Politics

Where will it all lead?

It seems that many people are under the impression that the Dubai ports deal includes six ports. Here is the count:

P&O Operated Ports in U.S

1. Port of Portland (ME)
2. Port of Boston (MS)
3. Port of Davisville
4. Port Newark Container Terminal
5. Port Authority of NY & NJ
6. Philadelphia Regional Port Authority
7. Delaware River Port Authority of PA & NJ
8. Port of Wilmington (DE)
9. Maryland Port Administration
10. Port of Virginia
11. Port of Miami (FL)
12. Mississippi State Port at Gulfport
13. Port of New Orleans (LA)
14. Greater Baton Rouge (LA)
15. Port of Lake Charles (LA)
16. Port of Beaumont (TX)
17. Port of Port Arthur (TX)
18. Port of Galveston (TX)
19. Port of Houston (TX)
20. Port of Freeport (TX)
21. Port of Corpus Christi (TX)

The P&O website shows that these ports are part of the US holdings and the Beaumont and Corpus Christi ports list the US Army as a client. Woo hoo! Yippe skippy! Does the transfer include the ports that P&O provides stevedoring for? Once again I am soooo confused.

George W Bush has the distinction in the 2002 Guinness Book of World Records of being the most devoted representative yet of corporate interests in the Oval Office:

“George W. Bush (inaugurated as the 43rd US president on January 20, 2001) has assembled the wealthiest cabinet in American history by appointing more multi millionaires to the top rank of his government than any of his predecessors. Of the 16 full government members at the heart of the Bush administration, 13 are multimillionaires, seven of them own assets more than $10 million. His cabinet has acquired the nickname `tycoon’s club.’ Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill each have declared assets of at last $61 million, while Secretary of State Colin Powell has a least $18 million.”

Guinness World Records 2002, by Antonia Cunningham (Editor), Mark C. Young, Bantam Books, April 2002, p.57

Just in case you did not know what the interests of the people at the top of the the Executive Branch of the United States government were. Follow the money.

Absolutes do not exist in a referential relative world.

If killing is killing and all taking of life is lumped together then it would be wrong to take a life in self-defense or to protect my neighbor, an innocent child, or a family member, from imminent death or grievous harm. I suggest these simplistic definitions to separate the differences between killing and murder for the sake of discussion.

Murder is a deliberate taking of human life.
Killing is to save human life from gravis harm.

Now I have set out my definitions I will try to apply them to an article posted on another blog. Whether my response is a wacky or thoughtful one shall be judged by you the reader.

“Killin is killin folks and revenge is the basest of emotions. Yet we have legalized it in America and cling to it with a tenacity only found in psychopaths. We are the only civilized nation left on the planet that still uses the death penalty. We’re up their with Saudie Arabia and Iran on this one. War? The whole concept of killing men, women and children you don’t even know for some grand ideal. What ideal could be so great that it would call for the murder of strangers? This concept is even more bizarre than killing for revenge. What, killing strangers is ok as long as I’m imposing my beliefs or my system of government on them?”

“We are the only civilized nation left on the planet that still uses the death penalty”

According to Amnesty International, during 2004 more than 3,797 people were executed in 25 countries, and more than 7,395 people were sentenced to death in 64 countries.
Executions have been carried out by the following methods since 2000:

Beheading (in Saudi Arabia, Iraq)
Electrocution (in USA)
Hanging (in Egypt, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Pakistan, Singapore and other countries)
Lethal injection (in China, Guatemala, Philippines, Thailand, USA)
Shooting (in Belarus, China, Somalia, Taiwan, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam and other countries)
Stoning (in Afghanistan, Iran)

I will leave the decision to you whether or not a country qualifies to be civilized. The death penalty is murder. It is the purposeful taking of a life. If the sentence is imposed because the party killed or murdered another human, murdering them will not safe the life taken.

“The whole concept of killing men, women and children you don’t even know for some grand ideal. What ideal could be so great that it would call for the murder of strangers?”

Unfortunately once humans formed tribes and alliances based upon geographical and spiritual reasons we moved from individual responses to group responses. If group A murders Group B, and Group C defends group B, is it murder or killing?

It is a deliberate purposeful attack but group C is saving group B’s lives. I propose that if group C saves more lives than group A would take, it is killing. If group C kills more of group B then it is murder.

If group A is defending, its members lives by attacking group B then group A is killing. If they do it to steal their food or land, it is murder.

Obviously I could go on with different scenarios, but, I am sure have an idea of how the discussion would go.

“What, killing strangers is ok as long as I’m imposing my beliefs or my system of government on them? Taking human life to impose beliefs, religious or governmental, fails the killing test and is murder by my simple definitions posed above.

Groups laws do not define what is good and bad, they just reflect the morality of their society. Killing is either good or bad based on its ethical acceptability. And ethics are defined, for example by religions. Explaining why killing is just or unjust we go to a higher “authority”. If god said killing was always ok, would you start murdering everyone? On earth, the concepts of good and evil are out of Gods jurisdiction. Depending on ones personal beliefs there might be a problem when in death you face your God.

Standard moral discussions on war bring up the application of three criterions:

Public authority – only a legitimate government may wage war. Vigilantes and terrorists cannot do it

Just cause – War may be waged only to save innocent life, to make sure people can live decently, and to protect their natural rights

Right intention – your just cause has to be your actual reason for going to war.

Like I stated: Absolutes do not exist in a referential relative world.

How would you feel if you were surfing the internet at your local public library and two uniformed Homeland Security officers walked in and annouced that in the interests of national security to everyone that they were not allowed to visit porn sites?The pair of Homeland Security officers did just that at the Little Falls branch of the Montgomery County Public Library in Bethesda. The went around and looked at what each person was looking at on their PC. The confronted on man about a site he was visiting and told him to step outside. . A librarian approached them and told them to be quiet. The police were called and the men were asked to leave.

Homeland Security has distanced itself from the pair’s action. It has confirmed that the two worked for their local county office but said they were operating way outside their authority.

Remember Big Brother is Watching You.

More Here Buffalo News