Trivia 1P

An article in the LA Times used the title, "Vietnam Will Stay Socialist, Premier Says." The article was, at its heart, a screed against that nation's refusal to take "the bold moves to revive its economy toward a true free-market economy" and goes on to explain that the country's "cautious approach toward reform, its increasing corruption and layers of bureaucracy have led to frustration among foreign investors." Having read this, the casual observer would assume that Vietnam has become a poverty ridden backwater and that its economy nears collapse. If that same reader had made it all the way down to the tenth paragraph, however, he would have been surprised to find the admission, "Yet despite the Asian fiscal meltdown, Vietnam's economy still managed to grow by 6% last year, the best performance of any Southeast Asian nation." What can we infer from these two opposing statements? Quite simply that any nation in this world who has the audacity to refuse to enter into the corrupt, profit ridden and failing Global Economy must, therefore, be poorly run and governed and, should that nation also show a growing economy without ceding control to the wealthy owners of the world must be forced, in anyway necessary, to take down the barriers to the exploitation now running rampant through the rest of the world. Greed, in other words, must always trump reality and national sovereignty. (4)

The New York Times has suddenly found its way onto the local newsstands here in the Owens Valley in California. Priced at a dollar, it seems, so far, to remain on the rack until removed for tomorrow's issue. Personally, I will never spend my hard earned money on this disreputable rag and, as usual, I'm just bursting to tell you why. Four times between August 18, 1998 and the following November 26 issue, one of the Times' reporters, health writer Jane Brody, cited the American Council on Science and Health as the source for three reports denigrating research that found that a healthy diet contributed to a decrease in many types of cancer. What Ms Brody failed to mention was that this organization, far from being an honest group who offers unbiased information, is instead a front funded by the junk food, chemical and other industries which pollutes our minds and bodies as well as various conservative groups. In all three instances, the New York Times was forced to make corrections and add an explanation regarding this source to her stories. Finally, though, the Times apparently just gave up and, on Nov.26, ran an entire, un-by-lined story from the American Council on Science and Health which railed against testing turkeys for dangerous bacteria and proclaimed that foods such as cranberry sauce and potatoes contain "naturally occurring chemicals." For some odd reason, the Council was described in this article as a "consumer advocacy group in New York City." (5)

Ex-President George Bush continues to embarrass himself and this nation in the same style as throwing up on Japan's emperor and being stunned to see an actual price scanner at a super market. Lately, in keeping with his long run of behaving as if even Dan Quayle may be his mental superior, he attended the funeral and wake of King Hussein of Jordan. At the wake, he noticed a young man in a corner, behaving as if he wasn't comfortable in those surroundings. George sauntered over, held out his hand and introduced himself. The other fellow can be forgiven for refusing the offer of a hand shake, though, as he was the son of Muammar Qaddafi and his sister had been murdered during the Reagan-Bush air attacks in the 80's. Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever asked Bush to spell "potato"? (6)

Want to know a surprising and terribly sad piece of information that you have never heard a word about in the conservative media? The Miranda Rule, the mandatory statement regarding having an attorney present and the like that police officers were forced to make, has been repealed. That's right, my fellow uninformed Americans, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, on Feb. 8, stated that it had been superseded by an act of Congress in 1968. You read that correctly, gentle readers, the police are no longer required to allow you to speak to an attorney before questioning and can claim that any statement made, even under threat of or actual force, was one of "voluntariness". Now, the Supreme Court declared the Miranda Rule for the simple reason that all warnings given by police in the 1960's were meant to be cloudy and could only be understood in the context of the police official giving it. Now, even "admissions of guilt" given after physical torture can be allowed in court as evidence. Isn't this a bit scary to all of you? One must take the Court's ruling within the context of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's history, as well. It held, on Nov. 17, 1998, that it was not to be considered an "error" for a judge to tell a jury that, in the judge's opinion, the defendant had lied in his testimony and he should be found guilty. Okay, now are you scared for our nation's future? I most assuredly am. (7)

Well, I suppose that I should let you rest your weary minds at this point. Gentle readers, we all need to be very alert these days. Your freedoms and your very health and safety are under fire from every point on the right and, if they aren't constantly fought back against, your future and our children's future is bleak, indeed.

Return To Front Page

Comments?