"Nothing to Hide" and Torture by Louis Evan Palmer

Recent revelations about the rendition of Maher Arar by the CIA confirm what many people who have a modicum of knowledge about so-called "intelligence" services already know: that the various intelligence operations have more than their share of wildmen, incompetents, blowhards and cover-up artists. The frightening component of this though is that unlike others of their faltering, stumbling ilk, they can abuse secrecy and other laws to block oversight and accountability and to torment and punish alleged "threats" into silence.

However, to zero in on the salient point, people like Mr. Arar shouldn't be complaining because as we well know if he has "nothing to hide" then he has "nothing to fear". The torture will exonerate him - why else would we do it unless it really worked, unless it was quick and effective? Yes, it might hurt temporarily but that would be gone and forgotten soon enough. Right? Can't seem to recall why we don't torture people ourselves though - at least not officially since the days of the Inquisition?

There is something ludicrous and malevolent about people who dwell in the shadows, who obscure their identities, their work, their whereabouts, and, who invoke secrecy and "need to know" at every turn, claiming that there is something wrong with personal privacy and people who need some privacy.

These individuals, safely hidden away, insist that we need to torture selected persons so that "we" can quickly confirm that they truly have "nothing to hide" or, if not, that we know what they know. If you're innocent, you'll be released albeit with some "bad" memories which will diminish over time, in most cases.

There is so much that avails itself to the "nothing to hide" argument.

If you have "nothing to hide" then you can have no bonafide objections to security forces tearing your place of residence apart. Or, tearing your luggage apart at the airport. Or, subjecting you to a strip search or a body cavity exploration or an x-ray. After all, you're innocent so you have "nothing to fear". Maybe we'll extend the same courtesy to your family especially as they, in turn, also have "nothing to hide".

With the new paranoiac, "reasonable doubt" and habeus corpus are unwelcome, and seemingly to many in the enforcement and investigative branches, not understood. This lack of knowledge and understanding about core democratic values and beliefs could prove to be its undoing.

"Reasonable doubt" was a key restraint on the search and seizure powers of the police and quasi-police agencies.

As Gwynne Dyer has amply demonstrated in many of his recent writings, the threat of terrorism is minuscule compared to other violent threats. In addition, other much more serious and daunting threats present themselves which we conveniently ignore: curable and preventable diseases, malnutrition, poor water, war, car and industrial accidents, pollution and massive climate change.

We have a phony threat being callously used to increase the power of the executive branches of government and certain investigative and enforcement arms and employing coercive techniques and propaganda such as "nothing to hide" to pry away the hard-won protections of a democracy.

As many a former agent will tell you, the biggest threat to an intelligence agency is other intelligence agencies. We need people who understand that and act appropriately to protect Canadians, and their rights, first and their "relationships" with other intelligence services well down the list.

The answer is less power, less scope, and a smaller mandate.

"Nothing to Hide" and Torture, Louis Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be, http://twicb.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.

BUY BOOKS BY LOUIS EVAN PALMER

• OAKLANE WOODS - Amazon Kindle Book
• TALES TOLD TO A TREE - Amazon Kindle Book
• 40 POEM FRAGMENTS - Amazon Kindle Book

Prisoners and The Right to Vote by Louis Evan Palmer

A surprising number of countries deny the right to vote to prisoners. Some, like America, make it dependent on the severity of the sentence, others like the UK apply it across the board although the UK recently lost an EU court case and must restore this right as soon as possible.

The denial of voting rights is not something that typically appears in a judge's statement along with the length of incarceration. It is more like a common practice that is assumed but may come as a shock to a given prisoner who had expected to be able to cast a ballot in a federal election.

In ancient Athens, losing your right to vote was a possible outcome of a conviction along with exile, death or a fine. It does highlight the fact that deprival of the right to vote has long antecedents. But then, when the "state" was a city, the reasoning behind denying this right was clearer, it was part of excluding a person from the city and the affairs of the city. Now it's less clear as exile is not an official remedy and the convict will remain a citizen and within the borders & jurisdiction of the state. And we hope that the theory and administration of the law has advanced somewhat in the intervening centuries.

In a challenge argued before Canada's Supreme Court, the reasoning, or lack thereof, was outlined and debated. The Court stated that "the government must show that the infringement achieves a constitutionally valid purpose or objective, and that the chosen means are reasonable and demonstrably justified". The Court found that the government did not show or prove their case - "The government has failed to identify particular problems that require denying the right to vote..."

Jack Layton, the leader of the New Democratic Party (NDP), captured part of the government's logical dilemma when he asked "The courts don't sentence by taking away citizenship, and citizens have a right to vote in this country". Of course, in George Bush's Amerika, taking away a person's citizenship is exactly what will be done. Then we're thrown on the gentle protections of human rights. But, a government that has cast away its own citizenship protection will likely not be put off by human rights either.

In the political arena, prisoners might, at the least, be interested in criminal justice systems issues and have valuable insight and input. The size of the prison population is most countries would not be a factor in elections, especially in cases where the ballots may not count in a single jurisdiction.

However, this leads us to a disturbing observation. If a faction within a given country decided that they wanted to disenfranchise a group of people and they could manipulate issues and events towards that end, they could use a prison system that denies the right to vote as a way to accomplish that goal. As a bonus, while significantly increasing the prison population, a plantation-type economy could be imposed on them and a lot of money made with a cheap, captive labour force.

This is another unexpected reason why preserving the right to vote for prisoners is important. To preserve their voice in the electoral process and the law and order issues that get attention.

The United States currently has the largest prison population in the world and is serving as an example of how to wage an undeclared war on a nation's poor and minorities. While the crime rate decreases (since 1992), the arrest and incarceration rates increase. Cheap drugs deluge poor neighbourhoods, a phony War on Drugs targets them, a biased law enforcement and justice system arrests and convicts them. This is how you must do it to get the really big numbers - over two million!

The United States has a large number of vast, plantation-style private prisons that are run as low-wage, non-union shops that unfairly compete with other companies and sweet-talk and bully their way into lucrative state and federal contracts.

Typically, none of these American prisoners can vote. This is a sneaky way to re-introduce slavery and disenfranchise Afro and Hispanic Americans at a single stroke. In Canada and Austrailia, aboriginal peoples were/are similarly disenfranchised.

Yes, there are truly dangerous people who must be jailed, some for life. But, the current prison situation in the United States is far beyond that, there it's a class war where more than half the prison population has been convicted of non-violent crimes and, to a very large extent, represents poor or minority groups.

Let's not forget that the justice system is far from perfect with widespread corruption, wrongful convictions, flawed judicial proceedings. In many respects, the war on drugs which is the main source of new prisoners is the lashing and flailing of a prohibition-style campaign that's never going to get repealed until there's no one left to imprison.

The current American model of justice serves as a cautionary tale and vigilance must be renewed in other countries to not allow that type of factory prison farm to become established. Giving prisoners to right to vote is a step in that direction away from quasi-slavery and disenfranchisement. After all, most prisoners will rejoin society at some point and being engaged politically can only help in that re-integration and in dealing fairly with criminal justice issues.

Prisoners and The Right to Vote, Louis Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be, http://twicb.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.

BUY BOOKS BY LOUIS EVAN PALMER

• OAKLANE WOODS - Amazon Kindle Book
• TALES TOLD TO A TREE - Amazon Kindle Book
• 40 POEM FRAGMENTS - Amazon Kindle Book

Neil Reynolds leads Globe & Mail charge into SPP oblivion by Louis Evan Palmer

In today's Globe & Mail, another of G&M's bully boys for fascism rails against opponents of the Security & Prosperity Partnership (SPP) such as the Canadian Action Party (CAP) and the New Democratic Pary (NDP). He succinctly terms their opposition "nonsense" while less obviously and between the lines, he is also trying to categorize all opposition to the SPP as "nonsense".

In a fairly short article, Mr. Reynolds neatly demonstrates most of what is wrong with columnist-driven news: unsubstantiated statements & claims, slanted news bites and facts, opinion-driven conclusions disguised as fact-based reporting. Ever so convincing, Mr. Reynolds says on more than one occasion, "..it might be a good thing".

He argues that the CAP is no good (and its claims & opinions) because it has very little support. The NDP is no good because some of its claims as to the real disposition of power in Canada and elsewhere are similar to CAP. And, by the way, the NDP are not in power so how can they be right about anything? In Mr. Reynolds' universe, power is the balm that salves any problem.

Mr. Reynolds does not appear to have read any of Chalmers Johnston's last three books about the American Empire and its corporate and military leadership. Nor, John Perkins and his expose of the tactics and legacy of Economic Hit Men and the various agencies and institutions like the World Bank which work hand-in-hand with the "corporatocracy". It sounds a lot like SPP, Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. Reynolds pleads for rationality and "the market" without any inkling as to how fraudulent and malleable these forces really are. They are part of their very own "reality" that the current Bush regime is making. Mr. Reynolds seemingly has not heard of the Plunge Protection Teams, Hedge Funds, Currency Traders, secret Tax & Bank havens and other anti-market forces that operate with a frightening scope & frequency and breath-taking impunity. This is today's real world where unrestricted cash flows is the new piracy.

Mr. Reynolds is very much like the belligerent but rational Flat Earthers - it made perfect sense but it was wrong. People like Mr. Reynolds have no problem with Robert Nardelli, the former CEO of Home Depot, getting a severance package of $210m USD but let anyone suggest that these nouveau robber barons might have ulterior motives and plans - like the SPP, well, that is "nonsense".

It's lucky for Canadians, and those looking in on Canada from the outside, that we have Mr. Reynolds to patiently explain the true lies of what we think we see.

Unhappily though, there are those who see Mr. Reynolds as another G&M apologist for the demise of Canada which is the certain consequence of an SPP union. It would take about as long as it takes for Mr. Reynolds to write "it might be a good thing"!

No thanks, Mr. Reynolds! I'll take the CAP and NDP before that happens.

Neil Reynolds leads Globe & Mail charge into SPP oblivion, Louis Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.

BUY BOOKS BY LOUIS EVAN PALMER

• OAKLANE WOODS - Amazon Kindle Book
• TALES TOLD TO A TREE - Amazon Kindle Book
• 40 POEM FRAGMENTS - Amazon Kindle Book

Stephen Harper & Michael Ignatieff no longer support Adolph Hitler by Louis Evan Palmer

Or the War in Iraq.

Saying the equivalent of "oops" is not enough.

For many reasons, there are long-standing rules & laws governing international relationships. Among them, Justice, Fairness, the preservation of the Peace. One of the most prominent of these governance strictures is the rejection of using "might makes right", or its camouflaged little brother "pre-emptive strike", as a justification for aggression.

Throughout history and continuing to this day, self-defence in its various guises has been used as a cover for military action and the thrust of a "no-one can stop us" realpolitik from the "just do it" and "bring it on" crowds. To prevent its fraudulent use, the only unassailable justification for military action is bonafide self-defence where it's an action against an aggressor who is physically threatening your actual borders.

Not a future threat. Not a potential threat (if this and that and that and that... then). Not a threat to an ideal like "democracy" in a given country or to a given group of people like the "Kurds" or the "Baluchi". Not the threat posed from an ideology or tactic as in the "War on Terror". Not any of these, or other, nebulous and easily conjured up reasons.

For example, an oft-used causi belli is where the people under threat are your own nationals placed, or having placed themselves, in a foreign country - then military action in that foreign country to protect and extract y/our citizens might be justified but only where the foreign country itself is not in control of the region in question or is not considered legitimate. If it goes forward, it would become a police action to rescue your nationals and would end with their safe extraction. It does not become the launch pad for outright aggression and occupation.

This highlights an important consideration, the proportionality of the response. This is typically the first clue as to the real intentions of the aggressor. When the response versus the "problem" is hugely disproportionate and would normally require significant preparation and pre-positioning, it strongly indicates that the "problem" is a pretext.

Harper and Ignatieff stood "shoulder-to-shoulder" with Bush & Blair & company in supporting and promoting a war of aggression. That decision resulted in war crimes and death and destruction for the nation of Iraq and instability and the threat of an expanded war for the entire region. This is a decision from which one cannot walk away.

This is why these decisions and statements by Harper and Ignatieff cannot be minimized or explained away. The various assertions about democracy and tyranny are stunningly threadbare. Advanced democracies do not support democracy by waging wars of aggression under whatever contrived names they care to devise. Period.

To then focus solely on this or that "tyranny", especially ones which received substantial (often surreptitious) "aid" is the height of hypocrisy. Calling a war of aggression, part of the "War on Terrorism", or a "War for Democracy", or whatever, does not change its moral wrongness and comes to be seen for what it is, self-serving propaganda.

Both Harper's and Ignatieff's diminishing support for the war now and their lukewarm repudiation of it ring false and hollow. They back away because it's not going well. They back away because the Canadian people don't support it. Poor execution, lack of popularity - these are not positions of principle to which both these men constantly point to as a distinguishing characteristic.

They and the armchair Generals who were crowing for war and about realism and facts on the ground and hard decisions and sacrifices are bellowing now about what's wrong with Iraq and Iraqi society and outside interference and the "situation" and not about the deep-seated illegitimacy of foreign intrusions into sovereign countries. Some of them also complain about the unfairness or lack of balance of their critics. Or, more ominously, the lack of patriotism of their critics.

Decisions like this prove that Harper and Ignatieff are not qualified for Canadian high office. The fact that they are better, smarter persons than Bush or Blair underscores how deep of a moral quagmire we're all in.


Stephen Harper & Michael Ignatieff no longer support Adolph Hitler, Louis Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.

BUY BOOKS BY LOUIS EVAN PALMER

• OAKLANE WOODS - Amazon Kindle Book
• TALES TOLD TO A TREE - Amazon Kindle Book
• 40 POEM FRAGMENTS - Amazon Kindle Book

Compensation without Limits & Corporate Sellouts by Louis Evan Palmer

A conflict of interest occurs whenever a person, or organization, stands to profit from something which belongs, in whole or in part, to someone other than that person, or organization, but over which they are a custodian, manager, regulator or in some other position of control or enablement.

Conflicts of interest are supposed to be declared and typically, one would excuse oneself from the decisions at hand. As we know, this often does not happen. Either the conflict is not known, or not admitted, or it is offered that the conflict is not important or can be set aside and not affect decision-making.

The daily headlines attest to the surfeit of skewed management decisions being made in companies of all sizes but especially in larger concerns. In many cases, the reason for poor and/or biased management decisions is the lure of huge payouts. In essence, a bribe. A glaring conflict of interest.

"Caldwell Securities Ltd." took out a advertisement in the Globe & Mail recently attributing the Canadian corporate sellout to managers who stand to receive spectacular bonuses and/or options by selling the company they manage to foreigners.

Enron used another technique called credit derivatives to juggle its numbers with the purpose of generating outrageously lucrative paydays for its executive.

The out-of-control hedge funds we now see are another example of ravenous compensation packages eating away at any inhibitions and logic. This has the whole financial system teetering on the brink of collapse.

Stock brokerages are another scene where obscene payouts are the norm. This drives launching as many IPOs as possible, stock & bond volatility, and the influx of new money from whatever sources. Witness the former head of the New York stock exchange traveling to Columbia to talk to their Chamber fo Commerce.

We must move towards limits on compensation. No one is that smart or lucky that they "earn" the tens of millions being paid out. This applies to everyone but, in particular, those in positions that affect thousands, tens or hundreds of thousands, even millions, of other people. Some appropriate multiple of the average corporate salary should do. If a few leave, who cares, there are plenty of clever people who can do the same job or better.

Compensation without Limits & Corporate Sellouts, Louis Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.

BUY BOOKS BY LOUIS EVAN PALMER

• OAKLANE WOODS - Amazon Kindle Book
• TALES TOLD TO A TREE - Amazon Kindle Book
• 40 POEM FRAGMENTS - Amazon Kindle Book

Caution! Genealogists at Work! by Louis Evan Palmer

Genealogy used to be the preserve of aristocrats, monarchists and other pretenders who sought to validate their claims to special status and, more importantly, to various lands, goods, services and loyalties. It ranked in importance with the recording of tax-related information.

Ironically, nowadays, these aristocrats often complain about entitlements for the commoners.

The creation of religions and tribes and nations expanded the scope of genealogy by giving people more reasons to tie themselves to various persons. These attachments waxed both good and bad depending on the ascendancy of the person, or group or ideology they represented.

People wanted to be related to aristocrats in Russia until the Communistic revolution when this became a death warrant. Similarly in France before and during the French revolution. Then proletarian roots became more important. Or, as some did, a person would renounce their aristocratic ancestors and what they stood for.

Some religions like Judaism and Mormonism place an emphasis on genealogy. Judaism because the religion, or its original form and more traditional branches, traced its roots by physical descent through the mother from its patriarch. Mormonism because they believe in offering salvation to all family members both dead and living but need to be able to name them in order to perform their ritual. Islam also places a premium on descent from the prophet which is reflected in the Shite offshoot.

Tribes around the world like the Pashtuns in Pakistan and Afghanistan or the Zulus in Southern Africa place great value on lineage.

The whole area of descent from victimized groups is fraught with emotion and recrimination. Afro-Americans descended from slaves. Anglo-Americans descended from slave-owners. Descendants of persons who have come to be viewed as criminals or exploiters. Descendants of the dispossessed like the American Indian.

However, to focus on the major draw of genealogy apart from matters of justice and reparations, it seems that there is a deep persistant belief in a kind of magical inheritance such as would be described in Frazer's "The Golden Bough". We expect to acquire something we're bereft of whether it's status or insight or completion. In the case of medical or genetic conditions, we seek knowledge & potentially better health and longevity. In the case of famous or imfamous ancestors, people seek notoriety, some even revelling in having a murderer in their family tree rather than an ordinary peaceful person.

This exploration of genealogy doesn't touch on spiritual matters such as past lives or spiritual beings who we might be associated with. This is the regular physical genealogy.

The search for roots sometimes assumes the form of entertainment and fodder for parties and small conversation. People run a risk of being disappointed or shocked. They may not be prepared for what they find or able to assimilate the (typically unreliable) information they collect. Persons should ask themselves why they are searching. If they discover that one of their ancestors was the product of a rape, will that greatly disturb them? If they discover that one of their ancestors committed a terrible crime, would that upset them?

Unfortunately, many previous popular expressions of interest in genealogy have had negative consequences and been associated with dictatorial regimes or oppressive societies and cultures. This search embodies a belief, often unrecognized, in guilt or merit by association. It might be best left to scientists as they try to establish the pattern of descent for the whole of humanity raher than to try to raise one or the other branch above the others. You are what you are - for good or bad, your ancestors shouldn't matter. Extending that argument, perhaps estates should be taxed so that inheritances are reduced to some normal amount of income and possessions. We as a society want to get away from backward-looking "born" people to forward-looking "made" people.

The people and groups that are most "into" genealogy probably bear watching as genealogy's most faithful companions have traditionally been ideologues and extremists.

Caution! Genealogists at Work!, Louis Evan Palmer, The Way It Can Be, http://twicb.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.

BUY BOOKS BY LOUIS EVAN PALMER

• OAKLANE WOODS - Amazon Kindle Book
• TALES TOLD TO A TREE - Amazon Kindle Book
• 40 POEM FRAGMENTS - Amazon Kindle Book

The Globe & Mail's John Ibbitson speaks for the Empire by Louis Evan Palmer

At one point in the not too distant past, Mr. Ibbitson looked into matters pertaining to Toronto and Ontario and seemed to be a progressive voice. Nowadays, he joins the Globe & Mail's coterie of right-wing apologists, and has also become a spokesman for the Bush Regime as in "Iraq: Hang on, Mr. Bush, for all our sakes". Maybe that's considered a graduation of sorts?

In this July 11th, 2007 article, Mr. Ibbitson argues that since the Iraqis are still fighting the thugs who have taken over their country, the thugs must remain lest the ignorant rabble fight amongst themselves and destroy what's left of their nation. The fact that most of the destruction has been carried out by the US is conveniently ignored.

If we move this essay back in time to world-war-II Poland, we can see the specious nature of his logic. The Poles formed something called the "Home Army" which engaged in many of the same anti-occupation activities now going on in Iraq. The Germans constantly referred to this "army" as hooligans, terrorists and thugs. Using Mr. Ibbitson's logic, we would first off state that Mr. Hitler must stay on in Poland otherwise the country will descend into anarchy. We would urge Mr. Hitler to "hang on" and we would avoid condemning "regime change" because that's another argument. Unlike the Americans in Iraq, the Germans are not doing their "regime change on the cheap" which Mr. Ibbitson strongly advises against.

To bolster his curious plea to Bush, Mr. Ibbitson calls on the judgement & insight of un-indicted war criminal Henry Kissinger who baldly states "precipitate withdrawal would produce ... a disaster". Presumably, Mr. Kissinger is not including America's hasty 1975 retreat from Saigon in the "disaster" category. Maybe because it was not entirely voluntary?

This is the same Mr. Ibbitson who claimed in another recent article that claims of blackmail against Mr. Libby by an American Congressman were "wild". It seems that Mr. Ibbitson is unaware of one the main currencies in Washington and other power centres. Then again, true apologists have notoriously selective memories and perceptions.

J. Edgar Hoover, a cross-dressing homosexual, ran a highly politicized national police agency that spied on countless Americans and interfered with their right to free assembly and belief yet his Agency never acknowledged the existence of the Mafia. In Mr. Ibbitson's world, the fact that the Mafia had compromising pictures of him was merely a coincidence.

Nowhere does Mr. Ibbtison seem to recognize that the American invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq are illegal; that America has to pull back from its attempted imposition of Empire; that the real debate is not about America dominating the Middle East or other regions of the world (like Bosnia of which he is approving) but America overextending itself into oblivion and tyranny.


For all our sakes, Mr. Ibbitson, don't hang on!

The Globe & Mail's John Ibbitson speaks for the Empire, The Way It Can Be, Louis Evan Palmer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.

BUY BOOKS BY LOUIS EVAN PALMER

• OAKLANE WOODS - Amazon Kindle Book
• TALES TOLD TO A TREE - Amazon Kindle Book
• 40 POEM FRAGMENTS - Amazon Kindle Book

Copyrights, Royalties & Sharing by Louis Evan Palmer

A way around increasingly rigid copyright protection mechanisms or overdone policing efforts is to expand on the idea that Canada has used regarding taxing blank cassettes and tapes. We can keep tabs on how often a song or album is downloaded and pay out to the artists based on that up to a maximum.

This type of royalty acknowledges the new internet medium, its mobile adjuncts and the decentralization and commons philosophy while still rewarding the artists who create the works.

If successful, a regime of this type would lead to reciprocal agreements in other jurisdictions up to the stipulated maximum. Thus, as an example, a specific fee on internet connectivity would pay into a fund that would be used to pay out royalities to artists per time period per jurisdiction.

This compensation scheme may actually pay out more to artists than the traditional method. The other tremendous advantage of it is that it would encourage the growth of small groups and unknown artists while it reduces the already predatory monopolisitic power of the large record companies. We could see a spectacular burst of creativity and new artists with the income spread out more to newer, lesser known artists.

Copyrights, Royalties & Sharing, The Way It Can Be, Louis Evan Palmer, http://twicb.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.

BUY BOOKS BY LOUIS EVAN PALMER

• OAKLANE WOODS - Amazon Kindle Book
• TALES TOLD TO A TREE - Amazon Kindle Book
• 40 POEM FRAGMENTS - Amazon Kindle Book

Having a Say in How Taxes are Spent by Louis Evan Palmer

There are any number of ways to make our society more democratic - lowering the voting age is one, decentralizing and broadening the ownership and control of mass media is another. But one which would dwarf them in immediate full-spectrum impact is to give the taxpayer, the actual money-out-of-the-wallet taxpayer, a choice in how tax dollars are spent.

The government would still get to designate the tax-spend categories. It could recommend certain percentages. But, what a breath of fresh air if it has to be all laid out in clear terms - what is to be spent and why. Taxpayers would then be able to allocate their tax dollars according to what they want to have done and are willing to pay for.

There would obviously be a default selection which would correspond to the government's recommendation. There would also be a break-out of the main spend categories and sub-categories and individuals could allocate their tax dollars as they see fit and their conscience dictates. No more subversion and corruption or dithering by elected officials (where we can trust the elections and their results).

The government would be compelled to break-out certain big ticket items like defense. There would be line items for whatever war is ongoing. In Canada, there would be a line item for the war in Afghanistan and a suggested percentage. My guess is that the war would be quickly unfunded. If the US had line items for Afghanistan and Iraq, a similar unfunding would be likely.

The collection of taxes is done under threat of force because that's what states do and because we supposedly have a say through our elected representatives. Two things have made that inadequate: (1) our electoral system, associated mass media and elected representatives have become unresponsive (and unethical and hard-of-hearing, etc. etc.); (2) modern techniques and mature democracies are ready for the next step in free societies. That next step is choice in how tax money is spent.

If tax payers had a direct say, would we see enormous subsidies for agricorps and big business? Would we see alternate energy and environmental protection neglected? Would we see huge debts piled up to pay for wars of aggression? It's very doubtful.

There is no worry that the government would have the necessary funds to operate and to defend the country but it wouldn't be in the areas it has them now because where it's has them now is not where the populace wants it.

Having a Say in How Taxes are Spent, The Way It Can Be, Louis Evan Palmer, http://twicb.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.

BUY BOOKS BY LOUIS EVAN PALMER

• OAKLANE WOODS - Amazon Kindle Book
• TALES TOLD TO A TREE - Amazon Kindle Book
• 40 POEM FRAGMENTS - Amazon Kindle Book

Why is Canada in Afghanistan? by Louis Evan Palmer

In the simplest terms, Canada is there because the United States is there. It's a case of sticking together no matter what although this is way beyond your older brother taking the wrong turn and making you an hour late for a family function. This is a case of sticking together in the commission of a war of aggression and war crimes.

So the question then becomes, why is the United States in Afghanistan? They're there because their leadership decided on war with Afghanistan based on unproven allegations regarding an act of terrorism on US soil.

The terrorism act itself is under question because it's not clear how planes crashing into the WTC could cause them to collapse the way they did. If that's the case then even if the correct perpetrators have been identified, their act of violence did not cause all, or most of, the damage and loss of life.

To help prove their case, it would have been normal for the authorities to secure the crime scenes and collect and later closely examine the evidence; in New York the damaged buildings. But this was not the case, the NY debris was hauled away under strict security and sold as scrap to China and other countries. This is suspicious.

The perpetrators identified by the FBI have not been corroborated by any other non-US-government sources. In fact, as many as 7 of them have turned up alive in the Middle East. Despite this the FBI's list has not been revised. They don't show up on the passenger manifests and the airport videos seem to have missed many of them as well. To prove their case, it would be expected that the American authorities would have been secured all available video coverage and made it public to justify their allegations. This is not the case, videos have not been released, black boxes have been supposedly not found or were damaged and secreted away. Again, suspicious.

Therefore, we have unproven allegations as to the perpetrators which then focus on an alleged leader of the plot who is living in a cave in Afghanistan. There were allegations against the same leader to do with two explosions in Africa outside of American embassies which resulted in attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan. Again, the "proof" is mostly unsubstantiated allegations.

By way of comparison, a terrorist attack in Berlin in 1986 at a club which killed a score of people was blamed on Libya and used by President Reagan to justify bombing Triploi in an attempt to assassinate Gadhafi. A German television documentary presented compelling evidence that the Berlin night club bombing was actually an American/Israeli black operation. These false flag operations are more common than usually thought and rarely exposed in the mass media. We must be very skeptical of unproven claims as to who is responsible for a given criminal act. We accept less evidence for a war than we do for a prosecution against an ordinary citizen!

Another aspect of the 911 attacks is their likelihood of success. Prior to the attacks and based on past experience, any plane that diviated from its flight plan would be subject to a fighter plane(s) intercept. There were many such intercepts both before and after 911. Based on that, the chances of succeeding in a 911-style hijacking in North American skies were zero. They would have been intercepted. Except that there were several air attack simulations running on that very day. That is more than a coincidence. That is aiding and abetting. Regardless of anything else, the hijackers knew there would be no intercepts for a good part, if not all, of their flights. This also is suspicious. How would they have known? Was that information easily obtainable?

To completely solve this crime, authorities would have to identify the planners and who would benefit. If so, regarding who would benefit, why has the trading information as to who was profiting from unusually voluminous transactions in 911-affected stocks and other financial instruments been suppressed? This doesn't make sense. Do we want to fully solve these crimes or not?

The situation from September 12th to October 7th was deliberately emotion-laden and logic-toxic. When the mob that you've stirred up yourself is screaming for blood, you can't serve them reason. That is surely by design. You serve them war! Afghanistan 2001! Iraq 2003! TBA 2007?

Canada must withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as possible. While the Canadians, all arms, are doing a superb job and not shirking from difficult assignments and duties, this is a poisonous deeply-flawed mission. It shows that both the UN and NATO have become compromised.

Even if the allegations about Bin Laden and al Qaeda were true, an invasion and occupation of an entire country to get one or two ring-leaders is not justified or legal. The United States funded and supported BinLaden and all the foreign jihadists for more than ten years to lure the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan in 1979, to fight the Soviets during their occupation to the extent of providing them with Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, and to launch attacks into the Soviet Union itself.

Alleging a betrayal against one man and a few of his cohorts does not give grounds for an invasion and occupation. That it could be launched so quickly, in weeks, shows that it was planned, up-to-date and ready to go. Who knows, equipment may have even been pre-positioned!

In 1989 after the Soviets were forced to withdraw, the US was perfectly content to leave Afghanistan alone in its civil war. They and the rest should follow that same path in Afghanistan & Iraq now. Aid them as ethics and conscience should dictate but let them manage their own country.

Why is Canada in Afghanistan?, The Way It Can Be, Louis Evan Palmer, http://twicb.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.

BUY BOOKS BY LOUIS EVAN PALMER

• OAKLANE WOODS - Amazon Kindle Book
• TALES TOLD TO A TREE - Amazon Kindle Book
• 40 POEM FRAGMENTS - Amazon Kindle Book

The Satisfaction Trap by Louis Evan Palmer

Often enough, something that we consider "good" requires dedication & effort. From this, we easily draw the conclusion that dedication & effort is part of the "goodness" or part of the path that leads to it. Further to that, as part of our generalizing imperative, we then feel, to varying degrees, that if dedication & effort (& talent & training & adversity & perseverance, etc. etc.) are not in evidence then whatever it is that we've attained or acquired or conquered is not "good".

We expend so much effort, & lavish praise on those who expend it, on deciphering how things are built or how things interact that we never seem to get to the why. The why seems to be the more important objective but it's relegated to the "nice to have" category which never gets done.

It's a truism that if something is hard to acquire, we value it more. If it's difficult to learn, to do, to find, to accomplish, or discover, or realize then we feel more satisfaction, joy and attachment.

We order our priorities in service of that feeling of satisfaction & achievement which is so closely tied to the difficulty of attaining it. Is it a valid conclusion? It may "feel" more satisfying but is it in fact? Are we letting satisfaction become the barometer of worth regardless of whether that's valid in itself or whether why we are feeling "satisfied" is anything more than the feeling we get conquering various types of obstacles?

If we could, it would be better to have certitude than merely satisfaction. Not dogmatic certitude, phony book-riddled certitude or that blinded certainty which comes from constant propaganda delivered from an early age. But, to have the deep direct experience certitude which flows from overwhelming knowledge and understanding; to have a compelling & rivetting knowing. Certitude that comes from something deeper than feeling or accomplishment; that is not temporary; that is "satisfied" no matter what. Easy or difficult doesn't matter. Short, long, quick, slow - are irrelevant.

After all, is it difficult to look at a flower or a sunset?

The Satisfaction Trap, The Way It Can Be, Louis Evan Palmer, http://twicb.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.

BUY BOOKS BY LOUIS EVAN PALMER

• OAKLANE WOODS - Amazon Kindle Book
• TALES TOLD TO A TREE - Amazon Kindle Book
• 40 POEM FRAGMENTS - Amazon Kindle Book

Ban Fireworks by Louis Evan Palmer

There are any number of vestiges of our past that we should stop perpetuating and the use of fireworks is one of them. It's a thrill we could do without both in terms of unnecessary cost and negative environmental impacts; fireworks are a relic from historic times smacking of aristocratic diversions and tributes to despotic monarchs.

Fireworks are a subtle celebration of militarism in that they derive from the explosives used by armies and, in many cases, serve to glorify the state at nationalistic spectacles. The trappings of an unthinking patrioticism adorn most firework displays. It's an atavistic urge that we usually suppress but it makes its way into the open during these volleys of colourful aerial explosions. It's similar to firing off cannons to salute a head of state or to the awe we might feel when certain types of ordinance are exploded. But, is that a good thing? Hasn't feeding that beast led to more grief than happiness?

Fireworks pollute the environment and scare & disrupt wildlife. Fireworks spread heavy metals and other pollutants into the atmosphere, waterways and surrounding land. Elements like radioactive barium and arsenic are part of the fireworks payload spread across the sky to drop on the land and water below or to be carried in the atmosphere to other locations.

The thunderous noise of fireworks scares the nearby wildlife especially when the fireworks occur during breeding seasons and there are a lot of young creatures about.

Fireworks result in thousands of people injuries, some serious: burns are the most prevalent, followed by the eyes.

It will be difficult in some areas to ban them because there is no doubt that fireworks are popular but then so were gladitorial games and dog-fighting.

Let's move onto to other better, safer, smarter ways to celebrate.

Ban Fireworks, The Way It Can Be, Louis Evan Palmer, http://twicb.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.

BUY BOOKS BY LOUIS EVAN PALMER

• OAKLANE WOODS - Amazon Kindle Book
• TALES TOLD TO A TREE - Amazon Kindle Book
• 40 POEM FRAGMENTS - Amazon Kindle Book

Nothing to Hide - Secrecy & Privacy by Louis Evan Palmer

The apparent struggle between privacy and secrecy is one of the trickest of knots to undo for a democracy. Paradoxically, as the demand and mechanisms for more secrecy (or government and corporate "privacy") increases, there is a corresponding argument and pressure to decrease personal privacy.

Ultimately, all secrets come down to individuals because it's individuals who identify what's secret and what's not, individuals who record and categorize the data, individuals who must interpret and act on various data and secrets.

We can classify privacy as concerned with secrets about an identifiable person or persons (usually related or associated in some way such as a family). Therefore, data which identifies a person is personal data; data which identifies a person and which is not data that would normally be available to a stranger or which can be used against that person and about which they would typically be guarded is private data, sensitive information. In this proposition, all private data is personal but not all personal data is sensitive.

Privacy laws vary among countries. Currently, Canada's and Germany's Privacy laws are the strongest in the world. In Canada, any data about an identifiable person is under the purview of the Privacy law with the due care required dependent on the sensitivity of the data.

Governments and corporations are not persons. What they do should largely be in the open whether or not they issue shares or borrow public money. Their secrets should have to do with products, possibly services, which would be rendered worthless or signficantly less profitable if known. Their secrecy needs must not contravene any laws. They must not impinge on any individual's privacy except as allowed by law. Persons should not be permitted to trade away their privacy in the same way that selling organs is not legal. It should not be permitted for any organization to have secret members or secret agendas or constitutions. National Security should be strictly defined and managed so that it is not abused and allowed to become a reservoir for illegal or questionable projects and activities and the unlawful collection and use of personal data.

A salient question surrounds the use of private data: is it generally used in a negative way? does it typically result in a sanction or limit on the designated person? The answer to both questions is "Yes". This is why privacy is important to individuals - the release of private information to the public, including government agencies, typically has a negative impact on the person in question regardless of the information.

When private data is collected, it is analysed by other persons. They may be well qualified, they may not. They may be independent and impartial, they may not. They may make correct deductions or they may make poor deductions. The decisions that flow from these actions, may be justified, may be legal, or they may not. This is especially critical when this data might be DNA data about which more and more conclusions are being drawn.

The video called "Nothing to Hide" provides some insight into this dilemma.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoYF1q68OFc
It focuses on what is one of the most common of the pretexts for invading a person's privacy - "nothing to hide" as in "I have nothing to hide" or "If you have nothing to hide". The fallacy of this statement is that there is a difference between wanting to hide something with its implication of shame or wrong-doing and not wanting various private things about you becoming available to any and all, fodder for the public or for various alphabet agencies here and around the world.

This also intrudes on the debate between who is a public person versus who is a private person and whether public persons are entitled to any privacy.

"Keeping something private" is not the same as "wanting to hide something". The only aspect of "hide" that should normally concern us is where there is suspicion of illegality and then the rule of law takes over and we must have reasonable grounds, etc. etc.

Open-ended data collection, unsupervised intrusions into the lives of private persons, acting on flimsy proof or unwarranted deductions has all the trappings of a police state or a corporate state.

There is incalculable loss for society in exchanging freedom and democracy for security. In what cause was the security required if not democracy? If that's lost, the security is almost worthless because it can evaporate for any given individual in a twinkling - in a long as it takes some bureaucrat to take exception to something on your profile.

Nothing to Hide - Secrecy & Privacy, The Way It Can Be, Louis Evan Palmer, http://twicb.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have appeared in numerous publications.

BUY BOOKS BY LOUIS EVAN PALMER

• OAKLANE WOODS - Amazon Kindle Book
• TALES TOLD TO A TREE - Amazon Kindle Book
• 40 POEM FRAGMENTS - Amazon Kindle Book

Creating Imperial America by Louis Evan Palmer

When an organization is created that is based on secrecy & power and it is given the resources to become established and develop connections and expertise, there will always be a point when it realizes that it is above the law.

At a certain point in its evolution, the organization gets an exemption to the law and that proceeds from being a rarity to being a commonplace. People who think they're smarter or better than other people decide that they will make the decisions and they discover that their secrets are inviolate because who will surveil the surveillors? This happens in all places throughout history because it's an integral part of an imperfect human psyche.

They become solidified and toxic to democracy or any authentic power-sharing when they acquire their own sources of funding and income. They understand that there is ultimately no difference between an intelligence service and a criminal syndicate. The dirty detestable thing is that there is some valid work being done by duped agents who toil away at trying to protect their nation but the real work is about the pullers of levers at the top and those two steps back in the shadows. Prattle about democracy and liberty is a necessary delusion and cover but the reality is about issuing orders and obeying orders and making decisions for other people and taking whatever is desired.

Who's going to know?

Creating Imperial America, The Way It Can Be, Louis Evan Palmer, http://twicb.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2007 Louis Evan Palmer lives in Ontario Canada. His short stories have been published in numerous publications.

BUY BOOKS BY LOUIS EVAN PALMER

• OAKLANE WOODS - Amazon Kindle Book
• TALES TOLD TO A TREE - Amazon Kindle Book
• 40 POEM FRAGMENTS - Amazon Kindle Book