Good responses to Dick Cheney's speech

Here are two brave journalists Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow of whom I just recently learnt.

First Rachel Maddow as it is better and she's cuter!!



Or as the comics like Jon Stewart

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
American Idealogues
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

"Preventitive Detention"- we hold you in prison indefinitely

Preventitive Detention is Orwellian double-speak much like pre-crime in the Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report.

You get arrested not for breaking the law but for the possibility that you might! That includes all of us!!

Granted, Obama only wants to apply this rule to "terrorists" or anyone who supports " terrorists" and/or "terrorist organizations."

Remember the US govt can deem any organization an terrorist organization, just by fiat! and hence any individual too.

Obama is overturning centuries of western jurisprudence , the signing of the magna carta declaration in 1215 which explicitly states that no king (read executive) can imprison any person on whim . They to be produced before court and had the right against lawful detention.

Obama is not keeping faith to the US Constitution which he promised to uphold. The duty of the President of the United Sates isn't just to keep Americans safe, the most important job is to uphold the Constitution.

Here's an excellent article by blogger Glenn Greenwald a Constitutional lawyer. Here's a cut and paste from his blog and the entire entry can be read here

(1) What does "preventive detention" allow?

It's important to be clear about what "preventive detention" authorizes. It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding. That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far more significant, "preventive detention" allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally "dangerous" by the Government for various reasons (such as, as Obama put it yesterday, they "expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden" or "otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans"). That's what "preventive" means: imprisoning people because the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be "combatants."

Once known, the details of the proposal could -- and likely will -- make this even more extreme by extending the "preventive detention" power beyond a handful of Guantanamo detainees to anyone, anywhere in the world, alleged to be a "combatant." After all, once you accept the rationale on which this proposal is based -- namely, that the U.S. Government must, in order to keep us safe, preventively detain "dangerous" people even when they can't prove they violated any laws -- there's no coherent reason whatsoever to limit that power to people already at Guantanamo, as opposed to indefinitely imprisoning with no trials all allegedly "dangerous" combatants, whether located in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Western countries and even the U.S.

And this by Rachel Maddow

This is dangerous and I'm extremely saddened what the US has become, a third world country with no respect to the rule of laws!

I'm glad I don't live there anymore. More and more Americans are voting with their feet to live overseas.

Human Rights violations by the Sri Lankan Army

The nearly 3 decade conflict in Sri Lanka appears to have come to an end. There has been huge hue and cry by hypocritical Western governments namely the US and UK (it is ok for them to violate human rights in the name of fighting terror!) but not other governments.

The LTTE is a terrorist organization as per the EU and US State Dept list of terrorists so then why are the Sri Lankans being condemened?!!

Hasn't the US committed war crimes by being the cause of the millions of Iraqi deaths and now slowly increasing Afghan casualties. Aren't civilian deaths just "collateral damage" in the fight against terror? What about Israel's recent War against Gaza? Not a whiff of protest from Western governments about War Crimes, maybe only from the EU.

Read my earlier post re. Western countries have no moral authority to protest about human rights violations. It is a case of pot calling the kettle black!

Sep 11 has been a god-send for governments and especially totalitarian regimes.

MPs expense scandal

The MPs (Member of Parliament) -for those who don't know what this acronym stands for- in the UK where MPs have claimed as expenses large screen TVs, payment for the gardener hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax-payers money is nothing short of theft.

It has claimed the job of Speaker of the house of Commons and also recently the leader of the Liberal Democratic party.

Most governments give their representatives perks and privileges that the ordinary citizen wouldn't get all in the name of "preventing corruption".

The idea is that our public servants should get perks like choice parking spots , gold plated medical insurance while there 45 million uninsured in the US , immunity from arrest! and host of other perks because in the private sector salaries are much higher.

That might be the case but so is job stress, stress that you can be fired anytime unlike elected representatives who can't be "fired" until the next election, and even that!

No wonder in third world countries and also in developed countries (but much less so) there is so much attraction to become an elected representative.

In the 21st century, there should be more transparency. All salaries and perks, expense claims should be published in the internet and not be forced to be disclosed only as a result of freedom of information act briefs.

The tax-payers have the right to know how their taxpaying dollars or pounds are being spent.

Children and choice

Parents now-a-days at least in the West give choices to their kids re. their preferences for example what food they'd like to eat, what clothes they'd like to wear or even buy and when they grow up on whom they marry.

I heard from my brother that perhaps even some parents in India are also changing with the times and instead of dictating to their kids allow them the freedom of choice, at least in certain matters.

Which is a good thing.

What beats me is that when kids are allowed choices in a lot of matters why not in religion too? Why do most parents still insist that their kids have to follow the same religious beliefs as them?

Hence a Christian parent would "indoctrinate/brain-wash" their kids in Christian teachings, a Muslim parent in Muslim teachings , a Hindu parent in ....; you get the picture.

Why not expose a kid to different religious belief systems and let the kid choose for himself/herself the same way they choose the flavor of their favorite ice-cream!

Calling the arsonist to put out the fires!

I've blogged before how the the Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers all have to be fired since they have massive conflicts of interest - have taken money from Wall St firms - and now have returned to govt andor have blind faith in the markets ideology.

Plus, they have demonstrated elephantine incompetence by not recommending more stringent regulations.

Good governance requires nay mandates transparency and accountability (meaning punishment for those who violate the law or indulging in corrupt practices).

Where there is poor governance there shall be corruption as we see in the US and a drag on economic development.

Refer to these two excellent articles on the principles of good governance. The second is from the Commonwealth.

Point number 3 which applies to the US regardless of administration Democrat or Republican is worth highlighting.

3. Corruption, which is multi-dimensional, generally occurs at the nexus between the
public and private sectors, with actors in the private sector interacting with holders of
offices of trust in the public sector. Some aspects of corruption such as fraud and the
misappropriation of assets or funds can occur entirely within the private or public sectors.
However, with increasing privatisation of public utilities and services, the distinction
between the public and private sectors is becoming less relevant in some areas.

Market failure

For all those folks who have blind faith in markets or strongly defend "capitalism" with a small c as it is practised in the US much like any religious dogma, here's another example if ever one is needed of MARKET FAILURE.

I cannot fathom why people (read clowns) like Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Ben Bernake , Rahm Emmanuel, Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs, David Broder - the last three being the third rate hacks in the entertainment industry!- still have jobs or are able to command atrocious sums of money giving speeches or writing articles in publications.

Why should anyone listen to them? They are all INCOMPETENT CLOWNS!!

Unless of course, it is for comic relief. Like any bad hindi movie e.g. Kismet Connection, they are so bad, so terrible that they are good!! You just can't stop laughing.

Hypocrisy of religious minded folks

Show me a religious person and I'll show you a hypocrite!

According to a recent Pew research center poll chances are if you are Church goer , you are more likely to support torture! (sic)

Here's the link

Open letter to David Broder of the WashingtonPost

Dear Mr. Broder, I'm an American who lives in Sydney, Australia (a nation of laws not like the US).

I was appalled to read your inane (article) where you contradict yourself re. the constitution.

"Quickly the patently unconstitutional 90 percent tax the House wanted to slap on those bonuses was forgotten."

If taxing the executives is unconstitutional (I fail to see how as Congress is passing a law and the right way do something) what about violating US and international laws by conducting torture.

It's funny how chaps like you still have jobs and incompetence is rewarded. Which is why there are no journalists who question the outrageous pay packets of incompetent CEOs.

It is because you yourself are thoroughly INCOMPETENT and get highly compensated.

Sadly, America has become a third world country (no respect for the rule of law, has very little equality of opportunity) where merit has no place and third rate hacks like you continue to have jobs.

If you have any decency or sense of honor you would resign and ply a different trade.

Might I suggest a pimp or a gigolo.

Regards,

Russell

Thank Science for Americans who are for the rule of law

I have an extremely close friend Eric who's a conservative and who like all his conservative bretheren think that Bush and Co. (this also includes Nancy Pelosi and all the members of Congress of were briefed but failed in their Constitutional duties) did nothing "wrong" in authorizing torture.

I had a four 4 hour discussion with him and he went on about the "sacred-ness" of the US Constitution and railed against judges (another conservative pet peeve) who legislate from the bench, thereby violating the constitution.

American Conservatives like religious minded folks are hypocrites!

Thank Science(as opposed to God!) for people like the two in this program. It is Americans like these who hold our Constitution and the rule of Law.

Overcompensated chief executives

I always was of the opinion that Chief Executives were overcompensated and the higher share price of their companies was mostly a matter of luck or simply manipulation or both.

I was even highly sceptical of the managerial skills of Jack Welch. Read my post re. Hero Worship.

There's a riddle,
Q. What is common between American CEOs and the Indian cricket team?

A. Both get highly compensated for non-performance!

The Indian cricket team is the "best in the world on paper"!!

Also if you are allowed to bring foreign workers into the US (I'm not against it btw even in this deep recession) why not have foreign CEOs.

I feel Indian or Japanese CEO's would do a much better job of managing companies at a fraction of the cost.

Here's an interesting article from Tim Harford the FT's resident economic writer. I recommend his books the The Logic of Life and The UnderCover Economist.

To profit, plump for an also-ran at the helm

By Tim Harford

Published: April 25 2009 02:04 | Last updated: April 25 2009 02:04

Team titles might be what matter to them most, but football fans are also generally pleased if a player in their team wins an award. Publishers rarely object when their authors win Booker or Nobel prizes for literature. So how should shareholders in a company feel when the company’s chief executive wins an accolade such as “Best Manager” from Business Week or “Best Performing CEO” from Forbes? New research from two California-based economists suggests that the correct response would be to feel sick.

Economists have long been intrigued by the prospect that chief executives might use their position to pursue wealth, status and perks to the detriment of shareholders. Shareholders, widely dispersed and sometimes protected by flimsy governance, often have little sway over what managers get up to.

This view has unsavoury implications, such as the idea that corporate social responsibility and philanthropy might in fact mean shareholders paying for their chief executive’s golden halo. It has also been prescient: it was in studying economics that I first discovered that managers might be willing to overpay for merger targets because mergers brought them wealth and status, or that they would arrange to receive some of their pay in the form of a large pension because deferred compensation often only causes outrage once it is too late to do anything about it. If only Sir Fred Goodwin’s board at Royal Bank of Scotland had encountered the same lessons.

Ulrike Malmendier of UC Berkeley and Geoffrey Tate of UCLA wondered if awards for chief executives might shift the balance of power further towards the chief executive. That seems likely: it turns out that award-winning chief executives are paid more and deliver less following their award.

Top performers will tend to have been lucky in the past, and luck rarely lasts. If an award from Forbes celebrates a man who has made a few lucky calls, small wonder if he goes on to disappoint. Yet Malmendier and Tate try to adjust for this statistical tendency by identifying a selection of “nearly men” (and occasionally women) who might have been expected to win an award, but didn’t. The nearly-winners, like the winners, tend to run big companies with strong recent shareholder returns. Like the winners, too, they have probably been lucky. Yet in the three years following an award, the share prices of the companies run by winners lag behind the prices of those run by nearly-winners by between 15 and 26 per cent. Nor is their performance reflected in pay: winners enjoy an extra $8m a year compared with nearly-winners.

Winners also seem to enjoy various distracting perks. Although the statistical analysis is less sophisticated here, Malmendier and Tate believe that award-winners are more likely to write books – often self-aggrandising books, let us be honest – and more likely to accept seats on the boards of other companies. The icing on the cake: award-winning chief executives have superior golf handicaps.

In short, awards for chief executives should be about as welcome as the “curse of the pharaoh”. Before the shareholders of the world march on the offices of Business Week, pitchforks in hand, they might bear in mind one final discovery. Malmendier and Tate check their results against an index of bad governance that tots up tricks, such as poisoned pills, designed to protect firms from hostile takeovers. Almost all of the perverse effects of awards to chief executives – including their tendency to spend more time on the golf course – shrink or even disappear in companies which have strong governance. Even superstar chief executives can be kept on a leash, it seems.

Crimes against humanity and Torture doesn't apply to US but others

Last night I saw a very chilling yet true program about one of the Khmer Rouge's most infamous "enhanced interrogation" (sic!) prisons "S-21"
where among the numerous brutal torture methods used, water boarding was one of them.

The UN War Crimes tribunal is currently prosecuting the case.

Unfortunately, the US had a big hand in bringing Pol Pot to power.

There is a scholarly work on the subject.

Here's a cut and paste from the above article or link lest it be taken off.

The Khmer Rouge's most notorious prison chief told a Cambodia war crimes court today US policies in the 1970s contributed to the rise of Pol Pot's genocidal regime.

Kaing Guek Eav, or 'Duch,' the brutal director of the infamous torture centre S-21 said he believed the Khmer Rouge regime would have died out had the US not supported the right wing military government that removed Prince Norodom Sihanouk from power in a 1970 coup.

Duch, who is on trial charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes, made the claims as part of a detailed testimony of his own journey from maths teacher to fanatical communist revolutionary.

How come is it we call it torture (as it rightly should be called and prosecuted) but not in the case when the US government pursues the very same methods?

When I landed in Sydney more than 2.5 years ago, we took a cab from Sydney CBD to Chatswood the suburb where we used to live. The cab driver was a Cambodian and I apoligized to him as an American even though I wasn't an American at the time the atrocities where being conducted, thanks to our government.