010 at 10:00:03 AM PDT
Liberals love the Constitution.
Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."
There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.
And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.
Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.
Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.
When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.
And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.
Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.
So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.
And this is why:
(Reasons below the fold)
::
No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.
If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people."
First Amendment:
...the right of the people peaceably to assemble
Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...
Ninth Amendment:
...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Tenth Amendment:
...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.
We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.
But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively.
We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.
And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment.
If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?
But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!
Right?
Wrong.
The United States Militia Code:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.
Everyone else. Individuals. The People.
The Founders well understood that the militia is the people, for it was not only the right but the obligation of all citizens to protect and preserve their liberty and to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government.
And fighting against the tyranny of the government is certainly a liberal value.
No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.
All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.
But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.
We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.
But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions.
Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.
Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
What if a member of Congress -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?
Except that such an argument is ridiculous, of course. Liberals would take to the streets, send angry letters to their representatives in Washington, organize marches, call progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, liberals would be up in arms.
And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.
Such a narrow interpretation of this particular right is inconsistent with the otherwise broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And just as conservatives weaken their own arguments about protecting the Second Amendment when they will not fight as vigilantly for protecting all the others, so too do liberals weaken their arguments for civil liberties, when they pick and choose which civil liberties they deem worthy of defense.
No. 3: It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore.
When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.
Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?
Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.
Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment.
And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.
Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.
They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though the Founders certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes.
But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right -- to ensure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens.
No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it.
Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.
Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.
The Second Amendment is obsolete?
What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age?
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"?
It's probably been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal."
And you'd be right.
What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether?
Hell no. And this is why liberals work so hard to get out and rock the vote -- to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. That is our obligation as citizens, to protect against the government infringing upon our rights by making full use of them.
And yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals do not fight to protect that right. Instead them demand more laws. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.
And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.
No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.
In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.
It is the right of revolution.
Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.
To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.
The Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.
We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.
And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is "excessive" or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right.
So.
What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.
No, this is a rallying cry for the Bill of Rights -- for all of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."
This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founders meant."
This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.
This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)
This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.
This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights.
This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.
Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.
Because we are revolutionaries.
Tags: Second Amendment (all tags)
oh Mitch, your prioities are out of whack, ma' boy. and when somebody takes the time to ask you a question, you could take the time to face the issue
Mitch McConnell Refuses To Discuss Tea Party Racism: 'I Have Got Better Things To Do'
First Posted: 07-18-10 01:25 PM | Updated: 07-18-10 01:25 PM
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell refused on Sunday to wade into the recent debate between the NAACP and the Tea Party over alleged racism within the conservative movement.
At their annual meeting in Kansas City last week the NAACP, the nation's largest civil rights organization, accused the Tea Party of harboring racist elements and called on leaders of the movement to "repudiate" those elements. Tea Party representatives and allies rejected the accusation.
And in an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" with Candy Crowley on Sunday McConnell (R-Ky.) decided not to get involved.
"I am not interested in getting into that debate," he said. "What we are interested in is trying to have an election this fall that will respond to what the American people are asking us to do, which is to have some checks and balances here."
When pressed by Crowley about some of the more overt symbols of racism, like the now infamous protest signs, coming from Tea Party supporters, McConnell doubled down.
"Look, there are all kinds of things going on in America that make me uncomfortable, both on the right and on the left," the minority leader said. "I have got better things to do than to wade in to all of these disputes and discussions that are going on out in the country."
Here's the full excerpt of McConnell's exchange with Crowley from CNN:
CROWLEY: Do you think that there are racist elements in the tea party? Story continues below
MCCONNELL: Oh my goodness, in the whole country, is there racism?
CROWLEY: Well, as you know, this weekend, NAACP said that the tea -- there are racist elements in the tea party.
MCCONNELL: I am not interested in getting into that debate. What we are interested in is trying to have an election this fall that will respond to what the American people are asking us to do, which is to have some checks and balances here.
They have seen big government on full display for a year-and-a- half. They are appalled. They would like for it to stop. And the best way for it to stop is to have a mid-course correction, which is not unusual in American politics, and I am hoping that is what is coming this fall.
CROWLEY: Nothing that you have seen on TV, including some of the signs that we've seen, albeit the minority at some of these tea party rallies, some of the posters that have been put up in the name of some factions of the tea party make you the least bit uncomfortable?
MCCONNELL: Look, there are all kinds of things going on in America that make me uncomfortable, both on the right and on the left. I have got better things to do than to wade in to all of these disputes and discussions that are going on out in the country. What we are trying to do is to make the president a born again moderate.
First Posted: 07-18-10 01:25 PM | Updated: 07-18-10 01:25 PM
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell refused on Sunday to wade into the recent debate between the NAACP and the Tea Party over alleged racism within the conservative movement.
At their annual meeting in Kansas City last week the NAACP, the nation's largest civil rights organization, accused the Tea Party of harboring racist elements and called on leaders of the movement to "repudiate" those elements. Tea Party representatives and allies rejected the accusation.
And in an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" with Candy Crowley on Sunday McConnell (R-Ky.) decided not to get involved.
"I am not interested in getting into that debate," he said. "What we are interested in is trying to have an election this fall that will respond to what the American people are asking us to do, which is to have some checks and balances here."
When pressed by Crowley about some of the more overt symbols of racism, like the now infamous protest signs, coming from Tea Party supporters, McConnell doubled down.
"Look, there are all kinds of things going on in America that make me uncomfortable, both on the right and on the left," the minority leader said. "I have got better things to do than to wade in to all of these disputes and discussions that are going on out in the country."
Here's the full excerpt of McConnell's exchange with Crowley from CNN:
CROWLEY: Do you think that there are racist elements in the tea party? Story continues below
MCCONNELL: Oh my goodness, in the whole country, is there racism?
CROWLEY: Well, as you know, this weekend, NAACP said that the tea -- there are racist elements in the tea party.
MCCONNELL: I am not interested in getting into that debate. What we are interested in is trying to have an election this fall that will respond to what the American people are asking us to do, which is to have some checks and balances here.
They have seen big government on full display for a year-and-a- half. They are appalled. They would like for it to stop. And the best way for it to stop is to have a mid-course correction, which is not unusual in American politics, and I am hoping that is what is coming this fall.
CROWLEY: Nothing that you have seen on TV, including some of the signs that we've seen, albeit the minority at some of these tea party rallies, some of the posters that have been put up in the name of some factions of the tea party make you the least bit uncomfortable?
MCCONNELL: Look, there are all kinds of things going on in America that make me uncomfortable, both on the right and on the left. I have got better things to do than to wade in to all of these disputes and discussions that are going on out in the country. What we are trying to do is to make the president a born again moderate.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
if a Dallas Mayor can freak out like this, anybody can
Texas mayor apparently shot teen daughter, self
SLIDESHOW Previous Next
Letters and flowers lay on the front steps of Coppell Mayor Jayne Peters' home Wednesday, July 14, 2010 in Coppell, Texas. The mayor of the upscale suburb of Dallas and her teenage daughter were found shot to death at their home, city officials said Wednesday. Police discovered the bodies of Peters, 55, and Corrine Peters, 19, Tuesday evening, city spokeswoman Sharon Logan said. Police found no signs of forced entry, Logan said. (AP Photo/Cody Duty) (Cody Duty - AP)
Network News
X
PROFILE
View More Activity
TOOLBOX
Resize Print
E-mail Reprints
WHO'S BLOGGING
» Links to this article
By ELIDA S. PEREZ
The Associated Press
Wednesday, July 14, 2010; 9:10 PM
COPPELL, Texas -- The mayor of an upscale Dallas suburb apparently shot her teenage daughter to death before fatally shooting herself, after leaving notes at their home warning officers about the scene they would find and outlining how to manage family affairs, police said Wednesday.
An envelope taped to the front door of Mayor Jayne Peters' home contained a key to the house and a typed note advising police they would discover something unpleasant inside, Coppell Deputy Police Chief Steve Thomas said.
Three other notes contained instructions for handling affairs, such as taking care of the family dogs, but did not provide explanations for the deaths of the 55-year-old Peters and her 19-year-old daughter, Corinne.
"It appeared to me that there had been some thought," Thomas said.
Police found the bodies Tuesday after the mayor failed to show up at a city council meeting. They said the Dallas County Medical Examiner's Office ruled Wednesday that the case should be officially classified as a homicide-suicide investigation.
"Forensic tests (and) procedures performed point to Corinne being the victim in this tragedy, with Mayor Peters subsequently taking her own life," police said in a statement. "Both of the fatal injuries are a result of a single gun shot wounds."
Thomas said the weapon was a semiautomatic handgun and there were no signs of a struggle.
"Everybody in the room is like, 'Did we miss a sign?'" Bob Mahalik, mayor pro tem who is now acting mayor of the city, said of council members' reaction to the deaths. "It's hard to wrap your arms around it."
Mahalik said he had a gut feeling something wasn't right when the mayor didn't turn up for the meeting.
"But nowhere in your wildest dreams did you think it would be that far not right," he said.
A small collection of flowers, wreaths and cards decorated the front porch of the Peters' 3,850 square-foot brick home, where the mayor and her daughter lived alone. A printed letter said: "Please know that you are loved no matter what happens. I know that God is with you and giving you comfort. You both are with Don, a wonderful husband and father. A family again."
The mayor's husband, Donald Peters, died of cancer in 2008 at the age of 58.
SLIDESHOW Previous Next
Letters and flowers lay on the front steps of Coppell Mayor Jayne Peters' home Wednesday, July 14, 2010 in Coppell, Texas. The mayor of the upscale suburb of Dallas and her teenage daughter were found shot to death at their home, city officials said Wednesday. Police discovered the bodies of Peters, 55, and Corrine Peters, 19, Tuesday evening, city spokeswoman Sharon Logan said. Police found no signs of forced entry, Logan said. (AP Photo/Cody Duty) (Cody Duty - AP)
Network News
X
PROFILE
View More Activity
TOOLBOX
Resize Print
E-mail Reprints
WHO'S BLOGGING
» Links to this article
By ELIDA S. PEREZ
The Associated Press
Wednesday, July 14, 2010; 9:10 PM
COPPELL, Texas -- The mayor of an upscale Dallas suburb apparently shot her teenage daughter to death before fatally shooting herself, after leaving notes at their home warning officers about the scene they would find and outlining how to manage family affairs, police said Wednesday.
An envelope taped to the front door of Mayor Jayne Peters' home contained a key to the house and a typed note advising police they would discover something unpleasant inside, Coppell Deputy Police Chief Steve Thomas said.
Three other notes contained instructions for handling affairs, such as taking care of the family dogs, but did not provide explanations for the deaths of the 55-year-old Peters and her 19-year-old daughter, Corinne.
"It appeared to me that there had been some thought," Thomas said.
Police found the bodies Tuesday after the mayor failed to show up at a city council meeting. They said the Dallas County Medical Examiner's Office ruled Wednesday that the case should be officially classified as a homicide-suicide investigation.
"Forensic tests (and) procedures performed point to Corinne being the victim in this tragedy, with Mayor Peters subsequently taking her own life," police said in a statement. "Both of the fatal injuries are a result of a single gun shot wounds."
Thomas said the weapon was a semiautomatic handgun and there were no signs of a struggle.
"Everybody in the room is like, 'Did we miss a sign?'" Bob Mahalik, mayor pro tem who is now acting mayor of the city, said of council members' reaction to the deaths. "It's hard to wrap your arms around it."
Mahalik said he had a gut feeling something wasn't right when the mayor didn't turn up for the meeting.
"But nowhere in your wildest dreams did you think it would be that far not right," he said.
A small collection of flowers, wreaths and cards decorated the front porch of the Peters' 3,850 square-foot brick home, where the mayor and her daughter lived alone. A printed letter said: "Please know that you are loved no matter what happens. I know that God is with you and giving you comfort. You both are with Don, a wonderful husband and father. A family again."
The mayor's husband, Donald Peters, died of cancer in 2008 at the age of 58.
caged monkeys in china
China Starts Gating, Locking Lower-Income Neighborhoods
CARA ANNA | 07/14/10 12:31 PM |
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION?
Important
Fascinating
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Infuriating
Beautiful
Read More: Beijing Locking Neighborhoods, China, China Locking Neighborhoods, China Sealed Management, Sealed Management, World News
3
0
views
Get World Alerts
Email Comments 4
BEIJING — The government calls it "sealed management." China's capital has started gating and locking some of its lower-income neighborhoods overnight, with police or security checking identification papers around the clock, in a throwback to an older style of control.
It's Beijing's latest effort to reduce rising crime often blamed on the millions of rural Chinese migrating to cities for work. The capital's Communist Party secretary wants the approach promoted citywide. But some state media and experts say the move not only looks bad but imposes another layer of control on the already stigmatized, vulnerable migrants.
So far, gates have sealed off 16 villages in the sprawling southern suburbs, where migrants are attracted to cheaper rents and in some villages outnumber permanent residents 10 to one.
"In some ways, this is like the conflict between Americans and illegal immigrants in the States. The local residents feel threatened by the influx of migrants," Huang Youqin, an associate professor of geography at the University at Albany in New York who has studied gating and political control in China, said in an e-mail. "The risk is that the government can control people's private life if it wants to."
The gated villages are the latest indignity for China's migrant workers, who already face limited access to schooling and government services and are routinely blamed by city folk for rising crime. Used to the hardship of the farm and the lack of privilege, migrants seem to be taking the new controls in their stride.
Jia Yangui said he accepts the new system as a trade-off for escaping farm work in the northern province of Shanxi. He arrived in Beijing less than two months ago and lives with a relative in one of the gated villages, Dashengzhuang. He sells oily pancakes just inside one of the gates.
"Anyway, it's not as strict as before, when we migrants would be detained on the way to the toilet," said Jia's relative, a middle-aged woman who gave her family name as Zheng.
"Sealed management" looks like this: Gates are placed at the street and alley entrances to the villages, which are collections of walled compounds sprinkled with shops and outdoor vendors. The gates are locked between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., except for one main entrance manned by security guards or police, there to check identification papers. Security guards roam the villages by day.
"Closing up the village benefits everyone," read one banner which was put up when the first, permanent gated village was introduced in April.
Story continues below
But some Chinese question whether problems arising from growing gap between the country's rich and poor can be fixed with locks and surveillance cameras.
"It's a ridiculous idea!" said Li Wenhua, who does private welfare work with migrant workers in Beijing. "This is definitely not a good long-term strategy. The government should dig up the in-depth causes of crime and improve basic public services such as education and health care to these people."
Crime has been rising steadily over the past two decades, as China moved from state planning to free markets and Chinese once locked into set jobs began moving around the country for work. Violent crime in China jumped 10 percent last year, with 5.3 million reported cases of homicide, robbery, and rape, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences reported in February.
"Sealed management" was born in the village of Laosanyu during the Beijing Olympics in 2008, when the government was eager to control its migrant population. The village used it again during the sensitive 60th anniversary of Communist China last year. Officials then reported the idea to township officials, who decided to make the practice permanent this year.
"Eighty percent of the permanent residents applauded the practice," said Guo Ruifeng, deputy director of Laosanyu's village committee. He didn't say how many migrants approved, though they outnumber the locals by 7,000 to 700.
"Anyway, they should understand that it is all for their safety," he said. Guards only check papers if they see anything suspicious, he said.
Gating has been an easy and effective way to control population throughout Chinese history, said Huang, the geography professor. In past centuries, some walled cities would impose curfews and close their gates overnight. In the first decades of communist rule, the desire for top-down organization and control showed in work-unit compounds, usually guarded and enclosed.
As the economy has grown, privately run gated communities with their own security have emerged in the biggest cities, catering to well-to-do Chinese and expatriates, offering upscale houses and facilities like pools and gyms.
The new gated villages in Beijing are very different.
"To put it crudely, gated communities in the city are a way for the upper middle-class and urban rich to keep out trespassers, whereas gated villages represent a way for the state to 'keep in' or contain the problem of 'migrant workers' who live in these villages," Pow Choon-Pieu, an assistant professor of geography at the National University of Singapore who has studied the issue, said in an e-mail.
Jiang Zhengqing, a supermarket owner in the gated compound of Laosanyu, told the China Daily newspaper in May that he doesn't even know if he'll be in business next year because of the drop in customers.
"Before, the streets were crowded with people in the afternoon but now the village is deserted," he said. "I can't understand why the government has invested such a large amount of money into putting up these useless fences, rather than repair our dirty public restrooms and bumpy roads."
___
Associated Press researcher Yu Bing in Beijing contributed to this report.
CARA ANNA | 07/14/10 12:31 PM |
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION?
Important
Fascinating
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Infuriating
Beautiful
Read More: Beijing Locking Neighborhoods, China, China Locking Neighborhoods, China Sealed Management, Sealed Management, World News
3
0
views
Get World Alerts
Email Comments 4
BEIJING — The government calls it "sealed management." China's capital has started gating and locking some of its lower-income neighborhoods overnight, with police or security checking identification papers around the clock, in a throwback to an older style of control.
It's Beijing's latest effort to reduce rising crime often blamed on the millions of rural Chinese migrating to cities for work. The capital's Communist Party secretary wants the approach promoted citywide. But some state media and experts say the move not only looks bad but imposes another layer of control on the already stigmatized, vulnerable migrants.
So far, gates have sealed off 16 villages in the sprawling southern suburbs, where migrants are attracted to cheaper rents and in some villages outnumber permanent residents 10 to one.
"In some ways, this is like the conflict between Americans and illegal immigrants in the States. The local residents feel threatened by the influx of migrants," Huang Youqin, an associate professor of geography at the University at Albany in New York who has studied gating and political control in China, said in an e-mail. "The risk is that the government can control people's private life if it wants to."
The gated villages are the latest indignity for China's migrant workers, who already face limited access to schooling and government services and are routinely blamed by city folk for rising crime. Used to the hardship of the farm and the lack of privilege, migrants seem to be taking the new controls in their stride.
Jia Yangui said he accepts the new system as a trade-off for escaping farm work in the northern province of Shanxi. He arrived in Beijing less than two months ago and lives with a relative in one of the gated villages, Dashengzhuang. He sells oily pancakes just inside one of the gates.
"Anyway, it's not as strict as before, when we migrants would be detained on the way to the toilet," said Jia's relative, a middle-aged woman who gave her family name as Zheng.
"Sealed management" looks like this: Gates are placed at the street and alley entrances to the villages, which are collections of walled compounds sprinkled with shops and outdoor vendors. The gates are locked between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m., except for one main entrance manned by security guards or police, there to check identification papers. Security guards roam the villages by day.
"Closing up the village benefits everyone," read one banner which was put up when the first, permanent gated village was introduced in April.
Story continues below
But some Chinese question whether problems arising from growing gap between the country's rich and poor can be fixed with locks and surveillance cameras.
"It's a ridiculous idea!" said Li Wenhua, who does private welfare work with migrant workers in Beijing. "This is definitely not a good long-term strategy. The government should dig up the in-depth causes of crime and improve basic public services such as education and health care to these people."
Crime has been rising steadily over the past two decades, as China moved from state planning to free markets and Chinese once locked into set jobs began moving around the country for work. Violent crime in China jumped 10 percent last year, with 5.3 million reported cases of homicide, robbery, and rape, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences reported in February.
"Sealed management" was born in the village of Laosanyu during the Beijing Olympics in 2008, when the government was eager to control its migrant population. The village used it again during the sensitive 60th anniversary of Communist China last year. Officials then reported the idea to township officials, who decided to make the practice permanent this year.
"Eighty percent of the permanent residents applauded the practice," said Guo Ruifeng, deputy director of Laosanyu's village committee. He didn't say how many migrants approved, though they outnumber the locals by 7,000 to 700.
"Anyway, they should understand that it is all for their safety," he said. Guards only check papers if they see anything suspicious, he said.
Gating has been an easy and effective way to control population throughout Chinese history, said Huang, the geography professor. In past centuries, some walled cities would impose curfews and close their gates overnight. In the first decades of communist rule, the desire for top-down organization and control showed in work-unit compounds, usually guarded and enclosed.
As the economy has grown, privately run gated communities with their own security have emerged in the biggest cities, catering to well-to-do Chinese and expatriates, offering upscale houses and facilities like pools and gyms.
The new gated villages in Beijing are very different.
"To put it crudely, gated communities in the city are a way for the upper middle-class and urban rich to keep out trespassers, whereas gated villages represent a way for the state to 'keep in' or contain the problem of 'migrant workers' who live in these villages," Pow Choon-Pieu, an assistant professor of geography at the National University of Singapore who has studied the issue, said in an e-mail.
Jiang Zhengqing, a supermarket owner in the gated compound of Laosanyu, told the China Daily newspaper in May that he doesn't even know if he'll be in business next year because of the drop in customers.
"Before, the streets were crowded with people in the afternoon but now the village is deserted," he said. "I can't understand why the government has invested such a large amount of money into putting up these useless fences, rather than repair our dirty public restrooms and bumpy roads."
___
Associated Press researcher Yu Bing in Beijing contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
