Over fifty years ago when DIOGENES REMARKS first visited America we realised that Mr. Churchill was correct when he spoke of two peoples divided by a common language. There was we discovered a great deal more than a few differently spelt words to this division. There seems to be no knowledge in America of adverbs and their usage therefore rarely if ever occurs. The second and much more confusing, even after some fifty odd years, is the negative question. To be grammatically correct in English one can not formulate a question in this manner, it becomes a statement not a question. How often does one hear an American interviewers ask " Don't you think that ----?" whereas it should be "Do you think that ----?". Even more fascinating is the double negative "Don't you think that he didn't -------?". How on earth is one supposed to answer this piece of fractured English and even more puzzling such 'questions' are asked in the Courts to obtain evidence and often followed by "Just answer 'yes' or 'no" - it all leaves one quite bewildered.
This has left a negative mark on conversations in America which causes misunderstandings at best and angry confusion at worst. The current Administration, one of the worst in the recent history of America, is adding to this confusion. One hears an Obama statement, usually far too long and belabouring the point, which leaves one numb and puzzled. This from a Harvard educated associate law professor one might add.
On the international scene these statements are often followed by a 'clarification' from the Secretary of State or god forbid the Vice President on one of his foreign trips. During the last year this has caused diplomatic insult and resentment worldwide which again the Secretary of State has to later try and resolve.
On the recent national local scene the Obama negative statement in regard to the signing of a law in the State of Arizona by the Governor of that State. The law covers Immigration and it is based on the existing Federal Immigration Law to such that the words Federal were changed to refer to the State of Arizona. Now currently the Obama Administration is not enforcing this Federal Law, however under 'States Rights' the State of Arizona chose to enact and enforce it in their State. Obama ended up being critical of a legal Federal Law which his Administration should be currently enforcing.
As a former law professor and an African-American, indeed thought by many to be born in Kenya, the current President should know that Americas 'War between the States' was caused by violation of 'States Rights'. Going back to the setting of the Mason-Dixon Line which consists of the Tangent Line, North Line, Arc Line, and 39* 43' N parallel of latitude. This in turn created the 'North' and the 'South' of Americas States, one of the principal issues of States Rights being the use of slave labour. Forbidden in the North but accepted for the South which depended on such labour to survive as an agricultural based economy.
When this President was inaugurated most people thought that it was a positive step many of whom are now the active supporters of the 'Tea Party' movement against his policies and decision-making. Instead of bringing Americans together Obama has divided the country with policies forced through Congress with little or no regard to the opinions of the people. After eighteen months in office it is clear that regardless of "We the People" his Administration is determined to put in place a Socialist Dis-United States of America patterned after the European Union - a European Union West.
One wonders why - this is Americas ultimate negative question.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
A NEW ERA
In the aftermath of the earthquake in Chile a new era begins today. Mr. Sebastian Pinera will be inaugurated as the President of Chile. The inauguration ceremony takes place in Valparaiso the port of Santiago. Ms. Bachelet Chile's first woman president was barred by the Constitution from seeking re-election. Handing over the Presidential red, white and blue Sash of Office will end 20 years of centre-left rule in Chile. Mr. Pinera a conservative leader named his cabinet last month and it contains no figures linked with President General Augusto Pinochet the former military ruler.
Ms. Bachelet leaves office with an 84% popularity rating despite criticism of her government's slow reaction to the earthquake. Her family being victims of the Pinochet era she has always had problems dealing with the Ejercito de Chile and to a degree the Carabinero. This has led to a socialist reaction to the situations and it was only after 33 hours that she gave required orders to the Carabinero and Ejercito. The normally self-disciplined Chilean society has developed a certain freedom which unfortunately is a 'socialist freedom' and led to the looting after the earthquake. In turn this led to the formation by citizens of 'local protection militia' armed with shotguns to do the job which should have been done by the Carabinero and Ejercito.
Of course someone had to be made an example of, in true leftist style Ms. Bachelet dismissed the head of SHOA Commander Mariano Rojas Armada de Chile for 'failing to provide a clear warning of the tsunami'. Of course one should consider that if President Bachelet had acted promptly that might well have occurred since orders come from the top down not bottom up. Now a second Chilean official has left her post, Carmen Fernandez the Chilean disaster management chief has resigned.
President-Elect Pinera has already appointed six new Regional Governors and they include those for the earthquake Regions. All in all it appears that the change is timely and the centre-right administration will restore the authority of both Carabinero and Ejercito de Chile. Chileans will return to a more self-disciplined society and be the better for it without going to the extremes of military rule. Life is difficult enough without seeing your friends and neighbors becoming looters and burning buildings which are your home and place of business.
The spirit of the Chilean people is outstanding and with good organization from the new government recovery should be successful. Congratulations to President Pinera and we wish his Administration and the people of Chile life's best.
Ms. Bachelet leaves office with an 84% popularity rating despite criticism of her government's slow reaction to the earthquake. Her family being victims of the Pinochet era she has always had problems dealing with the Ejercito de Chile and to a degree the Carabinero. This has led to a socialist reaction to the situations and it was only after 33 hours that she gave required orders to the Carabinero and Ejercito. The normally self-disciplined Chilean society has developed a certain freedom which unfortunately is a 'socialist freedom' and led to the looting after the earthquake. In turn this led to the formation by citizens of 'local protection militia' armed with shotguns to do the job which should have been done by the Carabinero and Ejercito.
Of course someone had to be made an example of, in true leftist style Ms. Bachelet dismissed the head of SHOA Commander Mariano Rojas Armada de Chile for 'failing to provide a clear warning of the tsunami'. Of course one should consider that if President Bachelet had acted promptly that might well have occurred since orders come from the top down not bottom up. Now a second Chilean official has left her post, Carmen Fernandez the Chilean disaster management chief has resigned.
President-Elect Pinera has already appointed six new Regional Governors and they include those for the earthquake Regions. All in all it appears that the change is timely and the centre-right administration will restore the authority of both Carabinero and Ejercito de Chile. Chileans will return to a more self-disciplined society and be the better for it without going to the extremes of military rule. Life is difficult enough without seeing your friends and neighbors becoming looters and burning buildings which are your home and place of business.
The spirit of the Chilean people is outstanding and with good organization from the new government recovery should be successful. Congratulations to President Pinera and we wish his Administration and the people of Chile life's best.
Monday, January 4, 2010
BLASPHEMY
The word conjures up the Medieval Era or the Spanish Inquisition and for many the Sharia Law of Islam. The word blasphemy is defined as "to speak impiously of", (presume of god). Therefore it is clearly a religious crime punishable within a particular religion by a religious decision. But therein lies the problem, whose god and what if one does not choose to believe in this "god". One would conclude that if one did not belong to a religious group then one was not affected.
In recent times there has been a quiet and skillful movement by a section of Islam, which has established itself in Western countries, to impose its believes and thus its laws. The law of Islam is Sharia Law which has clear views, that apply to followers of Islam, of what constitutes religious blasphemy. It also has severe punishment for those found guilty of this religious crime in Islam.
That was until last Friday January 01, 2010 in Ireland. Under a law which went into effect that day a person can be found guilty of blasphemy if " he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion".
The penalty is a fine of up to E25,000.
The group Atheist Ireland believes the law is outdated and unenforceable, we would agree with them adding that it is appallingly written and so vague as not to comply with the standards of Common Law as practised in Ireland. The existing blasphemy law in Ireland is under criminal offences and is so poorly written that prosecutions are not possible. In fact in 1999 the Supreme Court of Ireland dismissed a test case of the law as not being clearly defined.
Ireland's Constitution begins "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity" a clearly Christian reference, however the special position of the Catholic Church was removed by constitutional referendum in 1972 with a ban on divorce repealed in 1995.
It would seem that the persons responsible for writing and enacting this new law have written an equally vague law as the undefined original blasphemy law. One suspects that the followers of Islam and thus Sharia Law, have had an effective influence on now supposedly secular Ireland. They would appear to be the only religion that could possibly benefit from the passing of this blasphemy law.
When Ireland became a Free State that might have been the time to return to the Brehon Laws. These reflect Celtic Irish concepts, the approach to solving problems, and resolving issues more effectively perhaps than the imposed English Common Law. The Supreme Court of Ireland should address the issue immediately declaring this improper blasphemy law unconstitutional.
In recent times there has been a quiet and skillful movement by a section of Islam, which has established itself in Western countries, to impose its believes and thus its laws. The law of Islam is Sharia Law which has clear views, that apply to followers of Islam, of what constitutes religious blasphemy. It also has severe punishment for those found guilty of this religious crime in Islam.
That was until last Friday January 01, 2010 in Ireland. Under a law which went into effect that day a person can be found guilty of blasphemy if " he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion".
The penalty is a fine of up to E25,000.
The group Atheist Ireland believes the law is outdated and unenforceable, we would agree with them adding that it is appallingly written and so vague as not to comply with the standards of Common Law as practised in Ireland. The existing blasphemy law in Ireland is under criminal offences and is so poorly written that prosecutions are not possible. In fact in 1999 the Supreme Court of Ireland dismissed a test case of the law as not being clearly defined.
Ireland's Constitution begins "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity" a clearly Christian reference, however the special position of the Catholic Church was removed by constitutional referendum in 1972 with a ban on divorce repealed in 1995.
It would seem that the persons responsible for writing and enacting this new law have written an equally vague law as the undefined original blasphemy law. One suspects that the followers of Islam and thus Sharia Law, have had an effective influence on now supposedly secular Ireland. They would appear to be the only religion that could possibly benefit from the passing of this blasphemy law.
When Ireland became a Free State that might have been the time to return to the Brehon Laws. These reflect Celtic Irish concepts, the approach to solving problems, and resolving issues more effectively perhaps than the imposed English Common Law. The Supreme Court of Ireland should address the issue immediately declaring this improper blasphemy law unconstitutional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)