Burma.

From a recent article:

the protests were incited by "destructive elements who do not want to see peace, stability and progress in the country"

since protests against soaring fuel prices began

Deja Vu...

U.S. President George W. Bush was due to announce new sanctions and call for support for political change

Irony... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Burma.

From a recent article:

the protests were incited by "destructive elements who do not want to see peace, stability and progress in the country"

since protests against soaring fuel prices began

Deja Vu...

U.S. President George W. Bush was due to announce new sanctions and call for support for political change

Irony... ;)

Ah..so you are going to invade Burma now? ;)

..and of course it is about human rights..not gas. :D

---

Reality Internet Personality

ES99...

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this issue then... :)

Sorry missed you down there..

...that's fine with me Blurf :)

.. I just try to put my arguments forward. As long as we don't end up tazering each other over them then there is no harm in healthy disagreement.

Look at me and Rush..we are good friends but when it comes to political discussions I have come close to putting him on filter at times :D

---

Reality Internet Personality

A Martyr Without a Cause

By Adam Blinick : 28 Sep 2007

According to a CNN report, the recent controversy over the four-letter, "Taser this: F*** Bush" editorial in the Colorado State University's student newspaper "sparked a national free speech debate". Indeed, the Rocky Mountain Collegian's editor-in-chief, David McSwane, has justified his decision to publish a terse editorial, claiming that he was "exercising his right to free speech." And some of his supporters have echoed these sentiments, like vice president of the university's Young Democrats, Alesia Gifford, who remarked that "[in] this society we are taking a step backwards, especially with the free speech debate. President Bush has lost our respect as a country...At some point we have to stand up for our rights. [McSwane] was just showing that speech, even when explicit, should always be protected by the First Amendment."

To be sure, there are plenty of calls for McSwane to resign as editor for his poor editorial judgment—not to mention his inability to formulate a basic argument or coherent thought—and several companies that previously advertised with the paper have refused to continue to do so. Still, any accusation that this incident is about free speech is pure demagoguery. Basically, some folks seem to confuse the right to say what you want and freedom from being accountable for what you say. If McSwane is removed from his post or if he resigns due to pressure, it will be the result of his own stupidity that led to economic damage to his paper and a black eye for his school. If anything, a little bit of self-censoring could have saved him a whole lot of grief.

Let us take a few moments to unpack the editorial. (It is only four words, after all). The first half/introduction, "Taser this," is an opaque reference to another faux-free speech issue regarding the tasing of a University of Florida senior, Andrew Meyer, as officers tried to remove him from a John Kerry speech last week. You read correctly: John Kerry. The same John Kerry who was the Democratic candidate for president in 2004, running against—and losing to—Bush. The student in question was noticeably agitated and disrespectful, launching into a tirade about why Kerry would concede the election when there were reports about election irregularities. Meyer also shouted out some question dealing with the Senator's affiliation with the Skull and Bones society. I have no opinion about the tasing itself—it very well could have been an unnecessary, over-the-top response by the campus police. That said, those who organized the event and the police were well within their rights to (a) ask Meyer ask a question, as the forum so dictated, (b) ask him to let Kerry answer the question, (c) shut off the microphone when it became apparent that he was more interested in launching into a self-serving rant than actually posing a question, and (d) have him removed from the venue when he would not heed to their requests.

But enough about that. Let's get back to the "editorial" at hand.

What about the dramatic back-half/conclusion? What did the tasing have to do with Bush? Were these campus police that tased Meyer subconsciously responding to a general transformation in U.S. culture where figures of authority feel that they can trounce on people's civil liberties at will? True, the University of Florida campus is only a short boat ride away from Guantanamo Bay. Something may very well have rubbed off.

I'm actually pretty sure that McSwane would buy into this, but he sadly felt there was no need to extrapolate on his initial "argument". My guess is that his reluctance to elaborate was—in frat boy terminology—one part "laziness", two parts "realizing-how-ridiculous-it-would-read-in-print". Still, had he actually expressed a developed idea, no matter how inane, one can be sure that this would never have become a national story.

In these cases no noble cause is to be found and no freedom of speech was violated. Excess force may have been applied in the first one post facto, but the first amendment remained firmly intact. They had the right to say what they said—and they said it.

It can only be hoped that McSwane, in the event that he does lose his position as editor, doesn't become a martyr. His behavior most certainly doesn't warrant bestowing on him such a status. McSwane and his supporters must grow up and learn that, while they absolutely have the right to free speech, they don't have the right to exercise it without the possibility of repercussions.

Call the lesson, Free Speech 101.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Once again, the 'Freedom of Speech' issue does not apply to either case: Taser-boy Meyer or Potty-mouth McSwane. Both exercised their 'freedom of speech' rights.

The Right of Freedom of Speech does NOT mean that one can say what one wishes without fear of consequence as it seems that most people believe.

The Right of Freedom of Speech DOES mean that, absent a 'compelling national or public safety interest', the Government can not legally prevent you from saying what you wish -- that is 'no prior restraint'. Afterwards, however, you still *might* suffer for it, depending on what you said.

The Government *can* say that one cannot yell 'fire!' in a public place such as a theater. The ensuing panic by the other people can result in injury or death.

Another instance (from back around 1980, so its NOT connected to the current administration or the TSA): one cannot say the word 'bomb' or other words on a short list while inside the terminal of an airport. It might cause a panic, hence injury or death.

Ok, those examples covered compelling 'public safety interests'. Now for examples of compelling 'national security interests'. In time of war, one cannot publish exact troop or ship movements lest the enemy get ahold of it and use the information to their advantage, and our disadvantage. As once was said back during WWII, 'loose lips sink ships'.

Also, as the Rosenburgs found out to their sorrow and demise, one cannot publish or otherwise deseminiate to unauthorized persons certain details of our weapons systems.

So, our Government has passed laws forbidding things like using speech to cause an unwarranted panic in a public place, or spreading 'military secrets' to the enemy. Both of these limitations on the 'right of free speech' are reasonable, logical, and I am sure that very, very few would disagree with them. Other than these cases, and others similar to them where the Government has deemed it has a 'compelling interest' in doing so, the Government cannot exercise prior restraint on one's speech.

However, nowhere in the right of 'freedom of speech' does it say that others are forced to listen. Also, nowhere in the right of 'freedom of speech' does it say that one is shielded from any possible consequences resulting from one 'shooting off one's mouth'.

Both of these men (Meyer and McSwain) exercised their right of 'freedom of speech'.

Meyer 'had his say' in the Q&A session with Sen. Kerry... Until, that is, the organizers of that Q&A had decided that Meyer had abused their hospitality in offering him the chance to publicly question Sen. Kerry. At that time, they requested that the Police remove Meyer (which is standard procedure in situations like this -- event organizers have both the right and the duty to exercise at least some control, in order to give OTHERS their chance to ask THEIR questions as well). Meyer failed to comply with the instructions of a Police Officer. The Police Officers then tried to lead him from the room. Meyer physically resisted. At this point, Meyer was under arrest. Meyer resisted arrest. The Police were forced to physically subdue him (and this included use of a stun gun) so that they could place him in handcuffs (again, standard procedure).

I have, in this instance, ZERO sympathy for Meyer. He brought that treatment on himself through his resistance to the Police. He could have had his say, and not had anything happen to him other than being led from the room, IF he had complied with the instructions of the Police. He resisted. He brought the Taser'ing on himself.

How do I know this? Personal experience. As I said before in this thread, I once disrupted a Q&A with a Presidential Candidate. I asked him an embarassing question, and even potty-mouthed him... in front of cameras and reporters. Sure enough, here came the Police. I cooperated, and was led from the room. They didn't even ask my name. All I was told to do was 'go somewhere else until it was over'. The ONLY 'physical suffering' I underwent was a slight pain in my upper arms from the Policemen's grip as they led me outside. And even that passed quickly.

Meyer had his say (and his 1st amendment freedom-of-speech rights) until he was asked to leave. He got the Taser and the smackdown because he refused to leave. He brought those consequences on himself, and not even directly because of what he said.

Now, McSwane's case is slightly different. McSwane, in his capacity as a newspaper editor, published a very short editorial that attempted to tie Dubya into the Meyer incident, and used a certain 4-letter word. McSwane is not, and should not be, in any legal trouble for doing so. However, he is not the publisher (owner) of that newspaper. The public outcry against that editorial may yet (or may not) convince the publisher of that newspaper to terminate McSwane's position as editor, as well as seek other remedies against McSwane.

McSwane was not restrained from publishing that brief editorial, so his 'freedom of speech' rights were respected. However, now that he did publish that editorial, he might suffer consequences, namely that his boss (the publisher/owner of that newspaper) might decide to demote and/or fire him.

Once again, the right of 'freedom of speech' does NOT mean that one can say whatever one wants without fear of consequences. The right of 'freedom of speech' DOES mean that the Government cannot exercise prior restraint on one's speech unless the Government has a 'compelling interest' in doing so.

Also, the right of 'freedom of speech' does not carry with it any 'right to force others to listen'.

The right to freedom of speech does not mean that you have the right to exercise it with total disregard to the rights of everybody else in your presence. Meyer was (is) an *ss, and will always have this recorded memory to remind him (and everybody else) that he is (and has) one.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Burma.

From a recent article:

the protests were incited by "destructive elements who do not want to see peace, stability and progress in the country"

since protests against soaring fuel prices began

Deja Vu...

U.S. President George W. Bush was due to announce new sanctions and call for support for political change

Irony... ;)

Ah..so you are going to invade Burma now? ;)

..and of course it is about human rights..not gas. :D

Many in the pro freedom Burmese movement wish the U.S. would help but of course we won't. The rest of the world has been too busy emasculating the U.S. for us to want to bother.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Many in the pro freedom Burmese movement wish the U.S. would help but of course we won't.

Well, no oil there... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Many in the pro freedom Burmese movement wish the U.S. would help but of course we won't.

Well, no oil there... ;)

That's all you can ever see isn't it? We've demonstrated to you how the U.S. has taken none of the oil in Iraq over and over yet you continue on. Honesty is a virtue. Perhaps you should try the intellectual variety sometime.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Many in the pro freedom Burmese movement wish the U.S. would help but of course we won't.

Well, no oil there... ;)

That's all you can ever see isn't it? We've demonstrated to you how the U.S. has taken none of the oil in Iraq over and over yet you continue on. Honesty is a virtue. Perhaps you should try the intellectual variety sometime.

Um, Robert, this was in the news recently. Maybe the U.S. hasn't managed to take any oil yet because of the chaos that has been brought to Iraq but Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

First, there is (besides opium) oil and gas in Burma, that's why China has a heavy interest in the region.

Seems Greenspan has not much to loose anymore. He can finally talk about what's going on behind the scenes. A rational thinking citizen would be alerted, just wondering what it would take to make people like R/B go hmmm.

Many in the pro freedom Burmese movement wish the U.S. would help but of course we won't.

Well, no oil there... ;)

That's all you can ever see isn't it? We've demonstrated to you how the U.S. has taken none of the oil in Iraq over and over yet you continue on. Honesty is a virtue. Perhaps you should try the intellectual variety sometime.

Um, Robert, this was in the news recently. Maybe the U.S. hasn't managed to take any oil yet because of the chaos that has been brought to Iraq but Alan Greenspan claims Iraq war was really for oil

That would be interesting if it were true but it's false. This has been pointed out by Rush and me in another post 2 or 3 days ago.

Alan Greenspan never had or heard of any conversation like that in the Bush administration. He's an economist. What he was referring to in his biography was the strategic influence oil has upon the region, how it causes military strife between varying countries there, etc etc. He had to come to various media outlets the day after that supposed quote got taken out of context and clarify himself. If I can find the thread I posted in about that I'll come link it for you.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

(Maybe a mod wants to move these last few posts over to the 'Oil' thread as I fear it's hijacking this one)
=====================================
Hev, Thanks for that link a couple of posts above. I'll put that in my favorites sites list. I've been reading through that site and here's an excerpt that perhaps better expresses what I intended:

"Yet surprise should be tempered. The US right is not monolithic. Its vitality stems from its variety. Many US conservatives opposed the war. Ironically, many so-called realists disliked fighting because it was not about oil alone - they were suspicious of democracy building and upsetting once-friendly local dictators. Still more US conservatives are isolationists who believe, like any British blimp, that abroad is bloody. Another tendency, to which Mr Greenspan leans, is libertarian which opposes big government - and war is the worst big government activity of all. Many free market economists, like their Marxist opponents, fall into the fallacy of believing that everything in politics hinges on financial self-interest. True, oil has always been an important factor in Middle Eastern strategy but even countries opposed to the war believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The real reason for the war was Saddam’s defiance and the projection of US power after 9/11. "


============================================

commentary from a reader:


I have to agree that Mr. Greenspan was not privy to any war planning. His reliability as fed chairman gives him credibility to most that isn't warranted. He is an amateur like the rest of us in this area. He ignores the operations going on in the Phillipines and Indonesia to mention two. I have felt all along that Iran and Syria were the real targets in the middle east. There are other countries in that region that are never asked about their opinion. Why does no one ever ask about how the U.A.E. feels about our leaving. In the end I wish that Mr. Greenspan would use the temperance in areas that he doesn't understand that he used in areas that he does.

Dave Fulkerson, Reno, Nv

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I see that Greenspan is one of your own Thanks a million Ayn Rand

I see that Greenspan is one of your own Thanks a million Ayn Rand

Odd that Miss Klein is perfectly happy to become a multi-millionaire, selling her books on the open market, taking full advantage of unfettered capitalism to become very rich by pandering to the choir, telling them exactly what they already believe.

One example of her silliness:

"Apparently, this has nothing at all to do with the policies of negligent deregulation that were his trademark. Nothing to do with stagnant wages due to free trade and weakened unions, nor with pensions lost to Enron or the dotcom crash, nor homes seized in the subprime mortgage crisis."

Negligent deregulation? Yeah, there's nothing worse than millions more people being able to afford to see the world on airfares that amount to peanuts. Ryanair anyone? That's simply horrible that those people aren't trapped at home any more.

Stagnant wages? Hmmmm, could it be that those wages were already badly and artificially inflated on the backs of the rest of the world? Could it be that because of that inflation there was already massive downward pressure on those wages? Could it be that other Third World workers had the opportunity to make an income thereby raising their standard of living by far more than the loss to those whose wages stayed the same?

Pensions lost to Enron? Miss Klein, that's called fraud, and it happens everywhere. Alan Greenspan did not create it, could not stop it, and had nothing to do with it.

Homes seized in the subprime mortgage crisis? Well, here's an interesting thought, most of those people haven't lost their homes. Some have, more than usual. But here's the rub, none of them would have even had homes in the first place without subprime mortgages, without someone willing to take a risk on those people. If those mortgages are overly regulated, all those subprime people who bought or would finally be able to afford homes, would never get them. You see, whether you're Alan Greenspan or Red Ken, you don't help the poor by looking at the very limited options available to them, and then removing from them the one that they choose. If you loan money to 10 subprime borrowers and three of them lose their homes, you have still made life better for the other seven. That is a net gain.

For someone that is a former Miliband Fellow at the London School of Economics that is pandering to those that already thinks as she does, she seems to have lost her way, while jet-setting around the world to sell her book.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Please don't antagonize poor Rush. He's going through a tough time.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I think Mr Rush needs to be very wary of our beloved LSE (London School of Economics). Student sit-in It has a rather colourful history....

I think Mr Rush needs to be very wary of our beloved LSE (London School of Economics). Student sit-in It has a rather colourful history....

Wot no Tazers???

---

Reality Internet Personality

I think Mr Rush needs to be very wary of our beloved LSE (London School of Economics). Student sit-in It has a rather colourful history....

Like I said, I'll be there for the hilarity of it all.

The students get to pat themselves on the back for believing that they made a difference, the target of their displeasure ignores them, and life goes on, literally "business as usual."

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Wot no Tazers???

Why would you want to tase them? It's funny enough without you hurting them.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...