Lions, tigers and drones! Oh, My! (With regrets to the Wizard of Oz)

I've been away for awhile, because of some self imposed censorship, but I am back now to post whenever I feel like.

The last example of fear mongering comes from the NYTimes (which doesn't surprise) and the thing to fear is "Kids With Drones." In two articles in the NY Times today, (here and here), the great news god of the NYT tell us how scary amateurs–like wedding photographers, etc –who own drones are. That they might be used in the commission of (OMG!) pranks!

It seems to me that use of a drone to exercise your first amendment rights, would subject any attempts to curb their use in free expression a constitutional question subject to strict scrutiny under the least restrictive means test. You can't restrict someone's rights to use of their property to disseminate constitutionally protected speech, simply on the whim of a person who is scared–like the authors of the NYT articles clearly are for no good reason–and/or annoyed by the tools that people use to express their constitutional rights.

I am very annoyed by the presence of Pat Robertson and The 700 Club and their endless exercise of their constitutional rights to put their rhetoric out on the airwaves. So, can I have the FCC outlaw television, because annoying people like Robertson and his cronies over at the Christian Broadcasting Network are using TV to disseminate their drivel? No. In the case of drones, the drones are the televisions and are a means to disseminate constitutionally protected speech/expression.

Click on the links in the articles to what the NYT considers as unnecessarily frighting "pranks." In most of those instances, I see other ways of expression manifesting themselves. Short of assault, which some of them seem to cross the line into, I don't see anyway to suppress them legally, either.

Of course the first thing at the top of the page  is the video about the drone over the soccer game Balkans. The problem was with the people who, apparently, were upset that others didn't agree with them and took it out physically. The fans rioting just sounds like hooliganism.

PETA is selling drones, although they look about five years behind the curve on technology. Being as they are fixed wing, I am not sure how they could be used to track anyone who was poaching or legally hunting. Or how they could not be harassing wildlife. Flying a drone over a flock of waterfowl to scare them off would be illegal, too. (16 USC §742: j–l Harassing Wildlife; 16 USC §§703, 707 Pursuing a Migratory Bird)

If they are chasing poachers, I wouldn't count on the good will of a criminal not to shoot down their drone. And any drone would be of very limited usefulness in a thickly wooded area. That might be good, though doubt the pilots are skillful enough to keep from hitting a tree, eventually.

SOPA/PIPA

This is an absolute ‘must read’ post from the Techdirt website about SOPA.

The Hitler screaming about SOPA video that has been making the rounds is a 'meme.' Hitler has screamed about a lot of things over the years - changes in Xbox Live, et cetera

For more from Hitler on SOPA/Wikipedia Blackout/etc go here.

There is an exception in Copyright law called 'fair use.' You can use copyrighted material, to a limited degree, for several things - criticism and parody among them, (I would call the Hitler meme both criticism and parody). It remains to be seen what will happen to these types of videos IF SOPA is ever enforced.

A couple of years back, PA passed a law where any person could call the AG's office and claim a site was hosting kiddie porn. The AG had the power to order the web host for that site to take it down. Technically, the AG had to sue to have the sites taken down, but he intimidated most site providers into taking them down without due process. As many of the websites targeted by the AG were outside of PA, (the law only applied to people and sites "living" in PA, the take downs were attempted anywhere a PA citizens complained about a  website.), the method used to cut off PA's access to alleged 'kiddie porn' sites was IP blocking. Hundreds of websites are commonly hosted using one IP address. So, blocking a single IP address took down 100's of sites that weren't accused, much less proven, of having illegal content. The AG's method of enforcing the law, using IP blocking, shut down huge parts of the Internet to PA Internet users.

When PA's law was tested in court, the court held that blocking IPs was an infringement of freedom of speech and stopped the AG's office from  enforcing the law.  SOPA/PIPA are, largely, the PA law on steroids.

SOPA or PIPA are a long way away from getting out of congress and/or getting to the president's desk for his signature. Obama has already said he doesn't support SOPA. Even if Obama signs it, it will have to face judicial scrutiny. I don't see either of these laws coming anywhere near to being upheld as constitutional. There are a couple of centuries of precedent against them.(1)

No doubt the EFF, et al will file a lawsuit seeking a TRO blocking enforcement of the laws as soon as they are signed into law. The TRO will granted and the law will wend its way through the courts for years before it makes it to the Supreme Court. Keep in mind, the responsibility for defending the constitutionality of laws lies with the United States Solicitor General, who acts on behalf of the president - a president who doesn't support SOPA/PIPA.

I would say we are, at least, five to ten years, or more, away from the law making it to the Supreme Court - if it makes it that far.

This law is one of those, "Too Bad to Be True" things that comes along every once in a great while. The bills are junk. They constitute an attempt by the RIAA/MPAA to get the US government to support their antiquated business model.

Enforcement would be a nightmare. The Internet was designed in time when there was still a real possibility of nuclear war in some politicians' fevered imagination. At the time, networking protocols were designed so that both the sending and receiving networks had to be up and running for a message to be sent or received. Using TCP/IP protocols designed by ARPA, (Advanced Research Projects Administration–i.e.; the US government), only the sending network had to be 'up'. If part of the network between the sending and receiving network was down or damaged, (as might happen in a nuclear war), TCP/IP routed the message around the damage(1) and followed whatever route was available to get to the recipient.

The Internet will see what SOPA/PIPA are doing as 'damage' and route around it. Trying to stop this will constitute a high tech version of hide and seek*. One route will be closed, the traffic will route around it, et cetera. Meanwhile, the RIAA/MPAA will be chasing right after it in a futile attempt to stop the Internet from doing what it is designed to do. And spending millions to do it. (Eventually, they will, probably, try to make a law to stop the “Internet” from using TCP/IP protocols.)

Once MPAA/RIAA has the authority, they will start shutting down websites(2), they will have to continuously chase the information around the Internet. When the power is given to a private entity, (Corporations are people, too - Mitt the Nitt), to implement any type of censorship, it will be abused. Let me say that, again, IT WILL BE ABUSED. To stifle dissent. To blackmail other companies. To prevent competition. It is incredibly naive to believe these laws will only be used to “control” online privacy.

 Considering how many people make their living off the Internet(3), this scheme is totally impractical. (Buying and selling goods and services on the Internet equals taxes paid. No matter how much their buddies at the RIAA/MPAA donate to members of congress, they aren't going to cut a source of tax revenue.) Furthermore, it will cost the RIAA/MPAA millions of dollars to do this. It's a zero sum game. One they cannot win. (Which is why they keep trying to pass these obscenely stupid laws.)

I, personally, hope they try to do it. I would love to see them spend millions of dollars trying to perpetuate a business model that has been dead for 15 years, at least.

Needless to say, this post is copyright 2012 by me. If you copy it, use it, quote it, even think about it without paying me, I will have you thrown in jail and sue you for all the money you, and your kids, will EVER have.

Just kidding. I don't think that way. But, congress does think that way… (actually congress thinks any way the RIAA/MPAA tells them to think)

Footnotes 1 through 3 are from: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111122/04254316872/definitive-post-why-sopa-protect-ip-are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml

(1)"Finally, even if you disagree with all of that, and believe that the problem is enforcement, SOPA and PIPA, won't be effective in dealing with that. The internet always has a way of routing around "damage" no matter how hard people try to stop it, and the approach put forth by these bills is a joke. It's hard to find anyone with technology skills who thinks that they will be effective. Every "blockade" has an easy path around it, and the supposed "anti-circumvention" rule in SOPA will never deal with the more obvious paths around things like DNS blocking (use a different DNS or a perfectly legal foreign VPN system)." {emphasis added}

(2)"Even worse, it appears that Universal Music also included the personal website of one of its own top artists, 50Cent. The hiphop star has a personal website as well as a website owned by Universal Music. The personal website is much more popular... and it appeared on the infringement list. Suddenly, you can see how letting companies declare what sites are dedicated to infringement can lead to them looking to stifle speech and competition." 

(3)"That uncertainty has very real and quantifiable effects on jobs in this country. President Obama has noted that the internet adds approximately $2 trillion to the annual GDP (pdf). The amount of jobs created by the tech industry are massive, and represent a large percentage of all new job creation today. IDC has predicted 7.1 million new jobs and 100,000 new businesses created in the next four years from the tech sector. An astounding 3.1 million people are employed thanks to internet advertising -- jobs that simply did not exist a decade ago." {emphasis in original}

*I was going to say, "Wack-a-small, underground rodent", rather than hide and Seek. However, since I have seen the "Wack-a-small, underground rodent" game at Chuck E. Cheese, I am assuming Chuck holds a copyright on the phrase.

There is no way I want to take on that large rat, (also known as a large, above ground rodent), that works for Chuck.

You see, this is 'self-censorship.'

Why Bother to Arrest People When You Can Pepper Spray them????

The Chancellor of University of California at Davis has placed two police persons on on “paid leave" and suspended Annette Spicuzza(1), the chief of the police department. The ‘leaves’ stem from the actions of John Pike(2) identified as a “Lieutenant”(3) in the UCDavis police department, casually spraying non-violent protestors with pepper spray as a first, and only, attempt to get them to disperse.

Its about time. However, I doubt anything will happen to them. The UCD administration is, probably, hoping to wait out the whole “Occupy” movement. Then they can quietly drop the investigation of this monster and his minions and, hopefully for them, no one will notice. Any civil suits arising from this mess will, of course, be vigorously defended at taxpayers’ expense. And the taxpayers will be responsible for paying the judgments when the university loses.

The thing that really upsets me about this whole thing is the casual and completely unnecessary way in which Pike sprayed a very small number of non-violent students who were blocking a sidewalk. It seems to me, it is becoming more and more common for police to start at the top of the chain of non-lethal force to get people to stop doing what they don’t like. 

In the past, we have seen police escalate the level of violence used to quell demonstrations that ‘disturbed the peace.’ It starts with carrying off protestors and using tear gas to disperse crowds. Then it escalates to batons and pepper spray. Then to the use of deadly force.

Now, seemingly without concern or respect for the law, cops start at the top and use violent, non-lethal force on non-violent protestors. They don’t even try to get things under control without using pepper spray, batons, rubber bullets or bean bags shot fired from shotguns. Most cops shown suppressing the protests look like they believe what the protestors are doing is a personal affront.(4) Other cops just look like they were just waiting for an excuse to beat the hell out of somebody, and the protestors were as good as anyone else.

This has obvious implications for free speech and the right to assemble peaceably. It, pretty much, means - if you say/do anything the cops don’t like, they get to beat you over the head with a baton, shoot rubber bullets at you or pepper spray you. Free speech still flourishes outside of the “OWS’ protests but is becoming less and less free. Once you band together to demand changes; the cops make your individual liberties disappear and get to beat the hell out of you, as a side benefit.

I have to ask, how long before the government calls out the National Guard(5) and they start shooting protestors with real bullets? In this day and age technology has advanced so far that the massacre at Kent State in 1970 will look like a walk in the park. These advances in technology, coupled with the complete lack of regard for the law and absolutely no accountability, could spell the end of freedom of assembly and speech.

I guess my point is, there appears to be no control of the police and zero accountability. They seem to act with impunity. And they act violently with inappropriate amounts of force against anyone and everyone at the protests. Cops have never been very big on accountability, nor do they care much for individual civil liberties. Now, the don’t even seem to understand their role in our ‘free’ society.

There used to be a ‘check’ on police in that some of them refused to inflict pain on others unnecessarily. Unfortunately, with the advent of cop 2.0, all sense of moral and legal control have been abandoned.

These are dark days for the republic.

As an aside, Fox news commentator Megyn Kelly went on Bill O’Reilly’s show on Fox News to discuss the incident. Kelly described pepper spray as “...essentially, a food product.” O’Reilly had already chimed in yet another example of his total stupidity and ignorance by asking if pepper spray ‘burned your eyes'. Both Kelly and O’Reilly are a new breed of idiots who use their positions to express opinions about something they know exactly nothing about.

1. Spicuzza told the Sacramento Bee (http://bit.ly/sKoP5t) that police used the pepper spray after they were surrounded. Protestors were warned repeatedly beforehand that force would be used if they didn’t move, she said. There was no way out of that circle. They were cutting the officers off from their support. It’s a very volatile situation.”  Here's a video of her 'justification' for the use of pepper spray. I have to say that Ms. Spicuzza's impression of the events try the imagination of any reasonable, rational and sane person. The reporter's conclusion that the use of force was necessary is laughable.
2. Mr. Pike has been warned by the hackivist group "Anonymous" to cease his illegal activities. As an aside, I can't believe they pay this bozo $116,000 a year in salary...
3. Why do cops persist in adopting these military titles for themselves? Isn’t it enough to say this person is a supervisor? It’s like the widespread adoption of the Smokey the Bear hats by cops - as used by drill sergeants in the military. The real downside with these hats for cops is everyone, but the bozo wearing the hat, realizes it makes the cop look like something out of a Saturday morning cartoon.
4. Given the large amount of money given to the NYPD by big business, it looks like the cops were ‘bought’ and paid for. They had to do what their benefactors wanted. In other words, they were no longer cops, but had become mercenaries.
5. Can’t do that. All the National Guard are in Afghanistan, oppressing political and sectarian religious insurrection. In Afghanistan, if you don’t think like George W. Bush and a soldier is nearby, count on getting your beliefs controlled with a couple hundred rounds from an M2 machine gun. Since we can’t call out the National Guard, we’ll just have to ‘up arm’ the police so they can suppress dissent with the use of deadly force.

Blogger: Narcotic Analgesics are All "Bad"

Disclaimer: These are my opinions. I am not being critical of the blogger. I am not trying to denigrate their concerns. They are entitled to their opinions, feelings, beliefs and statements. They may be justifiably concerned, if someone is selling any kind of drugs at their child's school.

A blogger, who shall remain nameless, posted a 'rant' against narcotic analgesics and the people that use them. The 'rant' was precipitated by their child alleging that a classmate was offering a "wide variety of narcotic pain killers" for sale.

This type of 'rant' really annoys me. They seem, almost universally, to be based on fear rather than reality.

Some declarative statements were made in the post. I find these statements to be fairly common in these types of rants. Let's look at the (paraphrased) statements:

Prescription drug abuse is new and didn't happen in the past.

Prescription drug abuse is as old as the history of drugs. The DEA would like us to believe that prescription drug abuse is new. It isn't.

Prescription drugs ruin lives.

People ruin their own lives. People make decisions to use, or not use, a substance. 

"Drugs" are inanimate objects. By themselves, they have no positive or negative value. Describing 'drugs' as ruining people's lives shifts the emphasis from the person - who can, with help, work, effort, etc  change their behavior - to inanimate objects. Nothing you can do will change inanimate objects. Blaming the medicine, while holding the user blameless, is not particularly helpful nor does it constitute a solution.

Other people can, without any further information, know that people don't need narcotic analgesics.

To some, the use of narcotic analgesics is disturbing and frightening. One person's fear does not justify a blanket condemnation of these substances or the denial of their use to people who need them. People do need narcotic analgesics,(see here and here). People do need them over the long term. To deny people the use of substances required to allow them to function in society without pain is cruel. Moreso, if the denial of the medications is based on prejudice.

Go to a chronic pain clinic and watch the people who come there for relief. The people who live, day in and day out, with severe chronic pain. These people are not any more 'terminal' than anyone else. Denying them the opportunity to control their pain, because something 'bad' might happen, is barbaric and unspeakably cruel. We don't choose objects over people in our society. We don't let some suffer to ally the fears of others.

I can appreciate that 'drugs' scare some people. Fear mongering helps keep people 'in line.' Generally, I find that education is the best solution for fear.

Prescription drug abuse is more prevalent than illicit drug abuse.

Setting aside the reality that abuse of drugs prescribed by medical practitioners is as old as prescription drugs: The current 'myth' of prescription drug abuse was written by the Drug Enforcement Administration in the late '90's. The DEA was having trouble quantifying the effect that $8.5 billion was having on the trafficking and use of illicit drugs.

Since the couldn't quantify the effect that they were having on illicit drugs, the DEA decided to shift their emphasis to prescription drugs. Doctors and pharmacists keep records, illegal drug dealers don't. Viola! The myth of prescription drug abuse is born and the government starts throwing money at it.

Oxycodone, (the active ingredient in 'OxyContin' like drugs), converts into 'morphine' in the blood.

Oxycodone breaks down into online congeners of oxycodone – it breaks down into free oxycodone, oxycodone, conjugated oxymorphone and nonoxycodone. It doesn't break down into morphine.

I am not so sure what the point is to this statement; although it is frequently made. The word, 'morphine' seems to strike fear into the hearts of many uneducated people. I have no idea why.

Doctor's who prescribe narcotic analgesics are being irresponsible.

I worked in emergency medicine for 30 years and took care of thousands of patients, I couldn't make that statement with any degree of confidence. In my experience, generalizations aren't helpful, nor practical, in the practice of medicine.

If one rejects the reality that some people legitimately need narcotic analgesics, then there might be a basis for this statement. However, the standard of practice requires that pain relief be a consideration when creating a patient care plan(1). Failing to adequately address a patient's need for pain relief is below the standard of practice - i.e.; negligent. Failure to address a patient's need for pain control is not just irresponsible, it is negligent.

And barbaric.

As an aside, the Food & Drug Administration recently allowed manufacturers of oxycontin-like medications to increase production of these medications by 1,200%. Rendering this either the largest conspiracy in history to push prescription meds, or proof there is a legitimate use for this product.  

As to the issue of a 12 year old showing up with a variety of prescription narcotic analgesics to sell. Why would someone who had prescription narcotic analgesics, which can be very valuable, give them to a 12 year old to try to sell to other kids around the same age who don't have any money?

Did the blogger actually see the medications the child alleged he was offered? Were the child's statements supported by any objective evidence or statements from adults? Or was he just exaggerating? Was anything done to determine whether the child's story was true...

(1)

"...pain “is undertreated in the American health-care system at all levels: physician offices, hospitals, longterm care facilities. The result is needless suffering for patients, complications that cause further injury or death, and added costs in treatment overall.”

http://www.painandthelaw.org/malpractice/index.php

What Romney's Church Believes: Polygamy

The LDS' position on polygamy is interesting. If the LDS hadn't given up polygamy, they would just be another fringe religion scraping out a living of lizards and rattlesnakes in the desert. The LDS didn't want to give up polygamy,  (it took two manifestos(1) to get the majority of mainstream mormons to abandon the practice and, even then, it is problematic whether some actually did give it up). 

Bringham Young dug his heels in and insisted, vehemently, that polygamy was a right guaranteed by the first amendment of the constitution. They fought it all the way, then caved when it was expedient. What most mormons seem to fail to realize is, making a big fight over polygamy, and then giving up polygamy, is the only way they ever could have become the church they are today.

If they hadn't caved on the issue of polygamy, we wouldn't be talking about whether Mitt Romney was fit to be president. Mitt Romney couldn't be elected to any public office if he were a multi-generational polygamist or the LDS still practiced 'physical' polygamy. It just wouldn't happen. (Romney's family are multi-generational polygamists. Romney is only separated by two generations from polygamy.)

What most people don't realize is that the mainstream LDS have not given up on polygamy. Rather, they have just limited their belief in polygamy to 'spiritual polygamy.' 

When couple gets married in the temple. They are sealed together for "all eternity." If they subsequently obtain a civil divorce (LDS will swear up and down that they have a lower divorce rate among their members than society at large. In truth, it is about equal with society at large.), what happens to the sealing?(2)

I grew up in  a largely mormon community. I saw tens of people who got married in the temple get civilly divorced. I always wondered, and used to kid my mormon friends about, whether there was a 'temple divorce' to go with the 'temple marriage.' There is. The woman has to petition the First Presidency to be 'un-sealed' to her ex-husband. I wonder how many women go to the trouble of appealing to Salt Lake City for an 'un-sealing'? Likely, not many.

After the divorce, the women remains 'sealed' to her ex-husband. If the world were to end or she were to die, she would end up with the guy she just dumped for eternity on his own planet, where he rules as a 'god'. This sucks for the woman. A woman can get un-sealed if she gets married again and her first husband agrees to 'un-seal' her. Then she can be sealed to the second husband forever. Otherwise, she can't go with the new guy to his planet when they die. If the women never re-marries, she CAN'T get unsealed from her ex unless the first presidency agrees. What happens to women who never marry is questionable. Not having a husband, one must assume they are relegated to lower levels of heaven in mormon cosmology.

Marriage is everything for a mormon. EVERYTHING. If you are not married, you don't get to participate fully in the church.

The LDS is completely patriarchal in nature. The men call the shots on everything. Women mean nothing. A man can force a woman to spend eternity with him, even if she thinks he is a total jerk, abusive, etc. 

Viola! Spiritual polygamy.

So, has the LDS really given up polygamy? I doubt it…

(1) The first manifesto was issued in 1890 and, essentially, ignored by the church leadership. Plural marriages continued to be performed and the official church policy was that you didn't have kick any of your wives out after the manifesto. 

The second manifesto was issued in 1904, because the 1890 manifesto didn't have the desired effect.

(2) http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm "Once sealed to a wife, a man remains sealed to her for all eternity. If he divorces his first wife and marries a second, he is not allowed to cancel the sealing to his first wife. The church regards that to cancel the sealing would be unfair: it would remove blessings from his first wife. He has the option of remaining sealed to his first wife, while being married to his second wife only until death ocurrs. At that time, he would remiain married to his first wife but not his second. Alternately, he could also get sealed to his new wife and remain married to both in the afterlife."

Racism in the LDS Church

I have been spending time reviewing the political  and religious rhetoric surrounding Mitt Romney's run for president.


The accusation of racism is frequently raised against the LDS and, now, against Romney. With just cause. Racism in the church is institutional.(1) It's in their 'scripture,' (Book of Mormon). This letter shows that many mormons not only tolerate the racism in the BOM, but practice it openly.


This post refers to a letter from Delbert Stapley, a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, to George Romney, (Mitt's father), when he was governor of Michigan in 1964. After he had made a pro-civil rights speech.


In the letter, Romney is scolded for not adhering to church dogma about what Stapley called 'negroes'(2). 


"When I reflect upon the prophet's statements and remember what happened to three of our nation's presidents who were very active in the negro cause, I am sobered by their demise."


Apparently, Stapley thinks championing civil rights will lead to one's demise. Even if you are president of the United States.(3) Why? Because Bringham Young said so. (He doesn't elaborate which presidents he is talking about, but I would think Lincoln and Kennedy would fit in this category. I have no idea who the third might be. If you know, please leave a comment so I can update this post.)


"A friend of mine... ...a great champion of the colored race... ...to see if the Lord would not lift the curse from the colored race and give them the privileges of the Priesthood... This friend of mine met a very tragic end by drowning."


I have a t-shirt with a carton by Gary Larson on it. The cartoon shows 'god' at his computer. On the keyboard, there is a key labeled, "Smite." Apparently, Smith has access to this computer, too, and uses it to smite people who advocate for racial equality in society.


"I am sure you know that the Prophet Joseph Smith... proposed to congress that they sell public lands and buy up the Negro slaves and transport them back to Africa... I am sure the Prophet... ...foresaw the problems we are faced with today with this race, which caused him to promote this program."


This statement is badly flawed for several reasons: 


It is vehemently racist on its face.


The plantation owners in America wouldn't have sold their free labor force to anyone to ship back to Africa. The southern economy was dependent on cotton. Cotton farming was labor intensive. Using the slaves to perform 'free' labor was the only way cotton farming was profitable. The southern farmers wouldn't have 'sold' their slaves to the government, or anyone else. Their economy was dependent upon slaves.


The idea that this insight attributed to Joseph Smith, Jr. foretold the problems that were vexing the US as we crawled towards racial equality 100 years after the civil war is preposterous. The point to this statement is to keep the slaves/blacks right where he wanted them - in subjugation.


"I cannot... accept the idea of public accommodations; the taking from the whites their wishes to satisfy they negroes. (sic) I do not have any objection to recognizing the Negro in his place and giving him every opportunity for education..."


Stapley is willing to support the emancipation of blacks from a repressive, racist society, as long as they remained in their place.


"It is not right to force any class or race of people upon those of a different social order or race classification. People are happier when placed in the environment and association of like interests, racial instincts, habits and natural groupings."


Stapley was not only opposed to civil rights for all, he felt he was arbiter of how people should live and what would make them happy. This practice - of knowing what is good for people better than they do themselves - has remained in the LDS church in many forms. Some as pernicious as institutional racism.


"I am not against a Civil Rights Bill if it conforms to the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith. ...the Negro is entitled to considerations... ...but not full social benefits or inter-marriage privileges with the Whites... ...nor should the whites be forced to accept them into restricted White areas."


These 'beliefs' are being recycled wholesale to justify oppression and denial of civil rights to gay persons - human beings and citizens of the United States.


This statement shows how the mormon church felt that the measure of progress in society should be how well it conforms to the prophesies of Joseph Smith, Jr. It is a perfect example of how the LDS feels it is appropriate to force their religious beliefs on other, non-mormon, citizens under the color of law.(4) This is another example of why Mitt Romney shouldn't hold any public office, even that of dogcatcher...


"We must understand and recognize their status and then, accordingly, provide for them. I just don't think we can get around the Lord's position in relation to the Negro without punishment for our acts;... ...The Lord will not permit His purposes to be frustrated by man."


In these statements, Stapley moves from believing the Joseph Smith, Jr. had all the answers to calling the "Lord" a racist who wanted to oppress blacks. God is racist? And agrees with mormon social policies?


Finally, the letter ends with the statement: "This letter is for your personal use only (also Lenore), and is not to be used in any other way."


I am sure many mormons would say that the last paragraph shows that Stapley's views were his own and did not reflect the views of the LDS. Stapley doesn't say that his views are the views of the church. Earlier, Stapley says that the prophet is the only one that can speak for the church. However, this letter is on LDS stationary and, therefore, must speak for the church.


So, are we to believe that Stapley went rogue and misstated church beliefs and policy? Hardly. Everything, (except the part where Stapley infers the "Lord" is a racist), is based on the prophesies of the Joseph Smith, Jr. The only way the church could distance themselves from this is to say they don't believe what Smith said... Fat chance...


Distribution:


It is easy to believe, in the pre-Internet early '60's, that Stapley believed that his typewritten letter would never see the light of day. The means to spread information in 1964 was limited to the mails. All information relating to the church is carefully controlled by the church. Somehow, I don't think the church appreciates this letter being brought to the attention of the millions who have connections to the Internet. That this letter should surface 47 years later shows that nothing that gets out of one person's hands will ever remain private for any length of time. Your speech, your writing, your actions all have the potential to come back and bite you in the ass...


Conclusion:


Don't even consider voting for Romney for president.


(1) Bringham Young was an unapologetic racist… who's interpretation of scripture institutionalized racism within the LDS church. Under his leadership, Utah became a slave territory and the mormon church supported the aims of the confederacy during the civil war. 

Krakauer, Jon; Under the Banner of Heaven; Anchor Books; 2004; footnote, page 209

(2) All use of the word, 'negro'  and 'colored' arise from the original text of the letter.


(3) Apparently, there is some basis in LDS history for what Stapley says/believes – as Bringham Young put it in 1851: "…any President of the United States who lifts his finger against this people shall die an untimely death and go to hell."


(4) Bringham Young, upon establishing the mormon stronghold in the Great Basin, set out to dis-empower the federal government in his new theocracy. He usurped the federal courts by " …radically expanding the powers of the local probate courts, which Bringham controlled, thereby usurping the jurisdiction of the federal government. Most probate judges were mormon bishops, and the juries who assembled in their courtrooms were made up almost entirely of good mormons who obediently based their verdicts on instructions received from church leaders.


Krakauer, Jon; Under the Banner of Heaven; Anchor Books; 2004; footnote, page 208

Vietnam vs. Afghanistan...

Vietnam War Hearings

Madison, Wisconsin

30-31 July 1965

What follows is the testimony of Louise Smalley,  a housewife at the hearings -

After hearing about the hearings, I felt it my duty to speak out my concerns. I have four children and am a housewife. I have never done anything political, other than voting, and I am not particularly interested in politics, but I do read the papers and I am confused by the news. I talk to people and I don’t like what I hear.

If this war is so unpredictable and goes on for six  years, seven years, decades, my children can be drawn into this horror.

I have read and heard about some of the atrocities and it is unbearable for me to know that our boys are taught and made to use napalm and phosphorous bombs.

I try to teach my children the value of individual human worth and I don’t want this destroyed by my country.

I do not have a solution to the war, but I do want a solution and I want you to find it.

The War at Home

(Vietnam)

1979

This statement is significant for several reasons:

Since 1965, mothers have gone from thinking that war is a ‘horror’ and that they don’t want their children to be made to participate in it to a minimum age for recruitment into the army of 17*, with parental consent, and 18 without.** (Regular Army/Army Reserve Enlistment: Must be at least 17 years old... Page 2, 2011-2012 Pocket Recruiter Guide, issued by the US Army. Available for viewing here.)

We now have military recruiting in public schools. ROTC, (Reserve Officer Training Corp), has returned to our institutions of higher education. (ROTC returned to Harvard after the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’) We now recruit enlistees from foreign countries. 

In other words, the American military recruit just about anybody with a pulse, regardless of their age. Even if they are child soldiers , which the United Nations called “An affront to humanity.” 

Forty-six years after the initial escalation of the Vietnam war, the 17 year olds signing up for the military in 2011 are not hindered by parents who don’t want their children involved in the ‘horror’ of war and who don’t mind the government ‘destroying’ their teachings of the “value of individual human worth.” (If the recruits' parents have even taught them of the value of the lives of people who do share their politics, color, ethnicity or religion.)

We have fallen from a moral nation to an immoral nation that kills people over natural resources and bizarre political beliefs. An immoral nation that continues to recruit 17 and 18 year olds to kill people because war profiteers in our country will lose money if we stop.  A nation that gladly signs over their children, the cream of our current generation, to kill others - an atrocity - for money to go to college.

What does this say about us, as a nation? That we value natural resources and forcing people to believe and behave like us over the lives of our children? That war mongers and war profiteers are more important than all lives in conflict areas - including American?

In 1965, Mrs. Smalley believed the Vietnam War could go on for 6-7 years or decades. 

It is difficult to peg how long the Vietnam War lasted. American intervention in Vietnam started very early in the 1960’s; some say as early as 1954. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was issued in August of 1967.  American involvement in the Vietnam was ended in 1973 by the Paris Peace Accords. The war continued until the fall of South Vietnam in April of 1975. By that time, although we maintained a presence in Vietnam, (like we do in Iraq, despite the fact that war is ‘over’.), we were not - officially - involved.

It was six years - 1967 to 1973 - from the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to the Paris Peace Accords. We were clearly involved in ground combat in Vietnam before then. The 1/7th Air Cavalry was ordered to Vietnam in 1966 and stayed there until 1971. This meant the Vietnam War was, arguably, 7 years long.

A seven year war was unacceptable to Mrs. Smalley. A ten year war in Afghanistan is, apparently, acceptable to parents who sign their children up, or allow their children to sign up, to kill Afghanis for money to go to college.

Mrs. Smalley didn’t have a solution to the Vietnam War and she wanted the government to find it. 

It took the US government and the government of North Vietnam until 1973 to find a “solution” to the war in Vietnam. And then it wasn’t a real solution, it was a way to withdraw Americans from ground combat and aerial operations. (See references to the Paris Peace Accords, above. The Accords, supposedly, brought 'peace with honor')

The US government has not gotten any better at solving conflicts since 1973 - over 30 years ago. In fact, it has gotten worse. 


Apparently, there is widespread acceptance - among republicans and democrats - in Washington of the ‘long war.’ A war in which we will engage our ‘enemies’, (whether, in fact, they are our ‘enemies’), on multiple fronts, in multiple countries, with no plans to prevail and, most certainly, no exit strategy from any of these conflicts. A war where the military industrial complex is getting rich feeding our children into the meat grinders in Afghanistan and, to a lesser extent, Iraq.

Perhaps an incursion into Afghanistan was necessary after 9/11. I know it wasn’t, but let’s look at what has happened in the ensuing 10 years...

We went to Afghanistan to ‘get’ Osama Bin Laden. Except we weren’t very good at it. It took us ten years and billions of dollars. Ten years. And then we found him living openly in Pakistan. After Bin Laden was captured, instead of bringing him to justice, giving him the due process guaranteed by the US Constitution,*** we killed him and, supposedly, dumped his body in the ocean.

Despite the fact our stated reason for going into Afghanistan was to find Bin Laden, we have made no plans to withdraw from Afghanistan since his capture and death. In fact, we are making preparations to spend billions of dollars more to continue the ‘long war’ in Afghanistan. 


This leads me to believe that the focus, after 9/11, shifted from finding Bin Laden to something else. Who knows what the focus of the US government shifted to - because they have articulated no strategic goal and have no exit strategy.

Mrs. Smalley would be appalled at the length of our war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Appalled at the use of child soldiers. She would, also, be asking the government to find a ‘solution’ to getting us out of the war in Afghanistan. Fat chance.

Things have changed, dramatically, since Mrs. Smalley testified before the hearings on the Vietnam war in Madison, WI in 1967. They have gotten markedly worse.

And there is no end in sight.

*Unbelievably, the British recruit children as young as 16 into their military. This is barbaric.

**The age for the draft, (conscription), during Vietnam varied. In 1951, the Universal Military Training and Service Act reduced the age for the draft to 18 1/2 years. The Military Selective Service Act of 1967 further lowered the age for registration for the draft, and induction into the army, to 18. Subsequently, during the Vietnam War, a child had to be either 18 1/2 or 18 to be drafted, depending upon whether they were drafted before or after 1967.

***Some say it would have been impossible to bring Bin Laden to justice. I say, “bullshit.” 

In 1960, the Israelis, arguably, committed what was, essentially, an act of war against Argentina when they inserted covert Mossad operators into the country who captured Adolf Eichmann, questioned him extensively and then spirited him out of the country.

They took Eichmann back to Israel, where he received due process - a fair trial - and was convicted. Then they executed Eichmann, cremated him and dumped his ashes in the Mediterranean Sea with the full knowledge of the citizens of Israel and the world.

Eichmann was responsible for carrying out Reinhard Heydrich’s “final solution to the Jewish problem” formulated by Nazi Germany at the Wannsee Conference in 1942. Eichmann is directly responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews and 5 million others in the Holocaust. Compared to Eichmann, Bin Laden is an amateur. 

The Israelis captured Eichmann in a matter of months after locating him. Without killing thousands of citizens of Argentina and spending billions of dollars. Was the Mossad more capable in the 1960 than the CIA is today? I’d say they are.

If the Israelis could try a monster like Eichmann; 68 years later why couldn't the US government try a lesser monster, Osama Bin Laden?