New Puzzling Doctrine of the Two Classes of the Unborn

The new doctrine implied by recent public statements of Catholics criticizing President Obama are indeed curious, though they are regrettably not unprecedented. Under this doctrine there seem to be two categories of  the unborn, and they deserve completely different accounting in the moral sphere.

One class of the unborn deserves very little recognition, and therefore their suffering is of very small concern.  Into this first class fall, for example, the unborn victims of the several wars we are now fighting, those unborn killed by pollution, or directly by hunger, or those unborn poor who need quality healthcare, among other groups too numerous to mention here. Lest we forget, there are many of the born in similar groups who are perishing each and every day.  These very real deaths now also include the first deaths caused by global warming, whose toll shall, with near certainty, dramatically increase every year.

The other class of unborn is so especially deserving of our protection, however, that even though the President has no direct legal authority to protect them, the mere announcement of a candidate of his opposition to a legal precedent enjoins us to put all of our concerns for the first class of the unborn out of our minds, and cast our votes, as unthinking automatons, to continue the wholesale slaughter of those unborn in the first class, while making very slight progress helping those unborn in the second class.

Therefore I, being uneducated by only 2 degrees from Jesuit Universities, must ask those who promulgate this new doctrine of the two unequal classes of the unborn to clarify, with some precision, what are those characteristics of the first class of the unborn that make them so undeserving of our protection and conversely makes those in the second class so especially deserving of our protection?

This question deeply vexes me.

New Puzzling Doctrine of the Two Classes of the Unborn

Obama judges, owned by the RIAA

So much for power to the people.  Seems like it is power to the biggest corporations:

BitTorrent Case Judge Is a Former RIAA Lobbyist and Pirate Chaser

Less than a week after her investiture ceremony, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell laid down a landmark verdict that will make it easy for copyright holders to send cash demands to people they suspect of copyright infringement. Many people called the decision into doubt, and the revelation that Judge Howell previously worked as an RIAA lobbyist and as the Managing Director of a pirate-chasing outfit hints at a conflict of interest.

Last week, the freshly appointed U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell gave copyright holders carte blanche to continue their profitable settlement schemes. This verdict weakens the position of thousands of alleged BitTorrent users, some of whom may be completely innocent.

Despite opposition from ISPs and consumer rights groups who described the tactics as “extortion,” Howell decided in favor of the copyright holders. An extremely unfortunate precedent to say the least, and this is confirmed by lawyer Robert Cashman who represents several defendants in similar cases.

Obama judges, owned by the RIAA

Wikileaks, the center of a growing network, fed by the White House [was wikileaks mirrors] updated 6x

Note to readers: I am so very proud of the readers who have been clicking on the links to donate to wikileaks, found in this post.  It is an honor that my site could contribute to one of the great progressive movements of our times.  In fact, that is the number one click from this site, having 70 130 clicks just today (!), so thank you very much, please continue donating to wikileaks.

At this address, as of 2010-12-12 11:54 GMT find a list of 208, 506, 748, 1334, 1368 1,885 sites that mirror the wikileaks content.  Those who want to defeat wikileaks are losing have lost. Big Time.

If the White House wants there to be one million mirrors they can continue their ill-fated attack on wikileaks.  These will be updated and added to, as the need arises. The content is unstoppable.  The donated server space is obviously coming in faster than the wikileaks staff can coordinate.  I am sure everyone’s donated server space will be used, eventually.  Wikileaks, I am sure, is thankful.

This is a classic example of the 09F9 effect. This is named after after the first four digits of the once-secret encryption key (09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0)  for DVD’s.    Recall when the key was published, the social network site digg originally buried the “diggs” to stories that included the key, since the DVD access control group threatened legal action.  There was an immediate and massive revolution of digg users, and eventually, under a tsunami of diggs, the management of digg stopped trying to fight the publication of the key.  They joined the revolution.

That is exactly what is happening now.  There will be a tidal wave of those desiring to donate server space to wikileaks.  If those in power are so stupid that they think they can stop this wave, and they try to suppress it, the next wave will be greater.  What those who would fight this wave need to understand is that their acts of repression actually feed the growth of the network they are fighting.  The concept of moral connectivity that Col. Boyd so well understood is evidentially lost.  Those who attack wikileaks in the method they are now doing are increasing the moral connectivity of wikileaks and decreasing their own connectivity.  Especially, they connect all those who oppose the suppression that they seek to enforce.

Or to put it in terms everyone can understand: There is a fire, and you have a fire hose that is feed with gasoline.  Is it smart to use the hose?  I think it is not.   Apparently there are those in the administration who think it is.   What do they get?

Wikileaks, the center of a growing network, fed by the White House [was wikileaks mirrors] updated 6x

Julian, look out

Daniel Ellsberg, who knows a thing or two about leaks, fears for Julian Assange’s safety. I do to. Our president has announced that he believes in extra-judicial assassination, and that such action is OK when taken against terrorists, now just couple that with the doctrine that terrorists are those who disagree with the USA administration, and basically anything goes.

Daniel Ellsberg, the former US military analyst who released the pentagon papers in 1971, appeared on MSNBC today with Dylan Ratigan.  He said he fears for the safety of Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, who is reportedly on the verge of leaking secret State Department cables.  The Daily Beast reports that Assange is currently being sought by the Pentagon, and Ellsberg advises him not to reveal his whereabouts.

“We have after all for the first time, that I ever perhaps in any democratic country, we have a president who has announced that he feels he has the right to use special operations operatives against anyone abroad, that he thinks is associated with terrorism,” says Ellsberg. “Now as I look at Assange’s case, they’re worried that he will reveal current threats. I would have to say puts his well-being, his physical life, in some danger now. And I say that with anguish. I think it’s astonishing that an American president should have put out that policy and he’s not getting these resistance from it, from Congress, the press, the courts or anything. It’s an amazing development that I think Assange would do well to keep his whereabouts unknown.”

Full transcript:

RATIGAN: Do you see direct parallels between what’s developing here and what you went through?

ELLSBURG: Yes, there does seem to be an immediate parallel between me and whoever leaked the video on the assault on the 19 or 20 Iraqis. Someone–allegedly, it was Bradley Manning–did feel that that deserved to be out. the “Reuters,” whose newspapermen were killed in the course of that, had been trying to get that through the freedom of information act for two years, as I understand it and had been refused. Let’s say whoever did it, hypothetically, Bradley Manning, showed better judgment in putting it out than the people who kept is secret from the American people and from the Iraqis.

RATIGAN: What is your sense of disclosure of information to the American people today, compared to the period of time that you lived through, where there was similar issues with, with the perception of reality of information being withheld from the public?

ELLSBURG: Look, there’s no doubt at all, that enormous amounts of energy that should be made public are being withheld and that hundreds, probably thousands of people, I’m speaking now of the run-up to the Iraq war, which has a very great similarity to the lying and the secrecy that got us into Vietnam. I think if many people had recognized that their oath of office, which called them in to support the Constitution, really contradicted their promise to keep certain secrets, when those secrets concealed lies, concealed deception to the American public and getting us into a hopeless war, they should have given priority to the oath of office and they should have put that information out to Congress and the public. They should have done what I wish I had done much earlier than I did I had been in that position, too. I knew years before the Pentagon Papers came out that the Americans were being lied in to an essentially hopeless war. I’m not proud of the fact that it didn’t occur to me that my oath of office, which was to support the Constitution, called on me to put that information out and say, ‘64, when the war might have been avoided. But I certainly am glad that I finally came aware of what my real responsibilities were there. And I did put it out years later. At times, at that time, which published it, the “Times,” and the 18 other newspapers, which defied President Nixon’s injunctions and did put it out, were in the position of Julian Assange is in now. I’m very happy that he put it out and I congratulate him for it.

Continue reading “Julian, look out”

Julian, look out

Very troubling, on the Kagan nomination (Perhaps Obama should try Freedom for a change)

So after the nomination of Sotomayor, who had bent over backwards to torture all kinds of well established definitions so she could side with big business, here comes another appointee who has obviously been vetted by the MPAA and the RIAA.  It is especially distressing that the Highest Court of the USA has become so corrupted by corporate influence.

Don’t be fooled by the astroturfing on Slashdot–Kagan is is yet another appointee who has worked at a firm with very strong ties to the RIAA…The record of Obama on his judicial nomination seems to be: government by the RIAA, of the RIAA and for the RIAA

Very troubling, on the Kagan nomination (Perhaps Obama should try Freedom for a change)