CNN IBN: M.F. Hussain Debate

Dear Annie,

I just watched CNN IBN debate on whether India should bring back M.F. Hussain. I was surprised to see the shameless manner in which the hostess was trying hard to sensationalise the issue. In order to achieve the same, she was not only trying to put words in Jayanti Natrajan’s (one of participant) mouth and suddenly started talking about eroticism and indian art.

Infact, I think that neither M.F. Hussain nor any of us want to discuss about nude mother india or goddess issue here. It is this sensationalism urge of media people that this issue has been alive for so long. I dont know the original intend of Mr. Hussain for painting these figures this way. One can guess in the most obvious manner that it was his own creativity and he had the liberty to do so. And, if one decides to go further (under the liberty of a common man to express his views) and examine the other possible reasons on the part of various parties including Mr. Hussain, it can unravel various shades of grey.

Moreover, I seriously doubt Mr. Hussain will be exteremely pleased to know that his self proclaimed saviour’s are now labelling him an erotic maestro. I am strongly against media involved in sensationalising issues which are highly deprecated and have no relevance as such. The point here is to realise that issues involving an individual’s liberty for expression should not take a trajectory into somebody else’s liberty to percieve things in a manner close to their hearts. An artist’s work that too a professional artist’s is subject to a lot of publicity and has the potential to hurt sentiments of other people involved. And, one person’s liberty cannot be defended to curb the liberty of several other people simply because the painter involved is a very famous or world renowned artist.  Many people besides media people and artist community do run a lot of faith in godly figures and stand for hours before respective worship places for their blessings. They believe them to be their procreator and as such think of them as their parents. I would question people arguing the case (Mr. Hussain is not fighting it) that how many of them would like their mother’s or sisters painted in nude and labelled Mrs . XYZ or Ms. XYZ. My point is that it hurts a lot..atleast to a common person who looks upto these figures in every circumstance of his life as their saviour. It strongly annoys when their saviour’s are attacked by so called saviour’s of individual liberty in the name of creativity and freedom of expression.

I know that morality behind  whether we should allow the kind of expression which hurts the sentiments of other people, is highly debatable. We all know that….the point is to have restrain from both sides. It will involve desensitising people about these religious issues and a restrain on the part of the artists. And, for god’s sake media should not jump into this. 

Yours

Mr. D

LIBERTY: A slender thread!

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=612

Celebrate the Constitution by Becoming an Activist

By John W. Whitehead

9/14/2009

*** begin quote ***

   “I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state; up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better to have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake.”–Thomas Paine, 1776

Federal law mandates that all high schools, colleges and universities across the country that receive federal funds host educational events about the Constitution on Constitution Day, September 17. There will also be various festivities in Washington, DC, and in some communities across America celebrating the Constitution.

*** end quote ***

A scrap of paper is all that stands between us and the camps!

# # # # #

Racism: More Than A Word

Let’s say a white man were president and he had the same ideology as Obama, would the response by those patriots have been the same? You bet your sweet buns. Why? Because we love our country and don’t need anyone apologizing for her, we love our Constitution and are tired of both parties disregarding it after they swore on oath to protect it, and we also treasure our liberty which entails us, as individuals, to be responsible for ourselves, and not being slaves to any government.

Now that I have made my case as to why we oppose this president and it has nothing to do with race, we are called ‘racists’ because we disagree with the status quo (that being to agree with everything they believe in even though we do not).

When you call someone a ‘racist’, please make sure they are indeed a ‘racist’. It is the same as when a woman cries ‘rape’ after the fact because she is mad and it turns out not to be true. What happens to her when she is actually raped? That’s correct. People do not believe her. Worse than that, if there could be a worse, is the fact that it sets all women in a bad light. We have to fight very hard to get back to where we started from because of this.

When there is true racism, I want to know about it. I want it eradicated from our country. How can this happen when people like Maureen Dowd use this term so irresponsibly and often? She is not the only one by far, just the most recent.

Racism is a very hateful, ignorant, violent indecency that has plagued this nation long ago and sadly, still exists in some hearts. It is real, it is violent, it is ugly, and it should never be used as a means of shutting up the opposition when you have no other argument. Disagreeing with someone is not racist. You cannot judge another person’s words on your own perception of them. Maybe you are harboring something we should know about?

Well Maureen, you are very unintelligent and harmful to the actual meaning of the word ‘racism’. Because you give it so little thought or credence, you diminish the word. Is it because you live in a glass house? Is it because you have never slept with a black man? Yes, I said that. If you had, you might understand that racism is real and you don’t go throwing words like that around on a whim.

Racism is so serious that it scars people for life. As I was growing up, I was called a n******-lover. That is only half true. I loved a black man (he was a REAL man), and I wasn’t going to allow people like you to interfere with my life no matter how uncomfortable it made you feel. Did you ever stop to give a damn how you made me feel? No, you never did.

And now you’re trying to make up for it? You’re barking up the wrong tree, witch. If you only know how much I would rather use the other word! It is fitting, but I would like to think I’m above that. I know I’m not always, but at least I can admit it. Can you?

May you walk with the LORD always, and when you cannot take another step, may He carry you the rest of the way until you can walk along side Him again.

Cross-posted @ Rosemary’s Thoughts. Digg!

The ISA To My CRB

Well, I know it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, but I shouldn't admit to that or I'll be getting barred from working with children and vulnerable adults...

The government likes its three letter acronyms.

A few years ago, in response to the Bichard Inquiry, Labour decided to implement a brand new “vetting and barring” scheme.

As usual, it was a typical Whitehall reinvention of the wheel. The government already had its own vetting and barring scheme. It had existed for a long time in the guise of things like List 99, a central list of undesirable people that we didn’t want working with children, based on criminal records and intelligence.

But this was insufficient. The government decided it would be better farmed out to an “independent” agency.

The Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) was born.

Why a new agency? It has long been suspected that the real reason behind this outsourcing was so that the government could wash their hands of responsibility. The government’s calculation was that, one day, an abuse would again occur involving a person not on List 99 – such as what happened with Ian Huntley. Too many questions were already being asked as to why Huntley slipped through the net, some of them rather uncomfortable (e.g. the case of Kim Howells clearing a registered sex offender for a PE teacher’s job). So taking these kind of decisions out of the hands of politicians would, indeed, be politically desirable.

The problem here is that many years earlier, the government created an agency to collate and try to ensure that the system was much tighter. It was called the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB).  Charged with issuing Disclosures on people, based upon nationwide police criminal records checks and intelligence, it is, ostensibly, a neutral organisation which provides employers with information and allows them to take the final decision based on what they receive back from the check.

While they are subtly different – ISA takes decisions on people’s suitability, but the CRB only provides the information required for the decision – they were still overlapping sufficiently that, at first, the CRB were told to prepare to take on the new vetting and barring scheme. They did so, spending money and time in the process. After all, they were ideally placed to deal with this new function in-house. They

Then the government pulled the plug and decided that a new layer of bureaucracy was exactly what the country needed.

This woeful tale is yet another example of the failure of modern politics.

Firstly, the  creation of new bureaucracy when the existing system could be adapted is a ridiculous waste of time, money, will cause needless duplication of resources and will doubtless result in poor communication between the ISA and the CRB.

Secondly, the propensity of the modern politician to farm decisions out to quangos and other bodies (e.g. strategic health authorities, foundation hospitals, trust schools, academies…) means a lack of ministerial responsibility and accountability.

And thirdly, on principle, as we have seen in the news lately, the whole thing is going to lead to a further gross infringement on liberty and a redefinition of the fundamental relationship between adults and children in society.

Who knows where that will lead.

WHO'S RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG??? Rep. Joe Wilson vs the Words of President Obama and Out of the Mouths of Congress

On Tuesday afternoon the House has decided to discipline Rep. Joe Wilson for, “YOU LIE”, outburst last Wednesday night…during Obama’s Speech to Congress.   They are bringing a “Resolution of disapproval” action against him, which is a lesser punishment than apparently what they could bring.

This is what Kristie Greco, a spokeswoman for the House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) had to say:            

“We’re not the British parliament for a reason,” said Kristie Greco, spokeswoman for House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C.,.”Ignoring the issue sets a precedent for bad behavior.”

I do believe that Rep. Wilson did make that remark out of frustration, but I also believe it probablywouldhave been better if he had waited to the end of things and commented it on the News channels and not during the speech, but he did apology to the White House (Obama) that evening.

My outrage in all of this is:  If Rep. Wilson is going to be disciplined, even after an apology, for the precedent of bad bahavior………then why not our President..for doing just that..lieing to the faces of  every American watching it ..say nothing about lieing to all of them within that (SCARCED) House of theirs???  Let’s set the “Precedent of Bad Behavior” all away around or across the board!!!

President Obama called Kanye West (who I don’t care for either) a JACK-ASS Monday in an off the record comment during an interview with CNBC, and ABC news anchor.  Here it is:

Obama was apparently weighing in on an interruption that occurred the night before during the MTV Video Music Awards where West grabbed the microphone from teen country singer Taylor Swift during her award acceptance speech to announce his belief that Beyonce had a better music video.

“Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a ‘jackass’ for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won.

Would anybody agree with me on this:  Is this Bad Behavior, coming out of Washinton DC, too??  Especially the mouth….of our highest seat within our government???

If you agree with me on this then I have a favor to ask of you.  Call or e-mail your Representives and Senators and tell them you want the President of the United States censured as well, for speaking out badly against the taxpyers of this country, Kanye West and the Police in Cambridge, Ma..  And against Pelosi, Reid, and others for calling us Un-americans, Nazi’s, ect.

Fourth Amendment victory for open carriers

By Richard C. Evey

Libertarian/ Patriot

A federal judge has made a ruling that could change the way that law enforcement treats “We the people”.

The judge granted that the plaintiff has liability under the Fourth Amendment and that law enforcement does not have immunity. In my opinion, a major victory for liberty and freedom.

The case: St. John v Alamogordo Public Safety.

Matthew St. John went into a movie theater openly carrying a holstered handgun. New Mexico has no law forbidding the open carry of a handgun.

The theater owner called Alamogordo Public Safety. The four law enforcement officers (LEO) approached Mr. St. John and with force removed him from the theater, took his handgun and patted him down. After checking, found out that the handgun was legal and that he was not a criminal, returned his handgun and let him go back to the movie but without his handgun, which he placed in his vehicle.

Mr. St. John filed suit in state court but the case was moved to a federal court because Mr. St. John alleged that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated and also asserts his rights under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.

The undisputed fact is that Mr. St. John seizure was unreasonable. He had not committed a crime, was not committing a crime and was not about to commit a crime.

The court stated that “the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity”. The court went on to state that the “Defendants (LEO) had no legitimate reason to engage Mr. St. John in the first place”, also the “Defendants (LEO) had no reason for seizing Mr. St. John”, “Mr. St. John had done nothing to arouse suspicion”.

The judge did rule that the Defendants (LEO) did violate Mr. St. John’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Lastly and the best part of this case was that the judge stated that the “Defendants (LEO) motion for summary judgment is denied with regard to qualified immunity”.

In short, the LEOs can be sued. I hope that Mr. St. John also sues the theater owner. The theater owner could have asked Mr. St. John to leave the theater or could have put up a sign; instead he acted like a jerk and called in the Gestapo.

This ruling means that the law enforcement officers will have to think about what they are doing and begin to make sound judgment and not act on impulse. They will have to take responsibility for their action and/or maybe face a lawsuit. Law enforcement officers, sometimes, have to make quick decisions but without taking any responsibility and with immunity. But the judicial system tells us, the citizens, if we do the same thing we will be held accountable and liable. Now things have changed, law enforcement officers will be held accountable and without immunity. Change I can live with!

 

This case is not over, it will be appealed and could go to the U. S. Supreme Court and with the people they have on that court, I think that the outcome will be a lot different.

But for now, We the People can claim a victory.

60K or 1.5 Million Protesters?

We have to give credit for all the folks that took off from work and attended the 9/12 Taxpayer March in Washington D.C. on September 12th. I’ve heard a lot of different crowd estimates circulating the Internet. At one point, I heard this was the largest public demonstration in United States history with over 2 million attendees.

“Teabaggers” claiming, erroneously, that they had over 1.5 million protesters. There’s organizers that are even stating ABC News made the crowd estimate claim first, which has been disproven. ABC never said there were 1.5 million people at the march. In fact, ABC only said that the Washington DC fire department claimed there were 60k to 70k protesters.

Nate Silver, from FiveThirtyEight, writes:

But yesterday, someone told a real whopper. ABC News, citing the DC fire department, reported that between 60,000 and 70,000 people had attended the tea party rally at the Capitol. By the time this figure reached Michelle Malkin, however, it had been blown up to 2,000,000. There is a big difference, obviously, between 70,000 and 2,000,000. That’s not a twofold or threefold exaggeration — it’s roughly a thirtyfold exaggeration.

The way this false estimate came into being is relatively simple: Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks, lied, claiming that ABC News had reported numbers of between 1.0 and 1.5 million when they never did anything of the sort. A few tweets later, the numbers had been exaggerated still further to 2 million. Kibbe wasn’t “in error”, as Malkin gently puts it. He lied.

Malkin, who to her credit later corrected the error, frets that it might be used to by liberals to “discredit the undeniably massive turnout”. She’s right to be worried — it absolutely will be used that way. If you don’t want to be discredited, then don’t, as Kibbe did, tell a ridiculous (and easily disprovable) lie.

So there you have it!

At tops, there were possibly 70K demonstrators, which is a large number of frustrated citizens, angry with our central government and their overzealous spending spree. Regardless the actual crowd total, the pictures clearly demonstrate (some) Americans are not satisfied with the current operations of this federal government and their administration.

Most of those in attendance at 9/12 Taxpayer March were Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents.

Note: President Obama’s inaugural address had approximately 800,000 attendees based on satelitte images taken at 11:20 EST. Comparing the images of both events, Obama’s swearing-in and address had about 15 times more attendees than the September 12th march.