Alternatives to testifying under oath

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 5, 1985.
Decided Dec. 19, 1985.

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/778/778.F2d.1397.84-3719.html

You do affirm upon pain and penalty of perjury that the testimony you will give in this deposition will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

“I understand that I must accurately state the facts” in place of “I understand that I must tell the truth.” That would also suffice, so long as Gordon acknowledges that he understands he is testifying under penalty of perjury

Now the scripture says ‘Let God be true though every man be a liar.’ I’m simply saying that since we’ve all lied in the past and we’ve lied once or twice today and we’re going to lie in the future, why kid ourselves by saying we tell the truth when in fact we do not. It’s my position I would be guilty of perjury the moment I said ‘Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God’ and I say ‘I do’ I’m committing a lie.”

Fed.R.Evid. 603 states that every witness “shall be required to declare that he will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken his conscience and impress his mind with his duty to do so.” The advisory committee notes to Rule 603 illustrate that an affirmation need take no particular form: “The rule is designed to afford the flexibility required in dealing with religious adults, atheists, conscientious objectors, mental defectives, and children. Affirmation is simply a solemn undertaking to tell the truth; no special verbal formula is required.” Fed.R.Evid. 603 advisory committee note.

This reasoning should also apply to affirmations at depositions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We therefore conclude that any statement indicating that the deponent is impressed with the duty to tell the truth and understands that he or she can be prosecuted for perjury for failure to do so satisfies the requirement for an oath or affirmation under Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c) and 43(d). Deponents, furthermore, need not raise their hand when they state the words necessary to satisfy Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(c) and 43(d) if to do so impinges on sincerely-held religious beliefs. This flexible approach is consistent with the constitutional obligation to protect the free exercise of religious beliefs by using the least restrictive means to further compelling state interests that impinge on such free exercise. See Callahan, 736 F.2d at 1273.

Bibliography- International Law- War Crimes

Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How
We Use It (Oxford University Press Reprint 1995).

Jack Donnelly, Human Rights in Theory and Practice, 2d Ed. (Cornell
University Press 2002).

Ian Brownlie & Guy S. Goodwin, Basic Documents on Human Rights,
5th Ed. (Oxford University Press 2006). (Hereinafter Brownlie &
Goodwin.)

Julie Stone Peters & Andrea Wolper, eds., Women’s Rights, Human
Rights (Taylor & Francis, Inc. 1995).

Adam Jones, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (Routledge/
Taylor & Francis Publishers 2006).

Martha Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs
About the Use of Force (Cornell University Press 2004).

Geoffrey Wawro & Philippe Sands, eds., From Nuremberg to the
Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge
University Press 2003).

Dieter Fleck, et al., Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed
Conflicts (Oxford University Press 2000).

Adam Roberts & Richard Guelff, Documents on the Laws of War
(Oxford University Press 2000). (Hereinafter Roberts & Guelff.)

Alexandra Stiglmayer, Marion Faber (translator), Mass Rape: The War
against Women in Bosnia-Herzegovina (University of Nebraska Press
1994).

David Rose, Guantanomo: The War on Human Rights (The New Press
2004).

Alfred W. McCoy, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from
the Cold War to the War on Terror (Henry Holt & Company 2006).

William F. Schulz, In Our Own Best Interests (Beacon Press 2002).

Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How
We Use It (Oxford University Press Reprint 1995).

Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How
We Use It (Oxford University Press Reprint 1995).

Jack Donnelly, Human Rights in Theory and Practice, 2d Ed. (Cornell
University Press 2002).

Oona A. Hathaway, “Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?” 111
Yale L.J. 1935 (2002)

Relevant Provisions of the United Nations Charter, 1945, Brownlie &
Goodwin,

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, Brownlie & Goodwin

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Brownlie &
Goodwin

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Brownlie &
Goodwin

Declaration on the Right to Development, 1986, Brownlie & Goodwin

Appointment of a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
1993, Brownlie & Goodwin

Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?”

Heiner Bielefeldt, “Muslim Voices in the Human Rights Debate,” 17
Human Rights Quarterly 587 (1995)

Daniel A. Bell, “The East Asian Challenge to Human Rights: Reflections
on an East West Dialogue,” 18 Human Rights Quarterly 641 (1996).

Thomas M. Franck, “Are Human Rights Universal?” 80(1) Foreign
Affairs 191 (Jan/Feb 2001)

Jack Donnelly, Human Rights in Theory and Practice, 2d Ed. (Cornell
University Press 2002).

Julie Stone Peters & Andrea Wolper, eds., Women’s Rights, Human
Rights (Taylor & Francis, Inc. 1995).

Gila Stopler, “Countenancing the Oppression of Women: How Liberals
Tolerate Religious and Cultural Practices that Discriminate Against
Women,” 12 Colum. J. Gender & L. 154 (2003)

Convention on the Political Rights of Women, 1953, Brownlie &
Goodwin

Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and
Armed Conflict, 1974, Brownlie & Goodwin

Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women, 1979, Brownlie & Goodwin

Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, 1993,
Brownlie & Goodwin

Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, Fourth World Conference on
Women: Action for Equality, Development and Peace, 1995, Brownlie &
Goodwin

Adam Jones, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (Routledge/
Taylor & Francis Publishers 2006). Read chapters 1-2, & 8-14.

Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How
We Use It (Oxford University Press Reprint 1995). Read chapter 7.

Jack Donnelly, Human Rights in Theory and Practice, 2d Ed. (Cornell
University Press 2002). Read chapter 12 (including Appendix.)
B. Relevant Documents:

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
1948, Brownlie & Goodwin, at 283.

Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent
Countries, 1989, Brownlie & Goodwin, at 557. Passim.

Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic,
Religious, or Linguistic Minorities, 1992, Brownlie & Goodwin, at 134.
Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
1994, Brownlie & Goodwin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_

Indigenous_Peoples

Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, 2001, Brownlie & Goodwin,

Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation
for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and
Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, 2005, Brownlie &
Goodwin

Adam Jones, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (Routledge/
Taylor & Francis Publishers 2006).

Theodor Meron, “Reflections on the Prosecution of War Crimes by
International Tribunals,” 100 A.J.I.L. 551 (2006). (Reading # 7.)
Martha Finnemore, The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs
About the Use of Force (Cornell University Press 2004).

Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How
We Use It (Oxford University Press Reprint 1995).

Jack Donnelly, Human Rights in Theory and Practice, 2d Ed. (Cornell
University Press 2002).

T. Modibo Ocran, “The Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention in light of
Robust Peacekeeping,” 25 B.C. Int?l & Comp. L. Rev. 1 (2002).

Richard Falk, “The Complexities of Humanitarian Intervention: A New
World Order Challenge,” 17 Mich. J. Int?l L. 491 (1996). (Reading # 9.)
Week Seven: March 3, 2009

Adam Jones, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (Routledge/
Taylor & Francis Publishers 2006).

Theodor Meron, “Reflections on the Prosecution of War Crimes by
International Tribunals,” 100 A.J.I.L. 551 (2006).

Geoffrey Wawro & Philippe Sands, eds., From Nuremberg to the
Hague: The Future of International Criminal Justice (Cambridge
University Press 2003).

Jamie Mayerfeld, “Who Shall Be the Judge?: The United States, the
International Criminal Court, and the Global Enforcement of Human
Rights,” 25 Human Rights Quarterly 93 (Feb. 2003).

Payam Akhavan, “Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice
Prevent Future Atrocities?” 95 A.J.I.L. 7 (2001).

Guenael Mettraux, “Crimes Against Humanity in the Jurisprudence of the
International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for
Rwanda,” 43 Harv. Int?l L.J. 237 (2002) (Black letter law).

Henry A. Kissinger, “The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction,” 80(4)
Foreign Affairs 86 (July/Aug. 2001) (Denying the existence of universal
jurisdiction).

1946 Judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg:
Extract on Crimes against International Law, Roberts & Guelff, at 175.
1993 Statute of International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia: Extract, Roberts & Guelff

1994 Statute of International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: Extract,
Roberts & Guelff

1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Extract, Roberts
& Guelff, at 667.

Theodor Meron, “The Humanization of Humanitarian Law, 94
A.J.I.L. 239 (2000).

Dieter Fleck, et al., Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed
Conflicts (Oxford University Press 2000). Read chapters 1-2.

1991 Operation Desert Storm, US Rules of Engagement: Pocket
Card, Roberts & Guelff

1978 Red Cross Fundamental Rules of International Humanitarian
Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Roberts & Guelff, at 513.
1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International
Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Part V, Sect. II: Repression of
Breaches of the Conventions of the Protocol, Roberts & Guelff, at
470.

Dieter Fleck, et al., Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed
Conflicts (Oxford University Press 2000). Read chapter 4.
Christian M. Capece, “The Ottawa Treaty and Its Impact on U.S. Military
Policy and Planning,” 25 Brooklyn J. Int?l L. 183 (1999).

Yuette Politis, “The Regulation of an Invisible Enemy: The

International Community?s Response to Land Mine Proliferation,” 22 B.C. Int?l & Comp. L. Rev. 465 (1999).

Diana, Princess of Wales, “Responding to Landmines: A Modern Tragedy
and its Solutions: Keynote Address,”

http://www.happychild.org.uk/nvs/focus/landmines/landmin2.htm

Major Thomas J. Herthel, “On the Chopping Block: Cluster Munitions
and the Law of War,” 51 A.F.L. Rev. 229 (2001). (Reading # 19.)
Thomas Michael McDonnell, “Cluster Bombs over Kosovo: A Violation
of International Law?” 44 Ariz. F.L. Rev. 229 (2001).

1868 St. Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of
Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight, Roberts & Guelff

1899 Hague Declaration 2 Concerning Asphyxiating Gases, Roberts &
Guelff

1899 Hague Declaration 3 Concerning Expanding Bullets, Roberts &
Guelff

1907 Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on
Land, Roberts & Guelff, 67.

1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of
Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods
of Warfare, Roberts & Guelff

1976 U.N. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other
Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, Roberts &
Guelff

1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed

(Protocol I), Part III, Sect. I: Methods and Means of Warefare, Roberts & Guelff

1980 U.N. Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of
Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively
Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, Roberts & Guelff, at 515.
And Protocols, 527-560.

1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons: Extract, Roberts &
Guelff, at 639.

1997 Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling,
Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their
Destruction, Roberts & Guelff, at 645.
Week Ten: March 31, 2009

Dieter Fleck, et al., Handbook of Humanitarain Law in Armed
Conflicts, (Oxford University Press).

“CNN PRESENTS: God’s Jewish Warriors,” Aired August 21,
2007 – 21:00 ET (Transcript). (Reading # 21.)

Geoffrey R. Watson, “Israeli High Court of Justice Decision on the
Legality of a Portion of Israel?s “Security Fence” in the West Bank
underInternational Humanitarian Law,” 100 A.J.I.L. 895 (2006).

Adam Roberts, “Transformative Military Occupation: Applying the Laws
of War and Human Rights,” 100 A.J.I.L. 508 (2006).

1949 Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War, Roberts & Guelff

1977 Geneva Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12
August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International
Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Part IV, Civilian Populations, Roberts &
Guelff

Dieter Fleck, et al., Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed
Conflicts (Oxford University Press 2000).

Alexandra Stiglmayer, Marion Faber (translator), Mass Rape: The War
against Women in Bosnia-Herzegovina (University of Nebraska Press
1994). Read Alexandra Stiglmayer, “The War in the Former
Yugoslavia,” at page 1; Paul Parin, “Open Wounds: Ethnopsychoanlytic
Reflections on the Wars in the Former Yugoslavia, at page 35; Ruth
Seifert, “War and Rape: A Preliminary Analysis,” at page 54; Catharine
15

A. MacKinnon, “Turning Rape into Pornography: Postmodern Genocide,”
at page 73; Vera Folnegovic-Smalc,

“Psychiatric Aspects of the Rapes in
the War against the Republics of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina,”at
page 174; Catharine A. MacKinnon,

“Rape, Genocide, and Women?s
Human Rights,” at page 183; & Rhonda Copelon,

“Surfacing Gender: Reconceptualizing Crimes against Women in Time of War,” at page 197.

Theodor Meron, “Rape as a Crime Under International Humanitarian
Law,” 87 A.J.I.L. 424 (1993)

Wolfgang Schomburg & Ines Peterson, “Genuine Consent to Sexual
Violence under International Criminal Law,” 101 A.J.I.L. 121 (2007).

1949 Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in
Time of War, Roberts & Guelf

1977 Geneva Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12
August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International
Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Part IV, Civilian Populations, Roberts &
Guelff

Dieter Fleck, et al., Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed
Conflicts (Oxford University Press 2000).

David Rose, Guantanomo: The War on Human Rights (The New Press
2004). Read book in its entirety.

Knut D rmann, “The Legal Situation of Unlawful/Unprivileged
Combatants,” 85 IRRC 45 (2003).

Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, 1955,
Brownlie & Goodwin

Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any
Form of Detention or Imprisonment, 1988, Brownlie & Goodwin,

Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, 1990, Brownlie &
Goodwin

Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance, 1992, Brownlie & Goodwin

1949 Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,
Roberts & Guelff, at 243.

1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International
Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Part III, Sect. II: Combat and
Prisoner of War Status, Roberts & Guelff

Mary Ellen O’Connell, “The Legal Case against the Global War on
Terror,” 37 Case W. Res. J. Int?l L. 349 (2005)

Alfred W. McCoy, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the
Cold War to the War on Terror (Henry Holt & Company 2006)

Jose E. Alvarez, “Torturing the Law,” 37 Case W. Res. J. Int?l L. 175
(2006). (Reading # 28.)

Henry Shue, “Torture in Dreamland: Disposing of the Ticking Bomb,” 37
Case W.J. Int?l L. 231 (2006). (Reading # 29.)

Leila Nadya Sadat, “Ghost Prisoners and Black Sites: extraordinary
Rendition under International Law,” 37 Case. W.J. Int?l L. 309 (2006).

Amos N. Guiora & Erin M. Page, “The Unholy Trinity: Intelligence,
Interrogation and Torture,” 37 Case W. Res. J. Int?l L. 427 (2006).

Declaration on the Protection of All Persons From Being Subjected
to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, 1975, Brownlie & Goodwin

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984, Brownlie & Goodwin,

Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance, 1992, Brownlie & Goodwin

1949 Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,
Roberts & Guelff, at 243. Review.

1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International
Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Part III, Sect. II: Combat and
Prisoner of War Status, Roberts & Guelff

XIV. Human Rights, Humanitarian Law and Realpolitik:
Jack Donnelly, Human Rights in Theory and Practice, 2d Ed. (Cornell
University Press 2002).

Lisa H. Gelb & Justine A. Rosenthal, “The Rise of Ethics in Foreign
Policy,” 82 (3) Foreign Affairs 2 (May/June 2003).

Lesley Wexler, “The International Deployment of Shame, Second-Best
Responses, and Norm Entrepreneurship: The Campaign to Ban
Landmines and Landmine Ban Treaty,” 20 Ariz. J. Int?l & Comp. Law
561 (2003).

David Carleton & Michael Stohl, “The Foreign Policy of Human Rights:
Rhetoric and Reality from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan,” 7 Human
Rights Quarterly 205 (May 1985).

William F. Schulz, In Our Own Best Interests (Beacon Press 2002).

Mixing religions with government

Henry writes:

Every explicit choice has an implicit (and usually invisible) loss of choice (opportunity cost). The so called universal health care is essentially a trade-off between quantity and quality of service. Diplomacy without the option of military action is often impotent, and military actions are generally an extension of diplomacy, the ultimate purpose of which is a nation’s self interest (which is not easy to define). Secular government, that is, government without the influence of religion, is a fine thing if most of the citizens it governs are non-religious. But if many of its citizens are religious, then the cost of a secular government is the willful neglect of the wishes and desires of the governed by the governing entity. Environmental protection laws reduces negative externalities in a society, but often they also lower productivity, which transpires to reduced quality of life for those involved. A friendly immigration policy invites labor mobility and new ways which may improve the overall wellbeing of a society. But a lax immigration policy also makes easier for undesirables and enemies to do harm, which at times could be catastrophic. And as for same-sex marriage, gun control, abortion, etc, if such social measures are decided in courts rather than by democratic processes such as majority voting, then social cohesion is in danger because of disregard for social preferences, especially if the measures are decided in a federal (or national) court system. But if all social measures are decided by local majority rule, then a nation risks losing its national identity based on a set of constitutionally recognized basic rights.

So what are the Democrates and Republican for? Before answering this it is probably in one’s interest to ask what they are not for, and see if one is fine with that first.

My reply:

Henry, I am deeply impressed by your observations. I am currently taking care of some duties which will leave me little free time for the coming days. I want to come back and read and reflect upon your post.

The ONE point I feel uneasy about is the one regarding a predominantly religious nation under a secular government with strict separation of Church and State. I feel that NO government can be fair if its action are driven by religious values REGARDLESS of the religion. One reason I say this is to counter the notion of majority rule and representation with the equally important task of protecting the rights of a minority however small when those rights pertain to freedom of expression and belief which INCLUDES freedom FROM expressions of belief. For example, our American judicial systems forces us to perform a religious act when it asks us to raise our right hand and SWEAR to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God. FIrst of all, NO ONE knows WHAT the truth is. I personally can only be conscious of my intentionally telling a lie, or committing a lie of omission by not saying something. I cannot know that what I assert is the truth. And it is foolish to ask someone to SWEAR, since swearing an oath is simply a religious superstition. What makes MORE sense is to ask me to state my understanding that I am subject to all the penalties of perjury if I am caught telling what I know to be a lie. I can think of many more reasons why it is a bad idea to have a government driven by religions, but I am pressed for time these days and this oath taking business is something which particularly annoys me.

Teamwork

We need you on our team. You need us on your team. Lets face it, the world NEEDS a team, some kind of team, any kind of team. So far, all we seem to manage is teeming (as in teeming hordes). Our problem is a geographical one; we need to eliminate boundaries. Our problem is an ethnic one; we need intermarriage. Our problem is an ideological one; we need pluralistic interfaith.

Is Abortion Taking Life

William : Its better to “get a life” than “take a life.” (hey I just made this up)

Karen :
Is abortion taking a life?

William :
Well, in a weird sense, celibacy is taking a life, and the first commandment in Genesis is, be fruitful and multiply. And smoking and drinking is taking ones own life prematurely. I was primarily thinking of all those situations when we tell people “get a life”, versus all the people around the world who die each year from military and police … violence (as well as the actions of suicide bombers). But why beat the Bible over abortion, when Jesus never said boo about abortion or homosexuality. Jesus DID say that divorce is unacceptable EXCEPT on the grounds of adultery, and Jesus DID NOT say that remarriage was permitted, so perhaps he meant that you should put away the adulterous spouse and live the remainder of your life in celibacy. But why not agitate for the criminalization of divorce, if America is such a Bible based “God loving” nation. I find it somewhat hypocritical that no one is on the bandstand giving stump speeches on that one. And, you know what, if people WERE concerned enough to criminalize divorce, then they would probably be so self-controlled that abortion would rarely become an issue, because they would only be sexually active for the purpose of procreation. Karen, you pose your post as a question. But I doubt that it is a sincere question in your mind. You have your own agenda, and you approach it in a dishonest fashion by pretending that you have a question. I do not know how such disingenuous tactics could ever truly occupy moral high ground.

Timothy :
Is it not the hall-mark of a Johnnie to present one’s opinions in the guise of a question? Further, if a matter is of moral question, how can we excuse it by pointing to equivocation on other matters of moral question?

William :
We know where all this stuff is REALLY coming from (the conservative Republican religious right), and we know where it is headed. No one person in the history of the world has so far come up with ALL the answers (unless of course you consider Buddha, Jesus or Mohammad to be the final word.) Hume supposedly awoke Kant from his “dogmatic slumber”. Yet Hume is famous for “Hume’s gap” that no IS implies an ought. Yet Kant went on to sketch out a form of ethics. And then the Roman Catholic Church placed Kant (and Pascal and many others) on a banned book list. McCain never seemed to worry about bombing fetuses in Hanoi in an illegal undeclared war, nor the fact that said war had “free fire zones” which included women, children and anything that moved (and I understand why such zones were felt to be necessary.) Yet McCain feels it is important to criminalize abortion. For some strange reason, the European Common Union is very casual on the question of abortion but is adamant that no member nation may practice capital punishment. I am not really trying to equivocate so much as to point out how obviously half-witted so many in the nation are regarding their “values.” I could take the rhetorical tactic that Jesus took on at least one occasion, when asked by the Sadducee/Pharisee if his words were his own or came from God and Jesus cleverly answered “Tell me if John the Baptist is of man or from God” knowing that they would not dare answer one way or the other because of the problems it would cause in public opinion. Therefore I say to Karen, “how many grains of sand constitute a pile or heap? If you give me an excellent answer to this, then I shall give you an excellent answer regarding whether abortion constitutes taking a life. But if you CANNOT give me a good answer to such a simple question, then how shall you be capable of understanding a far more complex moral question about abortion? There are questions and answers and styles which are simply crafty sophism. And then there are questions and points which highlight profound dilemmas regarding the limits of our understanding. Alcohol and tobacco are obviously destructive, yet it is equally obvious that Prohibition CREATED more problems than it solved. Abortion is not the best form of birth control, but prior to Rowe vs. Wade when abortion was criminalized, MORE problems were created than were solved, and many years of Republican conservative government did not seem improve the moral fiber or the economy of the nation.

Timothy:
How then would *you* ask a question concerning the morality of abortion?

William: Timothy and Karen, congratulations, you have spent a lot of money on your educations and have learned the marvelous art of one-line repartee. You demonstrate it right here in this thread. You say nothing of substance. You simply toss of one or two sentences as a reaction to my sincere effort to say something of substance. If you really have values and insights and convictions which are of any value at all, then use the note section of Facebook, or a WordPress blog, and write 5 or 10 pages where you succinctly get off your backsides and lay down point by point what you think, feel, believe, and why you believe. Pick whatever issue is a pressing one for you, be it pro-life/pro-choice issues, or environment, or whatever. Don’t make it ad hominem (dont make it about me). Write about the issues and draw upon all that you remember from everything that you have read.

Timothy, you appear like too much of a coward to even write a simple declarative sentence. You wrote “Is it not the hall-mark of a Johnnie…” You dont even have the guts to declare “everyone knows that the hallmark of a Johnnie…”

I went through 4 years of St. John’s (and I would do it all over). I met a few people who were truly intellectually honest and would directly and aggressively take a stand on something important. But I met a lot more phonies who made it through 4 years just wrinkling their nose in seminar and saying “but I dont GET it, how can you say….”

All of the world is basically divided into LIMB CRAWLERS and LIMB SAWERS. A limb crawler has the courage and ambition to crawl way out on a limb, and TAKE A RISK, assembling together many and various points and passages in order to assert something new, something important.

LIMB SAWYERS are a parasitic species. They cannot exist without a LIMB CRAWLER. They hack away at whatever constructive effort the limb crawler is making. If they succeed, what they succeed in is simply refuting the limb crawler.

Wittgenstein talks about a ladder which we construct to arrived at some higher plain or plateau, and once we have arrived, we caste away that ladder (or limb) just as the person who finally reaches the other side of Samsara and enters Nirvana pushes his vehicle adrift and does not carry it about on the shoulder like Odysseus’ oar, waiting for some limb sawer to ask “what the hell is THAT.”

And as for Karen’s lone question “Is abortion taking life”.. well many things involve taking life. Eating a hamburger involved taking the life of cattle. Plowing a field involves taking the life of worms and other soil dwellers. That is why there is an entire religion, the Jain religion, which forbids a fire after dark because it will take the life of insects attracted to the flame. If you truly find all life sacred, I suggest you become a devout Jain. But that isn’t what Karen meant to ask. She meant to make a statement about abortion, but she has learned cowardly indirect techniques, just like you Timothy. Timothy, if you are so smart, and you seem to feel you are, then why don’t you write a nice long essay enlightening us all in detail about the wisdom of your views. If you cannot do any more than Henny Youngman one-liners, then what have you really done with your life that is of some value?

A License to Carry and Lethal Force

Not arguing, just chewing the fat. We know that the criminals will probably manage to get what they want. I saw some article about certain markets in Egypt where one may purchase anything from assault rifles to rocket launchers that can take down aircraft.
In the 1950s, anyone could just walk into a store and purchase a handgun with no waiting-period, identity check or licensing. In the 1980s, a police officer named Ayoob wrote a series of books for the citizen seeking a license to carry. Ayoob is also famous for inventing “the Ayoob night stick” which is an improved method of night stick combat. Ayoob mentioned that if you ever use lethal force, you must be in a situation where it is your best option even if you face prison and the loss of all your property through due process, but still you preserve your life. If you develop he habit of roaming dangerous neighborhoods at 3am with your license to carry (walking heavy), and you shoot someone, the court is going to want to hear a good reason why you were in that neighborhood at that hour, or they will assume that you were intentionally seeking to lure a criminal victim to attack you. Ayoob would carry a matchbook with a $10 bill wrapped around it with a rubber band. If a gang of punks approached, he would toss it to them and say “here buy the boys a drink.” If he then used lethal force, that gesture would count in his favor in court. Judges vary from state to state. In one state, a woman shot an intruder, but in in court it became obvious that she could have safely fled the house, so the necessity of lethal force was questioned. And anyone who owns a weapon MUST practice practice practice until that weapon becomes second nature; otherwise carrying the weapon can do more harm than good.

Terrified of Westell Modem & Verizon DSL

Posted at bleepingcomputer.com

A member wrote:
You plugged a XP machine into the modem/router and nothing happened. So I was curious why you would think a Linux based machine would make a difference. Sorry if it came off as snotty. And I have always said, the only stupid question is the one un-asked.

The other thing you could look into is http://www.virtualbox.org/

Sun VirtualBox. I have Ubuntu and Win7 RC installed inside it. But you can install all kinds of OS’s, mess with them all you like. That way you aren’t limited to just that version Linux, you could install them all, as long as you have the hard drive space.

My reply:
Aha, you misunderstood. I have NEVER until now had the guts to plug anything into the Westell router, because we have little money, and I cant afford the headache and expense of messing up my home internet. But now, from what you tell me and what I have read in google (and I wrote a long support question to Startech, who will probably get back to me next week about their Ethernet card which is only $10, and claims to have Linux drivers).

Also, here is a funny true story. Last week, I thought my stepdaughter was telling me that she has an old tower she doesnt want, and I could wipe out the drive with a pure Ubuntu install. She just called to say her husband was bringing it over with a monitor (which I can keep)…. but when I told her my plans, she was horrified, and said that she wants me to CLEAN UP THE VIRUSES and give it back to her, because right now it will only boot in F2 Safe mode. Ha ha! I am glad I asked, and she should have been less vague and cavalier. But now I have little fear about plugging the cable from the Westell jack into the ethernet jack. Besides, it stands to reason what when any software is about to modify anything, it would prompt.

Although, here are two things I didnt understand about Verizon DSL. Once, I changed the password on the Verizon email account, and that DISABLES the modem that is connected to that account, and a service technician must do a number of things over the phone to restore the DSL service. That was a painful lesson. Another time, DSL was down, and I though I should take a pen and hit the reset button on the Westell. I didnt realize that doing that WIPES OUT EVERYTHING in the Westell, and you have to get on the phone for an hour with a technician to reset the Westell. So perhaps those two horrible experiences contribute to my fear and hesitancy to mess with the Westell.

Old saying: once burnt, twice shy. Plus, if it ain’t broke dont fix it. Years ago we had our first home DSL with AOL. My stepson who was only 13, decided one day to reinstall AOL from a new diskette that came in the mail. That WIPED OUT THE DSL, and AOL was NEVER able to restore it, and their tech dept was not too worried about restoring it.

Thanks for your feedback, it did help! I wasn’t hesitant about hooking up an Ubuntu machine. I am just scared to death of Verizon and Westell. I did take the courage to go into the Westell setep to enable Wifi with WEP key protection. 3 years ago in my 27 story high rise, one could pick up all sorts of unprotected wi-fi. NOW, all the channels are protected and one is even named “GET AWAY!!!”. People began to realize that other people could steal bandwidth.

I would like to close by suggestion something that I think Thomas Jefferson would suggest were he alive today: namely FREE PUBLIC WIFI in every city. Jefferson asked that only two accomplishments be mentioned on his tombstone: that he signed the Declaration of Independence, and that he founded the University of Virginia. Jefferson suggested free education for all, which in his day seemed like a strange idea. After all, education was only for nobility and the wealthy. The peasant farmers and laborers didnt need to know how to read. But Jefferson realized that unless ALL were educated, even laborers and farm workers, then there could NEVER be a government “of the people and by the people.”

What does this have to do with free wi-fi, you ask? Everything. Today, computer illiteracy is the new danger. In 1960, my mother had to fight to get me a $2000 World Book encyclopedia so I could do my homework in 6th grade, because there were no libraries close by. But today, who buys an encylopedia, when there are search engines and things like Wikipedia?
Every child NEED computers and internet access. True there are dangers and abuses in chat rooms etc, but then there are dangers in the postal mail system. That does not mean we should do away with the post office. It means that we should find safe guards and establish punishments for crimes committed using the U.S. mail or the internet. We must make it a crime to shout FIRE as a joke in a public auditorium, but we must preserve freedom of speech. And if there is ANYTHING at all in this world which will unify all peoples and nations and creeds it is the communication and understanding provided by the Internet. I know because I have a friend of 10 years now in Tehran Iran, who loves Plato and Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and everything that is western and free.

In a very poor neighborhood in one large city in India, where there are many high tech computer firms, as an experiment, they installed many rugged computer terminals in the alley ways where homeless street children dwelt. Those children quickly learned how to be very

Human Rights

I am given to understand that the first occurrence in English literature of the expression “human rights” appears in Thoreau’s essay “On Civil Disobedience.” I was shocked to realize the expression appears only in recent history, and not from the mighty organizations and traditions of religions and lawmakers, but from a rather eccentric and reclusive bachelor (whom I greatly admire!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjCB6W1TKcc

Howard Zinn on Civil Disobedience

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oRoQTwac9M

What Is Globalization? – Noam Chomsky

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYwAXZh0ME

The Most Dangerous Moment In History

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0eUtBAWyA

Vengeance Is Mine!

Naturally, the average, decent person abhors criminal negligence.

But it suddenly occurs to me that when we allow ourselves to feel secret delight in the apprehension and punishment of a criminal, or if we gloat about it, then in some sense we are missing a subtle but important point.

During Passover, in the Haggadah, there are 10 drops of wine which are shed in sympathy for the suffering of the Egyptians during the 10 plagues and the loss of their first-born. As Plato points out in The Republic, the cruel Tyrant with absolute power is the most wretched of people, to be pitied.

One must guard the heart for:

Sow a thought, reap an action.
Sow an action, reap a habit.
Sow a habit, reap a character.
Sow a character, reap a destiny.

Always remember that, whenever you clinch your fist and point the finger of accusation at anyone, there are always THREE fingers pointing back at yourself.

I am suddenly reminded of these, with this new (for me) realization:

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Deuteronomy 32:35 ‘Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, And the impending things are hastening upon them.’

Psalm 94:1 O LORD, God of vengeance, God of vengeance, shine forth!

Proverbs 20:22 Do not say, “I will repay evil”; Wait for the LORD, and He will save you.

Proverbs 24:29 Do not say, “Thus I shall do to him as he has done to me; I will render to the man according to his work.”

1 Thessalonians 4:6 and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you.

Hebrews 10:30 For we know Him who said, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY.” And again, “THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE.

+++++++

I suppose I was trying to keep in mind sentiments like these:

http://www.ajwnews.com/archives/1474

(excerpt from above post)

Seder night celebrates our freedom from Pharaoh’s oppression, but, in one of its most poignant moments, it also commemorates the tragedy that befell the Egyptians.

As we recount the 10 Plagues that decimated Egyptian society, we spill a drop of wine for each plague, to remind us of the Egyptian blood that was spilt.

The act of spilling the wine compels us to retain our humanity when we might understandably forget it.

As we whoop with joy that we achieved our freedom, we are commanded to feel sad at the loss of human life amongst our enemies.

We do not deny that this loss of life was necessary, but neither do we rejoice in that necessity. This segment of the Seder, teaching generations of Jews that Schadenfreude is the most un-Jewish of emotions, is one of Judaism’s finest hours.
(end of excerpt)

++++++++

The issue that I point to is the guarding of one’s own heart. The crime would not be less offensive had the victim been a male in training for an Olympic competition. I have before me a slender paperback by Richard Holloway He was Bishop of Edinburgh for 14 years and Gresham Professor of Divinity in the city of London. The title of his book is “On Forgiveness – How Can We Forgive the Unforgivable?” The photo on the cover is the mushroom cloud of an atomic bomb such as was used on Hiroshima. He dedicates the book to Desmond Tutu. On the 2nd page, facing the Table of Contents, is a quote from Jacques Derrida: “There is only forgiveness, if there is any, where there is the unforgivable.” These are some of the hardest lessons to learn in life, and I cannot say that I have made much progress myself. An old Greek abbot once explained righteous anger Psalm4:4 “In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent. Selah.”

I was simply inspired by reading their post to remember the importance of these lessons from the Jewish and Christian traditions (and I am sure that similar sentiments are to be found in many other religions as well as teachings of agnostic and atheist philosophers.) Not long ago, the would-be assassin of the late Governor George Wallace was released on parole. When a reporter asked his surviving family how they feel about the the parole, they basically replied (paraphrased): “Well OF COURSE we forgive him because we are COMMANDED to forgive. But we feel he should have rotted in jail for the rest of his life.” A Protestant once told me “I am commanded to LOVE you, but I don’t have to LIKE you.” Sometimes in the zeal of our moral calculus, we throw out the baby with the bath water. There are those who stress to us the importance of our friendship with Jesus, but I sincerely feel that if it is does not transform us, it is in vain.

Agreed! And we defend ourselves by legislation and due process. If there is any knower of the heart, then there is only one, and it is that knower Samuel alludes to. Are we even the knower of our own hearts? Can we be certain that we never secretly feel schadenfreude? Kurt Vonnegut laughed at the American society who frequently clamors for monuments to The Ten Commandments but never once suggests a plaque to the beatitudes of the sermon on the mount. Vonnegut made a good point. I suspect we have been weighed, and found wanting, as a society. Jesus said “I was in prison and you visited me.” Jesus says nothing about guilt or innocence.

Admin Law Is Boring

A law student on Facebook made this reasonable statement.

I became curious, as I often do, about Admin Law and posted the following:

You have aroused my curiosity, and it shall burn from the hightest mountain tops to the base of the mountains and down to the lowest Sheol and shall wither the fruitfulness of Google (a play on Deut. 32)

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lws01.htm

http://www.geocities.com/cslee2020/adminlaw.htm

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4743336/Extremely-Short-Outline-for-Admin-Law

http://www.members.tripod.com/~legalpad/outlines.htm

http://www.karemar.com/category/free-law-school-outlines

http://www.delmarlearning.com/companions/content/1401810829/pdf/Ch11%20Outline.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_law