_elvis.jpg)
 | See full-size image. vakare.files.wordpress.com/. lorenabobby.jpg 300 x 260 - 47k |
Plate 12.1 The United States Supreme Court
PLEASE READ ABOUT AMERICAN STANDARDS OF MORALITY BEFORE MIGRATING AND ABOUT THE DOT BUSTERS.
American Politics and Society Fifth Edition
David McKay University of Essex
13 BLACKWELL Publishers
269
REGULATING MORALITY :CIVIL RIGHTS ,LIBERTIES AND THE CONSCIENCE ISSUES.
INTRODUCTION ·
REGULATING PUBLIC MORALITY ·
CIVIL LIBERTIES ·
CONTROVERSY ·
EQUALITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS ·
CONCLUSIONS · NOTE
· FURTHER READING
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed:
'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal' Martin Luther King Jr
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Great-Black-Americans-Martin-
Luther-King-Jr-Posters_i386895_.htm |
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-
campaign5apr05,1,3788824.story |
It would be easy to infer from earlier chapters that decision-making in the American political system is so fragmented and dispersed that the resulting policies are simply not amenable to simple characterization; that the open and pluralistic nature of the system produces a politics of confusion and unpredictability, While there is no doubt a great deal of truth to this, it would be wrong to leave the analysis without inquiring further into the nature,and consequences of policy-making in the United States. The purpose of the next four chapters is, therefore, to add perspective and balance to earlier conclusions by examining how policy-making has developed in four impor-ant areas - the regulation of morality, social, economic and foreign policy. Discus-ion focuses on the following three questions:
How does policy develop over time? How do changes in administration and the domestic and international environment change the ways in which policy is formulated and implemented?
Related is the crucial question of the role that political institutions and processes play in the political system. Is it now more difficult to produce effective public policy than in the past? Is the system capable of satisfying myriad public
270 REGULATING MORALITY
demands while at the same time preserving the ethos of limited government that is at the heart of the American public philosophy?
To what extent do policy systems differ in style and substance one from another?
Obviously, we cannot provide definitive answers to these questions and discussion of each area must, of necessity, be brief. Because we can only touch on the main issues involved, reference to more detailed analysis is provided where appropriate.
REGULATING PUBLIC MORALITY
American politics has always been infused with what Samuel Huntington has called a 'creedal passion', or public demands that government should playa role in regulating the public and private behaviour of citizens.' In spite of the Civil War and the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, between 1870 and the 1950s most of the debate and controversy in this area rarely reached beyond state and local politics. Today, however, the federal government is intimately involved in regulating morality. From civil rights to abortion, prayers in public schools and criminal procedural rights, federal, rather than state and local, standards and laws guide public morals. As with so many other areas of policy, the public are deeply ambivalent about (and often deeply divided over) this role. On the one hand, many Americans expect the federal government to be the final authority responsible for outlawing discrimination and protecting individual rights. On the other hand, many people become angry and disillusioned when this role fails to conform to their personal interpretation of what is moral and just.
This tension is, arguably, much greater in the USA than in most comparable countries. As we saw in chapter 2, Americans are, in comparison with citizens of such countries as Germany and France, deeply distrustful of government and strongly devoted to the protection of individual freedoms. Bur quire deep divisions over the meaning of 'individual freedom' exist which have few parallels in Western Europe.
Nowhere in Europe, for example, are such issues as abortion, gun control or prayers in public schools debarred wirh the intensity and passion as they are in the USA.
This chapter addresses the role of the federal government in these and related areas. A special emphasis is paid to the ways in which the role of the federal government has changed over the course of the past fifty years.
CIVIL LIBERTIES
Civil liberties are usually interpreted as those rights protected under the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Typically, therefore, they include freedom of speech, religion and assembly, the right to a fair trial and due process, freedom from unlawful search and seizure and the right to bear arms. In most countries, the terms civil rights and civil liberties are used , bu:t in the USA civil rights have come to mean the right to be free from discrimination on grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability or sexual preference.
REGULATING MORALITY 271
Until the twentieth century protection under the Bill of Rights was, in fact, quite limited. By arguing that the Constitution applied to federal law, and therefore that he Bill of Rights was not applicable to state law, the Supreme Court effectively left the protection of liberties to the various state constitutions. In many parts of the USA, and especially in the South, numerous state laws were passed which today "ould be considered an affront to the rights of citizens. The most famous of these ,were, of course, the infamous 'Jim Crow' laws excluding African Americans from :1111 participation in society. But in many other areas, including the treatment of alleged political 'subversives', religious minorities, women and arrested persons, the ?protection afforded by many states was very limited. How has political action and discourse changed in these areas over the past 100 years?
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Starting with Gitlow v. New York (1925), which established that First Amendment :freed om of speech rights applied to state law, the Supreme Court gradually began to extend the Bill of Rights to state law. It was not until after 1937 that the Court began ..::consistently to do this, and in particular to argue that the states had an obligation to _ provide for due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and that as the Bill of Rights provided for due process so these rights should be protected by the states. The -;technical term used was the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. After the Second ·world War and accelerating during the 1960s, all the Bill of Rights protections from free speech to the right to a counsel for arrested persons were incorporated into state Law
This period of judicial activism coincided with the incumbency of the liberal Warren Court. In case after case the Court extended the protection afforded to citizens .under the Bill of Rights. Initially, the most Important cases concerned First Amendment freedom of speech cases. Between 1919 ;and 1957 the Court consistently sided with restrictive federal and state laws against the rights of Individuals in this area "lot withstanding, the Gitlow case, where thc Court upheld New York's right to proscribe speech while incorporating that law under the equal protection clause).
Often these decisions translated into action against anarchists, communists and other un-American' organizations. In many instances, the Court invoked the 'clear and present danger' test, claiming that c0mmunist activity was a clear threat to the Union) see the discussion in chapter "12, p. 253). In Yates v. United States (1957), the Court argued that membership of the Communist Party was not in itself a threat, and in United States v. Rouble (1967), the Court effectively established that membership of the Communist Party was protected under the First Amendment.
Today, it is difficult to imagine Congress passing a law which specifically pro:scribed the right to join a particular political organization or which banned the publication of a particular political tract. Even the Ku Klux Klan and similar organizations enjoy First Amendment protection. Generally, federal authorities pursue acts of political violence or espionage. With the exception of proscribing those urging others to perform acts of violence, the expression of beliefs is broadly protected under the law. Freedom of speech extends beyond political freedoms, of course. It also applies to
272 REGULATING MORALITY
such areas as obscenity and libel. As far as the latter is concerned, the American media have more freedom to publish unsubstantiated facts about groups and individuals than in many other countries, as tabloid stories about movie stars and other public figures show. While this freedom has been challenged in the courts, it continues to be better protected than what is often called the individual's right to privacy.
Most jurists argue that while the publication of obscene materials is not protected by the First Amendment, laws proscribing such material are often viewed as infringements of freedom of speech. This is mainly because, apart from child pornography, it is almost impossible to define what is and what is not obscene. In one important area, however, the Supreme Court has been active. In 1997 it struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which sought to restrict Internet pornography that might be accessible to those under 18. The Court maintained that the law was too vague and that any attempt by the government to regulate the content of speech was a threat to the free exchange of ideas.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RIGHTS
It would be fair to say that while freedom of speech rights are of fundamental importance to democracy, they have generally not aroused as much passion and debate as some other Bill of Rights issues, including criminal procedural rights. As with free speech, the constitutionality of most state laws in this area went untested until the 1960s. During that decade, however, the Warren Court greatly strengthened the rights of accused and arrested persons invoking the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
In Gideon v. Wainright (1963), the right to a counsel irrespective of the ability to pay was established. Escabedo v. Illinois (1964) prevented the police from carrying out any interrogation until a counsel was available. Mapp v. Ohiu (1 961) greatly extended the 'exclusionary rule', or how Illuch evidence the police could use during 'search and seizure'. Only if the police had proper authority to search and what was found was relevant to that search could it be used in court. In other words, if the police legally entered a property looking for weapons, but found drugs, the drugs could not be used as evidence in a subsequent trial. Miranda v. Arizona(1966) established the precedent that arrested persons should be read their rights (essentially the right to remain silent).
These and other cases represented a transformation in the rights of the accused, but they were hardly without controversy, for they coincided with a rapid increase in crime, especially in the country's inner cities. While cause and effect are difficult· establish in this area, there is little doubt that law enforcement officials believed that , restrictions placed on the power to search and to interrogate were making it difficult to arrest and convict criminals - and especially those with the resources to make; use of the system. The public, too, grew increasingly disenchanted with courts that seemed too 'soft' on crime. As it turned out, both the subsequent Burger Court athe most recent Rehnquist Court gradually narrowed the meaning and application of almost all of these rulings.
As far as the exclusionary rule is concerned, police now have much greater freedom both to enter property and to use evidence found during search and seizure,as
273
long as it was found in 'good faith'. This effectively means they can use anything found during a search as evidence. The Court has also greatly expanded the power of the police to use warrant less searches and has chipped away at the actual effect of the Miranda warning. For example, in Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), the Court argued that evidence culled by undercover police (such as confessions) was permissible even
274 REGULATING MORALITY
'though clearly suspects cannot be told of their right to silence in such cases'. In effect, therefore, while none of the famous Burger decisions have been overturned, their application has been progressively narrowed.
A further area of controversy concerns the status of the death penalty, and in particular whether it constitutes a 'cruel and unusual punishment' under the Eighth Amendment. Doubts about the constitutionality of the death penalty led all states to postpone executions from the mid-1960s. In the 1971 case Furman v. Georgia, the Court held that as presently administered there was a random element in deliberations leading to the death penalty that was unacceptable. No executions occurred until after 1976, when the Court upheld the penalty in those cases where juries could consider the unique circumstances of every case. Since then, executions have proceeded at an accelerating case, with Texas leading the way with 152 executions between 1976 and early 1998 (table 13.1). Critics argue that the death penalty remains 'cruel and unusual', both because most of those executed are poor and members of minority groups, and because convicted persons have to withstand many years of appeals and stays of execution before they are finally put to death.
Although public opinion remains strongly in favour of capital punishment, increasing publicity about hasty and poorly managed trials, mistakes and the enormous variations between state policy in this area (table 13.1) have led to a softening of opinion in recent years. Interestingly, many other countries, and especially those European states that abolished capital punishment many years ago, view American practices in this area with a mixture of horror and contempt.
A final area of controversy in the civil liberties area is the Second Amendment's right 'to keep and bear arms'. Supporters of this amendment, and in particular the National Rifle Association (NRA), argue that Congress and the state governments should keep gun comrol laws to a minimum. following the assassination attempt on President Reagan in 1981, Congress passed the Brady Bill, requiring a waiting period for firearms purchase. Later, the 1994 Crime Control Bill banned certain categories of assault rifle. Although most members of the public support stronger gun control measures, opponents are better organized, well funded and highly focused. Only following gun outrages such as the high school massacre at Littleton, Colorado, in April 1999 ;are passions aroused so that the anti-gun movements receives real impetus.
Indeed, by 2000 the anti gun movement had achieved real momentum with the 'million mom march' in Washington, DC, of women campaigning for gun control. Again, controversy in this area has uniquely American characteristics. Nowhere else do interest groups organize with such passion and conviction on the issue of the rights of cirizenry to access and bear arms.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION
Americans have always been ambivalent about the relationship between church and state - a sentiment that stems in part from the status of religion in the early Republic.
On the one hand, the First Amendment guarantees the 'free exercise' of religion. On the other hand, it prohibits the government from 'establishing' a religion. To the Founding Fathers, the 'free exercise' of religion meant the freedom to set up religious groups
276 REGULATING MORALITY
and denominations free from government control. But initially, at least, these were always Christian groups. From the very beginning of the Republic, state and local governments had provided support for Christian organizations, and especially schools.
In recent years debate and controversy over the proper role of government in this area have never been far from the surface. For some, a 'high wall of separation' between church and state should be maintained, while for others an intermediate or accommodationist position is preferred. As in other conscience issues, the Supreme Court has been active in this area, and especially so with regard to the tricky problems of religious aid for schools and religious instruction in schools. In Engel v.
Vitale (1962) the Court declared unconstitutional even the briefest of non-denominational prayers in schools. Later, and following public outcry in many states and communities, it progressively softened its position, until in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) it laid down specific rules on what was permitted and what was not. Most importantly, the decision required that any government aid to schools have a clear secular purpose that there be no 'excessive governmental entanglement' with religion. What this actually means has been up to the courts to decide, and although the Rehnquist Court has not always been consistent in this area, it has broadly favoured the accommodationist position. Certainly, federal, state and local governments do provide direct and indirect aid for parochial schools, ranging from income tax deductions to the provision of remedial teachers under the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As with capital punishment, the Court has followed rather than led public opinion in this area.
 | See full-size image. www.republicanvoices.org/ 450 x 350 - 25k Image may be scaled down and subject to copyright. |
ABORTION
The pope, shown here with Vladimir Putin, takes a conservative line (AP Photo).
BLOG: Redwood Age's Spiritual Lift
Early years and KGB career
Putin was born in Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg) on October 7, 1952.[5] A quasi-autobiographical book, От Первого Лица[6] (Romanization: Ot Pervovo Litsa; the English-language title: First Person[7], the meaning of the Russian phrase being more polysemantic), based on his interviews, translated into English in 2000 and paid for by his election campaign, speaks of humble beginnings, including early years in a communal apartment. According to him, in his youth, he was eager to emulate the intelligence officer characters played on the Soviet screen by actors such as Vyacheslav Tikhonov and Georgiy Zhzhonov.
His mother, Maria Ivanovna Putina, was a factory worker and his father, Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin, was conscripted into the Soviet Navy, where he served in the submarine fleet in the early 1930s. His father subsequently served with the NKVD in a sabotage group [1] during the Second World War. Two elder brothers were born in the mid-1930s; one died within a few months of birth; the second succumbed to diphtheria during the siege of Leningrad. His paternal grandfather, Spiridon Putin, had been Vladimir Lenin's and Joseph Stalin's personal cook.[8] Putin's surname translates "man of path" into English.
Family and personal life
Cherie Blair, wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Lyudmila Putin, wife of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and US First Lady Laura Bush, wife of US President George W. Bush, look at flowers during the G8 Summit in Sea Island, Georgia, on Wednesday.
— Reuters
On July 28, 1983 Putin married Lyudmila Shkrebneva, at that time an undergraduate student of the Spanish branch of the Philology Department of the Leningrad State University and a former airline stewardess, who had been born in Kaliningrad on January 6, 1958. They have two daughters, Maria Putina (born 1985) and Yekaterina "Katya" Putina (born 1986 in Dresden). The daughters attended the German School in Moscow (Deutsche Schule Moskau) until his appointment as prime minister.
US President George W. Bush (2nd L) and his wife Laura (L) meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) and his wife Ludmila (2nd R) at the presidential residence Novo Ogaryovo outside Moscow. [AFP]
As we saw in chapter 12; few areas of public morality have aroused as much passion as the question of abortion. Along with capital punishment, the issue is usually discussed in terms of moral absolutes. For the pro-life opponents of the practice, abortion is tantamount to the murder of the unborn. For pro-choice advocates, the issue is couched in terms of a woman's freedom to exercise control over her own body.
Often this argument is expressed in terms of women's right to privacy. Following the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which effectively sanctioned abortion in the first three months of pregnancy throughout the USA (for details, see chapter 12, pp. 2623), pro-life supporters have used a wide variety of tactics to get the decision reversedor at least to restrict its application.
At the legislatives level) both Congress and a number of state legislatures have restricted access to abortion by reducing or eliminating government aid, requiring that the parents of minors seeking to terminate informed, limiting the location of abortion clinics and requiring women to seek co selling before terminating. State courts and ultimately the Supreme Court have genr ally upheld these laws, although at no point has the Rehnquist Court struck do the principles inherent in Roe v, Wade. From the appointment of the two Clinton justices, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Bryer, both of whom support the right to choose, it is unlikely that Roe v. Wade will be reversed in the near future.
Pro-life groups have sometimes gone beyond the legislative and judicial process and have taken various forms of direct action against abortion clinics and staff.
REGULATING MORALITY 277
range from picketing and demonstrations to, in the most extreme cases, the murder of doctors and abortion proponents. .
While public opinion is broadly pro-choice, it is unlikely that the abortion issue will cease to divide both politically and socially. Within the Republican Parry, for example, abortion has become a particularly difficult issue, especially at the presidential level. Pro-life supporters look to Republican politicians to support their agenda.
At the same time, Republican presidential candidates cannot afford to alienate the broad mass of voters who are pro-choice. As a result, several Republican candidates, including Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000, have attempted to take a middle position, arguing that while they are personally against abortion, it should ultimately be for the individual to choose. Such a position is naturally unacceptable o those who see the issue in terms of moral absolutes.
EQUALITY AND CiVil RIGHTS
'Civil rights' in the USA is usually used as a synonym for the provision of equal rights :or racial and ethnic minorities. Discrimination does, of course, affect other social ",groups, including women and the disabled. This section addresses the evolution of public policy with regard to all these groups.
RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES
In the middle part of the twentieth century)' no area of public policy aroused as much passion and bitterness as the question of the desegregation of the South. Following -the notorious 1883 Supreme Court decision in Plessey v. Ferguson, which declared the 1875 Civil Rights Act unconstitutional, most of the Southern states enacted 'Jim crow' laws which institutionalized segregation and discrimination. As a result. the Southern states evolved into dual societies, with African Americans segregated from "whites in education, employment, transport( and public accommodations. In addition, they were subject to a range of barriers to voting which effectively disenfranchised; them.
The civil rights movement began following the Second World War, which had the dual effect of mobilizing many African American males and inducing a mass migration of blacks to the war factories in the North. Both events helped to reinforce (the perception among blacks that conditions in the South were totally unacceptable.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) had long been active in fighting discrimination, and by the 1940s actively supporting lawsuits aimed at discriminatory practices. After some minor victories, the breakthrough came in 1954 with the landmark Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. The .case involved an eight-year-old girl who was required to attend an all-black school five miles away rather than an all-white school a short distance from her home.
Invoking the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court argued that separate facilities in education were 'inherently unequal'. In a related 1955 decision the Court ordered Southern schools to decision the court ordered Southern schools to desegregate " with all deliberate speed."
Playing With Dolls
Left to right: Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schröder and Vladimir Putin
71 KUMAR KARTIKEYA S N TEWARY
200630006
 | See full-size image. www.davcollege.org/ 125 x 139 - 12k Image may be scaled down and subject to copyright. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swami_Dayananda_
Saraswati&oldid=195279832
72 LATIKA RANA Y P
73 MADHU BHATTI D S BHATTI 130630492
74 MANDEEP MITTAL KULDIP SINGH MITTAL 170630521
75 MANISH CHAUHAN RAMBIR SINGH 110630355
76 MANISH KHURANA JAGMOHAN LAL KHURANA 130630752
77 MOHD MUQEEM MOHD SALEEM 180630298
Dayanand Saraswati Biography
Born: 1824
Died: 1883
http://web.archive.org/web/20050301-20050530re_
ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIES
http://www.aiuweb.org/organisation/organisation.asp
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | Dr. G.V. Subrahmanyam Director, (Scientific) Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003, India
Phone: +91 11 24364594 Email: gvs_moef2005@yahoo.co.in
|
REGULATING MORALITY 275
CONTROVERSY 6
WHAT'S SO WRONG WITH GUN CONTROL?
Foreign observers of the US scene are constantly amazed at the passion with which many Americans defend their right to own firearms. Most opponents of gun control cite the Second Amendment to the Constitution in support of their position. The amendment reads: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' In recent years the debate over gun control has intensified, not least because of the increasing evidence - much of it publicized by the national media - of the link between violence and the availability of firearms.
Periodic assassinations and assassination attempts as well as mass shootings have added impetus to gun control advocates. Some of the first federal laws were introduced following the assassinations of the 1960s (Jack and Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King) and further measures were taken in the wake of the attempt on Ronald Reagan's life in 1981. Hence, the so-called Brady Bill (named after James Brady the president's press secretary who was disabled in the attack) requires a waiting period and background check for gun purchases.
More recently the 1994 Crime Control Bill banned a range of assault rifles.
Tighter controls, including safety locks on all hand guns and more stringent checks on purchasers, have so far foundered in Congress - even when (as the tragic events at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999 showed) access to deadly weapons remains easy. (Two teenage boys murdered 13 students and teachers and then shot themselves.) Opponents of gun control and especially the lead interest group in this area, the National Rifle Association (NRA), insist that what is needed is not more control but public education. With such slogans as 'guns don't kill people, people do', they argue that to restrict access to guns would not only be unconstitutional but would be the thin end of the wedge on the road to the removal of all liberty. Federal legislation is regarded as particularly pernicious because it represents the spread of 'big government' and the advance of a centralized state against individual fr'eedom. The NRA is also opposed to state controls on gun sales (and some states such as Massachusetts have imposed quite Draconian restrictions), but knows that in many Southern, Mountain and Western states state legislators will continue to oppose restrictions.
Politically, the issue has taken on new salience in recent years as large numbers of voters - and especially women - have become increasingly angry at the failure of government to protect the innocent against gun outrages. The position taken by the NRA and its president, conservative movie star Charlton Heston, is increasingly viewed as extremist. Even so, presidential candidates such as George W. Bush still cannot afford to take a strong anti-gun stance. For among many Americans the right to own a gun remains an 'inalienable right'.
278 REGULATING MORALITY
Brown v. Topeka Board provoked a storm of protest in the South, including clear efforts to obstruct the implementation of the law. Desegregation did eventually begin in earnest, but not until further court action and the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which added legislative teeth to the judicial decisions (see the chronology of civil rights action, table 13.2). The 1964 Act, together with the 1965 Voting Rights Act, transformed the legal status of Southern blacks. Separate public facilities disappeared and the number of African Americans registered to vote eventually approached white levels. Controversy hardly evaporated, however. Indeed, it increased as many of the issues raised by discrimination became national rather than specifically Southern in nature. The first was the distinction between de facto or naturally evolving and de jure or legally imposed segregation. Clearly, most of the segregation in the South was de jure in nature and the Supreme Court consistently argued that it
REGULATING MORALITY 279
was unconstitutional and should be reversed. Hence, in Swann v. Charlotte Mecklenberg (1971) the Court sanctioned bussing within a district which had a long history of legally mandated segregation. This and subsequent cases raised the question of the status of de facto segregation in the North, where patterns of residential segregation led automatically to separation in schools. Broadly speaking, the Court sanctioned bussing to achieve racial balance within districts where there was a clear pattern of intent to separate by race. However, it proved more reluctant to bus children across district lines and to remedy de facto discrimination where no intent to separate was evident.
None the less, the issue proved politically explosive in a number of jurisdictions, including Detroit and Boston, and increasingly during the 1970s and 1980s the courts proved reluctant to impose bussing plans on communities. These cases also relate to the second area of controversy - what were the limits of affirmative action or attempts to redress a past pattern of discrimination? Affirmative action is inherently problematical because it involves a clash between the liberal notion of what the indiL'idual is worth and the collective interests of a group or race. Following the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, many federal, state and local laws were enacted involving the use of affirmative action devices such as racial preference quotas. However, in Regents of the University of California v, Bakke (1978) the Supreme Court found that a quota of 16 places reserved for minorities our of ] 00 available at the Davis Medical School was a violation of a qualified white applicant's rights under he Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the individual rights of the white appli:ant were given higher priority than the collective rights of minorities who had suffered discrimination in the past and were, therefore, disadvantaged, Since Bakke the Supreme Court - and in particular the Rehnquist Court - has progressively weakened the meaning and application of affirmative action pro grammes, including the use of quotas.
The decline of affirmative action was confirmed when the Supreme Court refused t0 review California's 1997 Proposition 209 banning 'preferential treatment' for minorities in state pro grammes.
This voter initiative ended effective affirmative action the University of California and elsewhere in California, As a result, the number of blacks and Hispanics entering some of the more prestigious University of California campuses dropped significantly after 1997, In 1998 voters in Washington State also passed an initiative banning 'preferential treatment for minorities'.
GENDER
The struggle for women's equality has in many ways paralleled the civil rights movement. For although women won the right to vote under the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, they continued to be subject to extensive discrimination in a wide range of areas, from employment to education to housing. The first major advance was the _passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 banning wage discrimination in a range of job categories. One year later, all the prohibitions on discrimination in the 1964 Civil -rights Act also applied to gender. Under this law, an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was created to enforce equal employment conditions for
280 REGULATING MORALITY
women and minorities. Underfunded and overburdened with cases, the EEOC made little headway into unequal pay, however, a fact which led many women's organizations to call for an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution which would guarantee equality of treatment. In spite of a major campaign launched by the National Organization for Women (NOW), passage by Congress in 1972 and the support of presidents Nixon and Carter, the ERA only managed to muster 35 of the 38 state votes necessary for passage. The Amendment effort was subject to a seven-year deadline with a three-year extension, and therefore expired in 1982. Thus women continue not to be specifically mentioned in or protected by the US Constitution.
Notwithstanding this setback, women's groups have been able to advance sexual equality in a number of areas by taking both the legislative and judicial routes. The Equal Credit Act of 1974 (amended 1976) grants equal access to financial credit. In ] 993 Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides women (and men) with up to 12 weeks' unpaid leave to tend to a new born or sick family member. Although considered a significant advance, this law falls far short of the support provided in most other developed nations, most of which allow for paid leave for the birth and care of the new born.
On the judicial front, the Supreme Court has handed down a succession of decisions limiting sexual harassment, reinforcing equal pay and ending discriminatory practices against pregnant women. One of the most celebrated of these cases affected the Virginia Military Academy's ban on female cadets. Along with another all-male school, the Citadel in South Carolina, the Academy was ordered to admit women cadets. By 1999, notwithstanding continuing harassment of females in such schools, women were being admitted in larger numbers. Some of the most far reaching Court opinions have been written by Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, thus demonstrating that the incumbency of women in positions of power can make a real difference to how women are treated in society.
Women have, in fact, made major advances in politics, business and other professions(. As we saw in charter 2, however, they still have a long way to go.
DISABILITY
In total, some 20 million Americans suffer from some sort of disability (hearing, speech, sight, mental or mobility impairment). Unlike with ethnicity and gender, however, legislative protection for the disabled has been relatively uncontroversial. As early as 1948 discrimination against the disabled in the federal civil service was outlawed. Later, in 1964, the Architectural Barriers Act required all federal buildings to be accessible to the disabled, and the 1988 Civil Rights Restoration Act added disability to the list of categories where federal funds could be withdrawn for discriminatory practices. Most important of all was the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which provided for comprehensive access for the disabled to all public buildings, transportation and other public facilities. As with other civil rights acts, how the ADA works out in practice will depend on administrative enforcement and judicial interpretation. While it is easy to be complacent in this area, it is interesting to note that the protection afforded disabled Americans is considerably greater than in
REGULATING MORALITY 281
many other countries, including many of the European welfare states. Perhaps this reflects the overarching importance of equality of opportunity as a value in American society. Most Americans would balk at the idea that simply because someone is in a wheelchair he or she should be denied access to the social and economic opportunities available to others.
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has not addressed all the areas that could be included under the general heading of government regulation of public morality. Discrimination against older Americans and against gays and lesbians is also a matter for public debate and government action. Older Americans are represented by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), which with 30 members )lobbies hard both to protect social security and other benefits and to fight discrimination against the old in employment, housing and medical care. Gays and lesbians continue to suffer extensive discrimination in housing and employment, and while they have achieved success in some communities, in many more anti-gay ordinances - for example, prohibiting openly gay persons from teaching in public schools - have been passed.
With these and all the other issues discussed above, the citizenry look to governments and increasingly to all three branches of the federal government for guidance for protection. This activity puts additional pressures on the political system. When, aS with abortion and capital punishment, the issues involve moral absolutes, governments are, by definition, unable to please everyone.
The nationalization of these issues in recent years thus helps to raise public expectations of what government can do, but ~also means that for many citizens government action will result in disapointmcnt - or cvcn in anger and frustration.
Onc thing is for sure - all these civil rights and liberties conscience issues will :continue to crowd the policy agenda. More open and accessible political institutions, together with increasingly \vocal demands for redress among minorities, women and other groups: will ensure this.
A further and obvious conclusion to be drawn from the preceding analysis is that there is no single policy system which can accommodate the very diverse and complex ways In which governments at all levels attempt to regulate public morality.
Because this general area involves constitutional rights, the courts are, by definition, intimately involved . But as we saw, the courts, and in particular the Supreme Court, have failed to provide consistent and coherent leadership on moral questions.
The representative of American government, including the presidency and Congress, are also involved, of course. Bur in contrast to such areas as economic and -foreign policy, there is rarely a clear and predetermined policy agenda on civil rights, .berties and the other conscience issues awaiting presidents and members of Congress when they accede to power. Instead, these policy-makers tend to react to out"side events such as civil· rights demonstrations or a mass shooting incident, rather than take the lead. This reactive rather than proactive stance demonstrates well the xrils of promising too much in policy areas where arguments are so often couched in terms of moral and political absolutes.
282 REGULATING MORALITY
NOTE
Samuel Huntington, American Politics: the Promise of Disharmony (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1981).
FURTHER READING
The best account of the Supreme Court's role in the civil liberties area is by Henry J. Abraham and Barbara A. Perry, Freedom and the Court: Civil Rights and Liberties in the United States, 7th edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). Nicholas Lehmann's The Promised Land: the Great Black Migration and How It Changed America (New York: Knopf, 1991) provides a vivid account of black migration to the North. Taylor Branch has written two excellent volumes of a planned three-volume biography of Martin Luther King, Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954-1963 and Pillar of Fire: America in the King Years, 1963-1965 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988 and ]998). Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986) examines the reasons for the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment. A good discussion of the politics of abortion is provided by Barbara Craig and David O'Brien, Abortion and American Politics (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1993). On disability, see Robert A. Katzman, Institutional Disability:
the Saga of Transportation Policy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1986).
Table 13.2
Chronology of civil rights and political action, 1948-1971
1948
In Shelley v. Kramer the Supreme Court makes racially restrictive covenants in housing unenforceable.President Truman signs an executive order desegregating the armed forces.
1954
In Brown v. Board, the Coun establishes that separate educational facilities are inherenrly unequal.
1955
The Court orders Southern schools to desegregate 'with all deliberate speed'.
1956
Montgomery, Ala ba ma, bus boycott (wh ich followed Rosa Parks' refusal I to sit in the 'blacks only' back section of the bus) ends following Supreme Court decision outlawing segregation on buses. Creation of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, ' Luther King.Jr named as first president.
1957
Creation of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 'Martin Luther King.Jr named as first president.Troops sent to Little Rock, ,Arkansas to enforce desegregation of Central High School.
Passage of 1957 Civil Righrs ,Act establishes the US Commission on Civil Rights.
1960-1965
Continuing civil rights demonstrations; in the South, including 'Freedom Rides''to force of transportation, and other non-\violent protests. Many demonstrations are arrested or assaulted by police. The most notable demonstration was the March on Washington for Jobs and freedom in 1963 during which Martin Luther King delivered his 'I have a dream' speech.
1964
The omnibus 1964 Civil Rights Act outlaws discrimination in education, employment and public facilities.Passage of the Twenty-fourth ;Amendment prohibits poll taxes in federal elections.Marrin Luther King.Jr awarded Nobel Peace Prize.
1965
Civil Rights Act bans discrimination in voting and orders the dispatch; of federal registrars to Southern voting districts.
1968
Manin Luther King Jr assassinated. Widespread rioting follows, including demonstrations just blocks from the US Capitol.Civil Rights Act bans discrimination in housing.
1971
Supreme Court decision in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg sanctions bussing within a school district that has a longstanding pattern of segregation.
248 THE SUPREME COURT AND JUDICIAL POLITICS
THE SUPREME COURT: DECISION-MAKING
Each year about 150 cases are actually decided by the Supreme Court, and while most of these will be of relatively minor political or constitutional import, some will have profound consequences for the American polity and society. Since 1950, for example, the Court has decided that racially separate educational and other facilities are inherently unequal; that almost exact mathematical equality should be applied to the size of state legislative and Congressional districts; that indigent arrested persons should be provided with the services of a lawyer at the government's expense; that tapes of presidential conversations were not so private as to be protected by executive privilege and therefore could be used in court against presidential staff accused of dishonesty; and that the bussing of school children to achieve racial integration is constitutionally required to overcome a historical pattern of legally imposed educational segregation. The very fact that all of these decisions have aroused intense controversy demonstrates their political significance, and the question of how far and in what ways the Court can hand down decisions which are at odds with public opinion or with the other branches of government is a topic we return to below. Clearly, how the Court makes decisions is important. How does it decide which cases to hear?
What criteria does it employ when deciding a case?
It is misleading to talk of the Supreme Court. Rather than being a unified organic body, the Court consists of nine individuals, each with his or her (in 1981 Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman to be appointed to the Court) quite distinctive view of law, politics and society. Justices are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. Unlike other executive appointments, they are appointed for life. Once on the Court, then, they are free from the political, financial and other pressures which insecurity of tenure inflicts on most political actors. Of course, only a small percentage of cases coming before the Court are actually heard;
most are denied review or, in the language of the Court, are denied certiorari. Certiorari is, simply, that act whereby the losing party in the lower court appeals the record of the case to the Supreme Court so that details of the case can be made 'more certain'. More than 90 per cent of cases are appealed in this way; in most of the remainder the Court is required to hear cases by a statutory appeals process.2 The granting or denial of certiorari is clearly an important decision and the court is legally beholden to no one to justify which cases are heard and which are not. From a strictly legal perspective, the criteria for granting certiorari are relatively easy to identify.
Loren Beth lists seven:
1 How fundamental is the constitutional (or other) issue presented by the case?
2 How many similar cases have been or are being litigated?
3 Is there a conflict of opinion in the lower courts on this particular issue?
4 Does a lower court decision seem to conflict with an earlier Supreme Court decision?
Is there a significant individual right involved?
Has the lower court departed significantly from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings?
Does the case involve the interpretation of a statute never before construed?
At least four of the nine justices have to agree to grant certiorari - a fact which strongly implies that the decision is not as clear cut as the list suggests. Indeed, not one of points (]) to (7) is completely unambiguous or not open to serious disagreement or argument. How many cases in the civil rights and liberties areas - a good :,proportion of the total - do not involve a significant individual right?
Almost certainly none. Similarly, many cases claim to involve a 'fundamental constitutional issue , yet few of these are granted certiorari. The fact is that while points (1) to (7) may be a legally correct list of criteria, it tells us very little of the political context in which decisions are taken. Why did it take until the 1940s and 1950s before the Court started regularly to hear civil rights cases? Why did it take until the 1960s for criminal defendants' rights cases to come to the fore, and until 1973 for the Court to deliberate on the constitutional status of bans on abortion?
There are two possible answers here. First is that the philosophy and outlook of the justices changes over time, either as a result of turnover or because individual justices change their minds. The second is that the political and social context in which the Court operates has changed over time, thus forcing certain issues on to the judicial policy agenda which were previously excluded. Taking the second point first, is certain that the Court is influenced by the broader society. In the civil rights area, the Second World War 'nationalized' a number of social issues and brought into sharp focus for both whites and blacks the injustices of segregation in the American south. Publicity on conditions in the South was advanced by a number of interest groups, in particular the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) which also acted as a judicial interest group by providing financial and legal support for litigants involved in civil rights cases.
 | See full-size image. bp0.blogger.com/.../ 153 x 200 - 9k Image may be scaled down and subject to copyright. |
 | See full-size image. www.outlookindia.com/ 370 x 259 - 21k Image may be scaled down and subject to copyright. |
www.outlookindia.com/
 | ||||||
| Atal Behari Vajpayee The Hindu Poet- ... 370 x 238 - 19k - jpg www.outlookindia.com |
Atal Behari Vajpayee
The Hindu Poet-king
A member of Parliament for nearly 50 years, Vajpayee’s claim to this list is that he is the only non-Congress prime minister to have served a full term in office. Vajpayee portrayed the possibility that the nakedly anti-minority Bharatiya Janata Party could morph into a right-wing, mildly majoritarian party on the lines of the Christian Democratic parties of Western Europe. This promise was belied by his equivocation in the face of the pogrom of Muslims stone throwers {July 2- 1992}in Gujarat under chief minister Narendra Modi.
Plate 12.1 The United States Supreme Court
intellibriefs.blogspot.com/
What is “String of Pearls”?
Finally Indian Navy chief expressed concerns about growing presence of Chinese Navy in Indian Ocean , particularly the “String of Pearls” a label used by US to describe Chinese influence from the South China Sea through the Indian Ocean and on to the Arabian Gulf . Each “pearl” in the “String of Pearls” is a nexus of Chinese geopolitical influence or military presence. China’s development of these strategic geopolitical “pearls” has been non-confrontational, with no evidence of imperial or neocolonial ambition. Washington’s perception of China’s de facto strategy may not be a view shared in Beijing, but the fact remains that economic benefits and diplomatic rhetoric have been an enticement for countries to facilitate China’s strategic ambitions in the region.
Win Win Prospects :The port facility at Gwadar, for example, is a win-win prospect for both China and Pakistan. The port at Karachi currently handles 90 percent of Pakistan’s sea-borne trade, but because of its proximity to India, it is extremely vulnerable to blockade. This happened during the India-Pakistan War of 1971 and was threatened again during the Kargil conflict of 1999. Gwadar, a small fishing village which Pakistan identified as a potential port location in 1964 but lacked the means to develop, is 450 miles west of Karachi. A modern port at Gwadar would enhance Pakistan’s strategic depth along its coastline with respect to India.
Benefits for China : For China, the strategic value of Gwadar is its 240-mile distance from the Strait of Hormuz. China is facilitating development of Gwadar and paving the way for future access by funding a majority of the $1.2 billion project and providing the technical expertise of hundreds of engineers. Since construction began in 2002, China has invested four times more than Pakistan and contributed an additional $200 million towards the building of a highway to connect Gwadar with Karachi. In August 2005, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited Pakistan to commemorate completion of the first phase of the Gwadar project and the opening of the first 3 of 12 multi-ship berths.
The Gwadar project has enhanced the strategic, diplomatic, and economic ties between Pakistan and China.
Other countries are benefiting from China’s new strategy, as well. In November 2003, China signed an agreement with Cambodia to provide military equipment and training in exchange for the right of way to build a rail line from southern China to the Gulf of Thailand.10 China also has an ambitious $20 billion proposal to build a canal across Thailand’s Kra Isthmus which would enable ships to bypass the chokepoint at the Strait of Malacca. Although this plan is stalled due to Thailand’s noncommittal position and political opposition in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, it reveals the scope and scale of Chinese ambition for the “String of Pearls.”
Source: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/
pdffiles/PUB721.pdf
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0101e.asp
 | See full-size image. content.answers.com/ 270 x 315 - 90k |
Clinton’s Kosovo Frauds by James Bovard,
January 2001
AS AMERICANS DEBATE what President Clinton’s legacy should be, too little attention is given to his remarks on Kosovo. The United States launched a war against a European nation largely at Clinton’s behest. Clinton’s war against Serbia epitomized his moralism, his arrogance, his refusal to respect law, and his fixation on proving his virtue by using deadly force, regardless of how many innocent people died in the process.
Clinton claimed on March 24, 1999, that one purpose of bombing Serbia (including Kosovo) was “to deter an even bloodier offensive against innocent civilians in Kosovo and, if necessary, to seriously damage the Serbian military’s capacity to harm the people of Kosovo.” The CIA had warned the Clinton administration that if bombing was initiated, the Serbian army would greatly accelerate its efforts to expel ethnic Albanians. The White House disregarded this warning and feigned surprise when mass expulsions began.
Yet NATO Supreme Commander Gen. Wesley Clark said on March 26 that the upsurge in crackdowns on ethnic Albanians was “entirely predictable.” Since NATO had no ground forces in the area ready to intervene and since NATO planes stayed three miles above the ground to minimize pilot casualties, NATO could do nothing to stop the surge in ethnic cleansing. Violence spurred by the bombing was quickly invoked as the ultimate justification for the bombing.
The longer the bombing went on, the more brazenly NATO ignored the limits it had initially imposed on its targets in order to limit civilian casualties. In the final weeks of the 78-day war, all that mattered was finding new targets so that NATO spokesmen could continue their daily bragging about a “record number of sorties flown” and “record number of bombs dropped.” According to Human Rights Watch, at least 500 civilians were killed by NATO bombing; the Yugoslavian government claimed that 2,000 civilians were killed. NATO repeatedly dropped cluster bombs into marketplaces, hospitals, and other civilian areas.
As Serbian civilian casualties rose, purported Serbian atrocities mushroomed. On May 13, 1999, Clinton declaimed that “there are 100,000 people [in Kosovo] who are still missing” — clearly implying that they might have been slaughtered. Clinton also claimed that 600,000 ethnic Albanians could be “trapped within Kosovo itself, lacking shelter, short of food, afraid to go home, or buried in mass graves dug by their executioners.”
On April 15, 1999, Clinton opened a speech to newspaper editors by proclaiming the “stark contrast between a free society with a free press and a closed society where the press is used to manipulate people by suppressing or distorting the truth.” However, NATO consistently misrepresented its own actions. The Washington Post’s Bradley Graham noted on May 24, 1999, that Pentagon and NATO
briefings about the air operation have ... acquired a propaganda element aimed at demonizing Milosevic and his Belgrade government and imparting a moral imperative to the conflict. U.S. and NATO spokesmen, in scripts closely coordinated with the help of several public affairs specialists loaned by Washington to Brussels, routinely mix reports on allied strikes with fresh accusations of atrocities by Yugoslav forces.Graham noted that the spokesmen routinely sought to delay admitting NATO responsibility for bombing civilians for “at least one news cycle or two before owning up to attacks gone awry.”
For Clinton, bombing Serbia was a triumph of idealism. The Washington Post reported that on the day after NATO planes bombed the Chinese embassy, “Clinton complained to British Prime Minister Tony Blair that news coverage was not fully presenting the moral dimensions of the war.” In the final days of the bombing, the Washington Post reported that “some presidential aides and friends are describing Kosovo in Churchillian tones, as Clinton’s ‘finest hour.’” The Post also reported that according to one Clinton friend “what Clinton believes were the unambiguously moral motives for NATO’s intervention represented a chance to soothe regrets harbored in Clinton’s own conscience.... The friend said Clinton has at times lamented that the generation before him was able to serve in a war with a plainly noble purpose, and he feels ‘almost cheated’ that ‘when it was his turn he didn’t have the chance to be part of a moral cause.’”
Clinton’s Kosovo peace
On June 10, 1999, NATO and the government of Yugoslavia reached an agreement to end the bombing. In his June 10 victory speech, Clinton proclaimed:
The demands of an outraged and united international community have been met. I can report to the American people that we have achieved a victory for a safer world, for our democratic values, and for a stronger America.... We have sent a message of determination and hope to all the world.... Because of our resolve, the 20th century is ending not with helpless indignation but with a hopeful affirmation of human dignity and human rights for the 21st century.However, experts who compared the final surrender agreement with the Rambouillet text were surprised to see that NATO had dropped many of its most onerous demands from three months earlier. In a June 11 speech at an Air Force base, Clinton bragged: “Day after day, with remarkable precision, our forces pounded every element of Mr. Milosevic’s military machine, from tanks to fuel supply, to anti-aircraft weapons, to the military and political support.” Throughout the bombing campaign, NATO and Pentagon spokesmen gushed about the slaughter NATO was inflicting on the Serbian military.
However, once the bombing stopped, the Clinton administration was stunned to see the Serbian army withdraw in fine order with polished buttons and good morale. A confidential postwar U.S. military investigation concluded that the damage claims had been exaggerated nearly tenfold. In reality, only 14 tanks, 18 armored personnel carriers, and 20 artillery pieces were taken out, despite the claimed dropping of more than 20,000 bombs on the Serbian military.
On the other hand, NATO did have a very high “kill-rate” for the cardboard decoy tanks that the Serbs erected all over Kosovo. At the end of the war, the Serbian military largely was unscathed, but the country’s civilian infrastructure was in ruins. NATO bombs were far more effective against women, children, hospitals, and retirement homes than against soldiers.
After the peace agreement, NATO was plagued by a surplus of dead Serbian civilians and a severe shortage of dead ethnic Albanians. In late October, pathologist Emilio Perez Pujol, who headed a team of Spanish investigators in Kosovo, told The Times of London, “I calculate that the final figure of dead in Kosovo will be 2,500 at the most. This includes lots of strange deaths that can’t be blamed on anyone in particular.”
In a special videotape address to the Serbian people, Clinton declared,
I want you to understand that NATO only agreed to be peacekeepers on the understanding that its troops would ensure that both sides kept their commitments and that terrorism on both sides would be brought to an end. They only agreed to serve with the understanding that they would protect Serbs as well as ethnic Albanians and that they would leave when peace took hold.In a Thanksgiving 1999 speech to American troops in Kosovo, Clinton proclaimed, “Thanks to you, we have reversed ethnic cleansing.” Clinton noted that there had been “almost one million refugees,” but “because we acted quicker [than in Bosnia], they all came home.” Clinton ignored the ongoing massive exodus of Serbs racing north for their lives. Jiri Dienstbier, the UN representative on human rights, declared in late 1999,
The spring ethnic cleansing of ethnic Albanians, accompanied by murders, torture, looting, and burning of houses, has been replaced by the autumn ethnic cleansing of Serbs, Romas [gypsies], Bosniaks, and other non-Albanians accompanied by the same atrocities.One U.S. government official told the Washington Post in August 1999: “It looks like it’s over for the Serbs. We can talk about peace, love, and democracy, but I don’t think anyone really knows how to stop this.” A November 1999 report by the International Crisis Group concluded that “there are as many killings right now in Kosovo as there were before NATO intervened.”
Clinton also declared in November 1999 that the Kosovar children “love the United States ... because we gave them their freedom back.” Perhaps Clinton saw freedom as nothing more than being tyrannized by people of the same ethnicity. Once the bombing started, NATO transformed former terrorists into “freedom fighters” — a term explicitly used in the June 1999 agreement between the NATO and the KLA. As the Serbs were driven out of Kosovo, Kosovar Albanians became increasingly oppressed by the KLA, which ignored its commitment to disarm.
In his 1999 talk to troops in Kosovo, Clinton bragged, “You just look around this room today. We just celebrated Thanksgiving, with, I bet you, conservatively, 25 different ethnic groups represented among the American military forces here in this room — maybe 50, maybe it’s more.”
Clinton’s standard of virtue seemed to consist of little more than ethnic bean counting: the greater the number of ethnic groups, the greater the virtue. He talked as if every bomb dropped was a triumph for multiculturalism and diversity. He was far more concerned with counting the number of ethnic groups at dinner than in noticing the ongoing purge of the Serbs. Since the United States promised to bring peace to Kosovo, Clinton bears some responsibility for every burnt church, every murdered Serbian grandmother, every new refugee column streaming north out of Kosovo. Despite these problems, Clinton bragged at a December 8, 1999, press conference that he was “very, very proud” of what the United States had done in Kosovo.
The legacy of the Serbian War
Clinton’s experience in Kosovo gave him great empathy for Boris Yeltsin when Yeltsin sent in the Russian military to obliterate Chechnya. At a summit of Western leaders in Istanbul in November 1999, Clinton declared,
We want Russia to overcome the scourge of terrorism and lawlessness. We believe Russia has not only the right but also the obligation to defend its territorial integrity.... Russia has faced rebellion within, and related violence beyond, the borders of Chechnya. It has responded with a military strategy designed to break the resistance and end the terror.At the time Clinton endorsed Yeltsin’s policy, the Russian military was flattening Grozny with long-distance rockets and pounding the entire province with its bombers, making little effort to limit civilian casualties. A few weeks after Clinton endorsed Yeltsin’s policy, the Russian military announced that they would kill any person still residing in Grozny at the end of a 72-hour period. (At that time, an estimated 40,000 civilians, largely elderly, were still in the city.) This brutal ultimatum did not stop Clinton from later characterizing the Russian military assault as an effort to “liberate Grozny.”
Conclusion
In a CNN interview shortly after the peace agreement with Serbia was announced, the president enunciated what his aides labeled the “Clinton doctrine”:
There’s an important principle here.... While there may well be a great deal of ethnic and religious conflict in the world ... whether within or beyond the borders of a country, if the world community has the power to stop it, we ought to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing.The “Clinton doctrine,” if strictly followed, would mire the United States in scores of conflicts around the world. But even though there is little danger that Clinton would actually risk following his own doctrine, his all-caring rhetoric generated positive press.
James Bovard is the author of Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years (
U.S. President Clinton’s program in India
March 19, 2000
- Arrival at New Delhi airport
March 20, 2000
- Departure for Dhaka, Bangladesh
- Return from Dhaka, Bangladesh
March 21, 2000
- Ceremonial Reception at Rashtrapati Bhavan
- Wreath Laying Ceremony at Raj Ghat (Gandhi memorial) & Planting of a Sapling
- Arrival at Hyderabad House - Meeting with the Prime Minister
- Delegation level talks & Signing of Agreements/Release of Statements
- Lunch hosted by the Prime Minister
- Call on the US President by the Vice President
- Call on the President of India by the US President
- Official banquet
- Brief cultural program
March 22, 2000
- Call by Leader of the Opposition
- Address by the US President to both Houses of Parliament
- Reception by US Ambassador at Roosevelt House
- Departure for Agra
- Speech at an environmental meeting
- Visit to Taj Mahal
- Departure for Jaipur
March 23, 2000
- Visit to Amber Fort
- Visit to a village
- Departure from Jaipur to Ranthambore
- Arrival back in Jaipur
March 24, 2000
- Departure from Jaipur to Hyderabad
- Address to IT Professionals at a Hi-tech Park
- Visit to a Health Project
- Departure for Mumbai
- Meeting with Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and American Chamber of Commerce
March 25, 2000
- Departure from Mumbai
www.transnational.org/.../
How and why President Bill Clinton thinks he can contribute anything useful to this situation on his visit next week is almost beyond words, simply extraordinary.
American policy has connived since Nixon, with a brief respite under Carter (his was the last visit by a U.S. president, 22 years ago), to relegate India to some remote corner of the geopolitical map. Nixon in the early days of his opening-to-China policy made it unambiguously clear that a reason for taking China so seriously was its possession of the nuclear bomb. India regarded this as the worst possible snub. Even under Carter the tendency was to lecture and punish India for keeping its nuclear option open. Yet at that time India had as prime minister the near pacifist Moraji Desai. If the U.S. had used more carrot and less stick it could have won from Desai a formal renunciation of nuclear weapons.
Under Nixon, under Ford, under Carter and under Reagan the U.S. steadily dug itself into the Pakistani pit. Irritated by India's Fabian tendencies and closeness to Moscow it appreciated Pakistan's close relationship with anti-Soviet China. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan pushed Washington over the edge. It gave a license to the Pakistani military and intelligence services to help the Afghani resistance by any means necessary, however far they went. That this led to the Taliban, the extremist Islamist militia that now rules most of Afghanistan, harbours Osama bin Laden, Washington's number one bete noir, controls three quarters of all heroin reaching the West and, to boot, has provided the Islamist fighters who now set Pakistan's agenda over Kashmir, is barely acknowledged. How could Washington, in the circumstances, expect to have much influence over Pakistan's bomb-building ambitions?
Belatedly, the U.S. has woken up to the allure of democratic India. The big bang of its nuclear test penetrated where all the good journalism, books and diplomatic missives failed to reach. The U.S. now sees that, if war does not intervene, the Indian tortoise is likely to overtake the Chinese hare and become the leading economic colossus of Asia. But war is likely to intervene. Everyone has woken up too late. India should have honoured prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru's promise shortly after independence was won from Britain to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir and none of this would have come to pass.
Whichever way you look, it is a story of missed opportunities. "It could end in an afternoon", writes Arundhati Roy. There's nothing much that Bill Clinton can now do. Yes, he is right to try. We have to believe it's never too late, even when we think it is.
I can be reached by phone +44 385 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Copyright © 2000 By JONATHAN POWER
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Agra, India)
For Immediate Release
March 22, 2000
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNING CEREMONY
Taj Khema
Agra, India
5:55 P.M. (L)
United States Congress, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, distinguished members of our
administration and our ambassador here today.
I want to thank all the environmental leaders from India who
have come here today. "
"On this Earth Day this year and on this historic day
today of partnership
between our two nations, when we
stand in the shadow of the Taj Mahal, we
remember that it is a monument built in love;
all the most
important
monuments are built for love. The most important
monument today we
can give our children and our children's
children is the preservation of the
Earth that was given to us. We should give that
monument in the spirit
of
love.
Thank you very much. "(Applause.)
Marilyn French
| |||
Marilyn French (born November 21, 1929)
 | See full-size image. www.bbc.co.uk/.../ 247 x 165 - 12k Image may be scaled down and subject to copyright. |
 | See full-size image. farm2.static.flickr.com/ 240 x 240 - 29k Image may be scaled down and subject to copyright. |
 | See full-size image. bp0.blogger.com/.../ 110 x 110 - 3k |
 | See full-size image. images.amazon.com/.../ 281 x 475 - 42k Image may be scaled down and subject to copyright. |
known for her feminist novels and non-fiction.
In her work, French asserts that women's oppression is an intrinsic part of the male-dominated global culture. Beyond Power: On Women, Men and Morals (1985) is an historical examination of the effects of patriarchy on the world. French defines patriarchy as a system that values power and control above life and pleasure. Critics argue, however, that this is a simplistic assessment, based less on fact than on ideology.[citation needed]
French's 1977 novel, The Women's Room,
follows the lives of Mira and her friends in 1950s and 60s America, reinterpreted through the eyes of Val, a militant radical feminist. The novel portrays the details of the lives of women at this time and also the feminist movement of this era in the United States.
Mira and her friends represent a wide cross section of American 1950s & 60s society. Lily is a working class woman from an abusive background who marries and has children to escape, but is later repeatedly institutionalised for her failure to fit into society and her fear of her own son, whose personality is similar to that of her own abusive father. Mira herself is from a middle class background. She is mildly rebellious in that she disagrees with her mother's view of the world, and in her late teens gains a bad reputation because she dances with several different men on an evening out with one of them. Nonetheless, she later marries Norm, a medical student, becoming a well respected doctor's wife and bearing two sons. After many years of marriage, Norm files for divorce, leaving Mira on her own. Following the divorce, Mira goes to Harvard University to study for a PhD in English literature. There she meets Val, a militant radical feminist divorcee with a teenage daughter, Chris. It is the heyday of Women's Liberation and Mira now too, finally able to verbalise her discontent at the society around her, becomes a feminist, although a less radical and militant one than Val.
Following the rape of Val's daughter Chris, Val states (over Mira's protests), "Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relationships with women, all men are rapists, and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes" (p. 462). Critics have sometimes quoted Val's dialogue as evidence of French's misandry without noting that the passage is only spoken by one of many characters in the novel [1][2].
French has survived esophageal cancer. This experience was the basis for her book A Season in Hell: A Memoir (1998).
She was also mentioned in the 1982 ABBA song, The Day Before You Came:
"I must have read a while the latest one by Marilyn French or something in that style"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_French
Minutes August 2007 Book: The Women's Room by Marilyn French
The Women's Room is set in 1950s America and follows the fortunes of Mira, a conventional and submissive young woman who ends up in a traditional marriage. When it ends in divorce, Mira seeks a new life at Harvard as a graduate student.Here she meets a diverse group of people far removed from her own experience. But things start to go wrong when Mira encounters the same problems with male-female power politics as she did in her marriage.
Literature & Culture of America in 1950s
Guardian: A re-reading of The Women's Room
The Women's Room by Marilyn French (chosen by JM)
JM chose this book after reading an article about Marilyn French in the Good Weekend magazine in May. The article referred to it being the 30th anniversary of The Women's Room this year, and highlighted the importance of this novel. JM hadn't ever heard of, so decided to choose this novel to "drag herself out of the cultural wasteland" and to haul all the No.1 Melbourne Ladies' Bookclub members along with her!
French was born in New York to a family of Polish descent. She did a BA at Hofstra College in Long Island in 1951, and left the college to marry. She started to write seriously in 1957, but it was 1976 before her first book was published. She has two children and divorced their father in 1967. She gained an MA and a PhD, and has taught in universities/colleges.
French's first book was her thesis on James Joyce (1976). A year later it was followed by The Women's Room. Her sixth novel was released in 2006 and is called In the Name of Friendship.
21 million copies of The Women's Room have been sold. It has been translated into 20 languages and has been made into a TV movie (1980).
In 1992 at the age of 61, French was diagnosed with metastasized esophageal cancer, and was given no hope. She did, however, win her battle. (Biographical details from here)
The synopsis of The Women's Room from amazon.co.uk:
What we discussed about the book:A landmark in feminist literature, THE WOMEN'S ROOM is a biting social commentary of a world gone silently haywire. Written in the 1970s but with profound resonance today, this is a modern allegory that offers piercing insight into the social norms accepted blindly and revered so completely.
'Today's desperate housewives eat your heart out! This is the original and still the best, a page-turner that makes you think. Essential reading' Kate Mosse
'They said this book would change lives - and it certainly changed mine' Jenni Murray
'Reading THE WOMEN'S ROOM was an intense and wonderful experience. It is in my DNA' Kirsty Wark
'THE WOMEN'S ROOM took the lid off a seething mass of women's frustrations, resentments and furies; it was about the need to change things from top to bottom; it was a declaration of independence' OBSERVER
- To what extent is this book still relevant 30 years later?
- Are men scared of women's sexuality? Is that at the heart of attempts to retain power over women?
- Did Mira do the right thing in refusing to accompany Ben to Africa?
- The rape of Chris highlighted injustices in the way the judicial system in the 1970s dealt with victims of sex crimes. Is this still the case?
- The suburban party scenes of the first half of the book - where married couples flirted (and took it further) with other husbands and wives. What was the motivation for this behaviour? Did it spring from the fact many had married young and inexperienced, and later yearned for some adventure?
- Was Mira's name intended to be a reference to her acting as a 'mirror' to all women? Was 'Norm' intended to represent the normal man?
- Is this book a cautionary tale about the futility of searching for 'love' in a relationship?
Issues we were sidetracked into:
- Why are (traditionally) predominantly male-occupied jobs (eg. engineering, law, accounting) paid more than predominantly female-occupied jobs (eg. nursing, teaching)?
- Is it neccessary for both partners in a marriage to work? What risk does not working pose to the non-working partner?
- How can you change long-held attitudes across a whole society? How have some of the Scandinavian countries managed it?
- Does the 'knight in shining armour' mentality still exist among the young Australian women of today?
- Is there an ideal age difference between partners in a marriage? Would an older man be better suited to a younger women, and an older woman, a younger man?
- Does 'education' alone cause women to question the status quo...or does it depend on the type and content of the education?
- Could communal living work better for women than nuclear-family living?
And in other news:
- Kensington is doing well with her gorgeous baby boy!
- TeamSAK is back on track with her chemo...having only missed a few days.
- M will be down from Sydney for the Writers Festival next weekend and hopes to catch up with as many No.1 Melbourne Ladies as possible on Saturday night.
- T-Rex had seen Ian McKellen in King Lear and was most impressed with his performance. Melbourne radio media has commented in past weeks about his nude scene at great length!
Ratings
Average: 5.875
Range: 4 to 6.75
Next book: Suite Francaise by Irene Nemirovsky
August book: The Women's Room by Marilyn French
Meeting date: August 21st
Some links for background information to get you started...
- Review and comments at bibliofemme (an Irish bookclub)
- Editorial reviews at amazon.com
- Article by Nuala O'Faolain in The Guardian on Saturday September 13, 2003
- Article by Sharon Krum in The Guardian on Friday 16 June, 2006
- Starting Out Submissive by Anne Tyler in New York Times, October 16, 1977
- Marilyn French in Wikipedia
- The Women's Room TV movie (1980) entry at imdb
Wednesday, 8 August 2007
8 random things about the No.1 Melbourne Ladies' Bookclub
You may recall, way back in June, we were tagged by M at Easternmax to complete the "8 random things about me" meme. So your tardy Blogmistress (doesn't that sound a scary title?)has finally got around to putting together the list.
- Our bookclub started in 1999 when five friends all invited a (non-mutual) friend each to form a bookclub where we would read a book each month, then meet and discuss it.
- Since then, through natural attrition, demands of work or family, interstate moves and/or lack of interest (surely not!) we've had a bit of changeover of membership. At last count, we've had 24 active members in total, with five of the original 11 still current members.
- Not finishing the book, even you chose it in the first place, has never stopped any of us from attending and joining in the discussion!
- The host member provides the evening's refreshments...and thus we have experienced such gourmet delights as Greek Easter biscuits (at Domestic Goddess's place), licorice bullets at Kensington's and the world's best cheeses at JM's.
- There's been a lot of babies born to members over the years. Our current active members have 17 children between us (including one very brand new addition).
- A book has never scored an 'across the board' 10 out of 10.
- Individuals have scored books with ratings right through from 0 to 10 (although anything below 5 tends to be pretty rare).
- We're not big on 'rules'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorena_Bobbitt
John and Lorena Bobbitt
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Wayne Bobbitt (born March 23, 1967 in Buffalo, New York) and Lorena Leonor Bobbitt (née Gallo) (born 1970 in Bucay, Ecuador) were an American couple, married on June 18, 1989, made famous for a 1993 incident in which Lorena severed John's penis with a kitchen knife.
Contents[hide] |
[edit] Incident
On the night of June 23, 1993, John Bobbitt arrived at the couple's Manassas, Virginia apartment intoxicated after a night of partying and, according to testimony by Lorena in a 1994 court hearing, raped his wife. (Note: He was tried and acquitted for this alleged spousal rape in 1994; ironically, he was prosecuted by the same district attorney who prosecuted Lorena for allegedly attacking John.) Afterwards, Lorena got out of bed and went to the kitchen for a drink of water. According to an article in the National Women's Studies Association Journal, in the kitchen she noticed a carving knife on the counter and "memories of past domestic abuses raced through her head." Grabbing the knife, Lorena entered the bedroom where John was asleep; and she proceeded to cut off almost half of his penis.[1]
After assaulting her husband, Lorena left the apartment, with the severed penis. After driving a short while, she rolled down the car window and threw it out into a field. Realizing the severity of the incident, she stopped and called 9-1-1. After an exhaustive search, the penis was located by Barry Hermann, packed in ice, and brought to the hospital where John was located.
The penis was re-attached by Doctors James T. Sehn and David E. Berman during a nine and a half hour surgery.[2] After a year-long recovery process, John made a full physical recovery.[1]
[edit] Arrest and trial
Lorena was taken into custody and charged with "malicious wounding". After her arrest, she commented to police that "[John] always have orgasm and he doesn't wait for me to have orgasm."[sic][3]
During the trial, the couple revealed details of their volatile relationship and the events leading up to the assault. Lorena stated that John sexually, physically, and emotionally abused her during their marriage. She also stated that John flaunted his infidelities, and forced her to have an abortion. Several witnesses provided testimony supporting Lorena's claims. Lorena's defense attorneys maintained that John's constant abuse caused Lorena to eventually "snap" as she was suffering from clinical depression and a possible bout of post traumatic stress disorder due to the abuse.[3]
John denied the allegations of abuse. However, when he was cross-examined, his statements often conflicted with known facts, severely weakening the prosecution's case.[3]
After seven hours of deliberation, the jury found Lorena "not guilty" due to temporary insanity causing an irresistible impulse to sexually wound her husband. As a result, she could not be held liable for her actions.[4] Under state law, the judge ordered Lorena to undergo a 45-day evaluation period at a mental hospital, after which she would be released.[3]
In 1995, after six years of marriage, Lorena and John divorced.
[edit] Explanations for the incident
David Reardon has hypothesized that the incident was an extreme manifestation of post-abortion trauma stemming from Lorena's unwanted abortion three years prior.[5][6][7]
[edit] Life after the incident
[edit] John Wayne Bobbitt
After the incident, John Wayne Bobbitt attempted to cash in on his notoriety in a number of ways. He formed a band, "The Severed Parts", to pay his mounting medical and legal bills—though the band was unsuccessful and failed to generate enough money.[8] In 1994, John appeared in the adult film John Wayne Bobbitt: Uncut, in another attempt to make money. In 1996, he appeared in another adult film, Frankenpenis (also known as John Wayne Bobbitt's Frankenpenis).[9] In 1998 he appeared on the World Wrestling Federation's Monday Night Raw program alongside the porn star character Val Venis who had recently almost had his penis cut off.[10] Not long after he moved to Las Vegas, Nevada where he worked as a bartender, limo driver, mover, and tow truck operator. He also had a stint serving as a minister of a Las Vegas church.[3]
After the divorce, John continued to have run-ins with the law. He was reportedly arrested seven times for offenses ranging from assault to grand larceny.[3] In 1994, he was convicted of misdemeanor domestic battery against his former fiancée, Kristina Elliott, and sentenced to 15 days in jail.[11] In September 1999, he was sentenced to five years probation for his role in the theft of more than $140,000 in clothing from a store in Fallon, Nevada, and ordered to pay $5,000 restitution and serve 100 hours of community service.[8]
After two trials for domestic abuse against Joanna Ferrell, his third wife, in 2004—one ending in conviction for Bobbitt and the other in acquittal—he was arrested for a third offense in September 2005. Days after the third incident, he filed for a divorce. On February 8, 2006, a municipal judge found Bobbitt not guilty, due to insufficient evidence.[12]
[edit] Lorena Gallo (Bobbitt)
After the trial, Lorena was treated as a feminist "hero",[3] though she attempted to keep a low profile and resumed the use of her maiden name. In December 1997, Lorena made news when she was charged with assault for punching her mother, Elvia Gallo, as they watched television.[13] She was eventually found guilty of assaulting her mother. As of 2007 she is employed in the Alexandria, Virginia area as a hair stylist.[14]
[edit] Cultural impact
The Bobbitt case was one of the first scandals that brought legitimacy to the subject of marital rape and forced abortion.[15] The case also brought attention to the issue of domestic violence. Within days of the incident, domestic violence and feminists groups rallied around Lorena, citing the continuous abuse she suffered at the hands of her husband that caused her to defend herself, albeit in an unusual and violent manner.[16] Media attention surrounding the case resulted in national debate and also sparked a flurry of jokes, limericks, T-shirt slogans, advertising gimmicks, and an urban legend that she was killed in a car accident because (note the double-entendre) "some prick cut her off".[17] Shortly after the incident, reports of "Bobbittmania", or copycat crimes, were reported.[18] The name Lorena Bobbitt eventually became synonymous with "penis removal". The term “Bobbittised punishment” gained social acceptance.[19] This incident was one of three news stories used in the song "Headline News" by "Weird Al" Yankovic, a parody of the Crash Test Dummies hit "Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm", and was used as one half of the Julie Brown comedy film Attack of the 5'2" Women with the also topical Tonya Harding story.
[edit] Similar incident in Pakistan
Such similar incident was also reported in Pakistan sometime in April 2008 where a married female doctor had cut off the genitals of her boyfriend, who was planning on getting married. [20]
http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/sexual_assault/severed_penis/index.html
Lorena was traumatized by the experience. In a state of shock she got out of bed and went to the kitchen for a drink of water. While there she noticed an eight-inch carving knife on the counter and when she picked it up "memories of past abuse raced through her head," such as the first time he raped her, "the put-downs" and the abortion, Linda Pershing reported in a National Women's Studies Association Journal article. Lorena then went to the bedroom with the knife in hand, removed the sheets that covered her sleeping husband and cut off almost half of his penis, the report further suggested.
 |
| Kitchen knife, Bobbitt case |
As John lay in shock losing vast amounts of blood, Lorena left the apartment, got in the car and drove off. In her panic she hadn't realized that she was still clutching John's penis. Horror-struck, she rolled down the window of the moving vehicle and threw it out into a field.
When she recovered her senses, she stopped and called 911. John was rushed to the hospital, where he was treated for his horrendous wound. He was informed that he would likely never be able to have sex again because his organ sustained such massive damage. Yet, hours later after an exhaustive search, the police located his penis. They packed it in ice and rushed it to the hospital.
Surgeons operated on John for more than 9 hours to reattach his penis. The procedure was an astounding success and doctors believed that he would regain full functioning after a yearlong recovery process. Even though they were optimistic about John's physical condition, they realized that the emotional damage would likely last much longer.
In the meantime, Lorena was taken into custody and charged with malicious wounding. Pershing said that during her arrest Lorena commented to police that "He always have [sic] [an] orgasm and he doesn't wait for me to have [an] orgasm. He's selfish." That was the reason she gave for severing his penis.
John Wayne Bobbitt's ordeal and Lorena's arrest prompted media attention from around the world. Even though John's 1993 acquittal of marital sexual abuse received little coverage, the January 1994 trial gained tremendous attention. Pershing quoted a Newsweek poll that revealed that an astounding 60% of the
To,
The SHO,
Mehrauli Police Station,
Mehrauli.New Delhi-110030.
16-5-2007.
Subject:-Permission of Prayers on Vatsavitri Puja Day falling on
Sir,
This is to bring to your notice that muslims are offering prayers in the precincts of the Kutub Minar,which is a disputed structure.I have submitted a Public Interest Litigation on the same ;in the Supreme Court on 15-5-2007,a copy of which is enclosed.Also in the petition is an account of how muslim jehadi organizations do not let any other religion stand near to their places of worship as also create ruins and desert symbolism.In the present case as outlined in the Petition ,in the name of religion; the government area ,belonging to an ancient Dharam shala has been usurped by nefarious miscreants backed by the muslim syndicate.The place obviously belongs to the Archeological Survey of India ,whom I will be approaching shortly on the same.
Not only is the place lying in a state of desolate neglect ,but also undermining the presence of Hindu worship orientation in the precincts of the Kutub Minar.Muslims have Sarai’s near mosques and Hindus have Dharamshalas.The audacity of the Dharamshalas occupants is such that they have painted the Dharma Shala structure muslim green,and occupying it illegally..All these are also to cover up the illegal activities which are now going on the desolate locals and jungles near by.
The entire area has been made entirely desolate after the Jessica Lal Murder case ; and the ceiling of the premises of the Qutub Collonade ,which itself was an illegal occupancy of the ancient Dharam shala ,which belongs either to MCD jurisdiction or to the Archeological Survey Of India .In any case,it should be opened to the general public so that the said area becomes clean as also it should be properly maintained.
Otherwise too if you just peruse through the petition to the Supreme Court ,you will notice the symbolism ,which has been created outside the Qutub Minar complex by the Olive Bar and Karma and Collonade complexes.Mount of Olives in Jerusalem,covered by Olive trees; is an ancient cemetery of the Jews, which they feel will redeem them on the day of Judgement ,on the arrival of their Messiah .It is also Holy to Christians as Jesus spent his last days here.Olive oil is used in Christain and Jew Worship.Same is the Garud equation of the Hindus ,which is evident in Kutub Minar Garudh Stambh.
It also shows how the Jessica Lal Murder took place and in what context.I have a postgraduate degree in Psychology and am an authority to say that the entire murder took place in a symbolic context and is a part of the undermining tactics of waging psychological war against Hindus by muslims as also declared by Yaseer Arafat for Jews,in Israel.Same was fought with valor by Chattrapati Shivaji in the olden days .Muslims want to establish the rule of Islam in the world by this dirty chotti game plan.The entire area was under the filthy regime of the syndicate ,to create wars in units of Hindu homes ,as symbolized by the scissors gate of the illegal colonnade as also introduce filthy sex machines in Hindu pure homes.The entire area was promoting second marriages and was a hovel of corruption .By ceiling of the complexes the ends of the muslim syndicate has only been achieved ,who are now utilizing the ruined area for their nefarious underhand activities.The game plan is that if any law moves against them ,they will expose the corruption of the filthy place, which itself was taking place by their patronage to the same.The entire area should be cordoned off by the honest police and both the filth of the Qutub Collonade hotels as well as the adjoining hotels should not be allowed to fester again ,and neither the muslim symbolism of creating desolate ruins for terrorist activities.The same will also be helped if the Dharam Shala premises are maintained and opened by the Archeological Survey of India,which has original ownership towards same.
Offering prayers at the
As is evident in the petition the place originally belonged to Hindus temples ,which were demolished in part ,as also pieces of other faith/ religions like jains and sufi pillars of ancient grave structures were brought by muslims to the said area ,which still holds the Pankhonwalon Ki Sair.The Yog Maya Mandir is also a part of the Hindu temple culture in the area which should be re-oriented.Certain pillars clearly show that they are from the graves area ,which were being worshipped as mazaars and in tolerable to muslim fundamentalists were demolished in the ancient scenario to dissuade pious sufi muslims from praying and putting sheets on the same in huge ancient buildings.The Pankhon walon Ki sair tells the story of the same as Yog Maya Mandir of the Hindus worship.
The permission to repair the wall in the garden as well as offer prayers from ancient texts like the Garuda Purana ;which was the orientation of the ancient temple and the iron pillar ;rests with the Supreme Court today ;by virtue of my petition .However meanwhile I should not be harmed in any way by the muslims offering prayers in the said complex or their accomplices,if I offer token prayers today in the traditional format.
Thanking You ,
Mamta Dhody Kalra
1513,Outram Lane,
Mukherjee Nagar,
Delhi-9.
Reference to the
“Arabic Jabal Aṭ-ṭūr, Hebrew Har Ha-zetim, multisummited limestone ridge just east of the Old City of Jerusalem and separated from it by the Kidron valley. Frequently mentioned in the Bible and laterreligious literature, it is holy both to Judaism and to Christianity. Politically, it is part of the
The peak usually regarded as the
First mentioned in the Bible as the “ascent of the
The
On
http://bhatiyajantatalji.blogspot.com
---
Views: 248
On Tue,
From: mamta dhody
Subject: Forensic Psychology and Infidelity
To: vice_president@whitehouse.gov, feedback@hindustantimes.com, mamta_dhodykalra@yahoo.com, infor@ncaer.org, webmaster@iaf.nic.in, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, gujjars@iname.com, vprotect@vsnl.com, delhicourts@yahoo.com, vpops.nyb@statebank.com, vprotect@vsnl.net, editet@timesgroup.com, bastar@cg.nic.in, cmcg@nic.in, mamtadhodykalra@yahoo.com, cmdelhi@nic.in, indianarmy@bol.net.in, webmasterindiannavy@nic.in, dgdps@ndb.vsnl.net.in, dirdesidoc@vsnl.net, letters@hindustantimes.com, bo_383@licindia.com, delhi.sec@gmail.com, vbhaskar@msn.com, mamtadhodykalra@gmail.com, saamana@vsnl.net, chiefminister@maharashtra.gov.in, innervoice@hindustantimes.com, clickonline@bbc.co.uk, lkadvani@nic.in, info@embassyofpakistan.org, pressinfodiv@embassyofpakistan.org, pressattache@embassyofpakistan.org, airattache@embassyofpakistan.org, adp@embassyofpakistan.org, adpa@embassyofpakistan.org, patlo@embassyofpakistan.org, sbibr9625@sbi.co.in, customer.care@sbi.co.in, fao@embassyofpakistan.org, consulgeneral@pakconsulatela.org, viceconsul@pakconsulatela.org, staffcol@del3.vsnl.net.in, info@indiatvnews.com, ttedit@abpmail.com, letters@economist.com, letters@tribuneindia.co, pav@acdlife.va
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2006, 11:47 AM
KALRA WAS POSTED TO JABALPUR IN 1985 BY SBI AND CAME TO RESIDE IN MIG 5 .I WAS RESIDING IN MIG 22 AND IF I SAT OUTSIDE MY HOUSE I COULD SEE HIS DOOR AND INSIDE THE DRAWING ROOM .I WAS AMAZED TO SEE THAT HE USED TO FILL THE WATER COOLER WITH A HOSE PIPE SIZED PIPE WHICH GENERALLY PEOPLE NEVER DO .PEOPLE USE SIMPLE TUBULAR PIPES.
MY FATHER WHO WAS UNOFFICIALLY WORKING FOR THE INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE [KENNEDY 'S LINE]AGAINST ORGANISED CRIME AND SIKH/ISLAMIC TERRORISTS SPONSERED BY BIG COMPANIES AND THE BRITISH HAD DEFINITE REPORTS THAT KALRA WAS FROM A FAMILY WITH LADHA KALRA BAAP ,SAME AS OSAMA BIN LADEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TOLD ME THAT I HAD TO ACCEPT KALRAS ADVANCES AND BE A MOLE IN HEINOUS MEHRAULI ,THE BIGGEST CRIME HELL IN INDIA.MY FATHER HAD ALREADY MADE MY BROTHER VIPIN DHODY A CIVIL ENGINEER AGAINST THEM AS OSAMA BIN LADEN'S FAMILY IS IN RELIGIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF MECCA.
I WAS A VERY STRONG WOMAN TRAINED BY MY FATHER ,WHO TOLD ME THAT I HAD TO LEAD A CHASTE LIFE OF A HINDU WIFE EVEN IF I WAS MARRIED TO A GUTTER AND NO MATTER WHAT HE DID ,I HAD TO WALK THE RIGHT PATH AS I HAD ALSO TO LAY CLAIM OVER THE HINDU RIGHTS OVER THE GARUDA STAMBH PREMISES OF THE KUTUB MINAR FOR THE ANCIENT VISHNU TEMPLE THERE .
http://bhatiyajantatalji.blogspot.com
---
Views: 248
On Tue,
From: mamta dhody
Subject: Forensic Psychology and Infidelity
To: vice_president@whitehouse.gov, feedback@hindustantimes.com, mamta_dhodykalra@yahoo.com, infor@ncaer.org, webmaster@iaf.nic.in, presidentofindia@rb.nic.in, gujjars@iname.com, vprotect@vsnl.com, delhicourts@yahoo.com, vpops.nyb@statebank.com, vprotect@vsnl.net, editet@timesgroup.com, bastar@cg.nic.in, cmcg@nic.in, mamtadhodykalra@yahoo.com, cmdelhi@nic.in, indianarmy@bol.net.in, webmasterindiannavy@nic.in, dgdps@ndb.vsnl.net.in, dirdesidoc@vsnl.net, letters@hindustantimes.com, bo_383@licindia.com, delhi.sec@gmail.com, vbhaskar@msn.com, mamtadhodykalra@gmail.com, saamana@vsnl.net, chiefminister@maharashtra.gov.in, innervoice@hindustantimes.com, clickonline@bbc.co.uk, lkadvani@nic.in, info@embassyofpakistan.org, pressinfodiv@embassyofpakistan.org, pressattache@embassyofpakistan.org, airattache@embassyofpakistan.org, adp@embassyofpakistan.org, adpa@embassyofpakistan.org, patlo@embassyofpakistan.org, sbibr9625@sbi.co.in, customer.care@sbi.co.in, fao@embassyofpakistan.org, consulgeneral@pakconsulatela.org, viceconsul@pakconsulatela.org, staffcol@del3.vsnl.net.in, info@indiatvnews.com, ttedit@abpmail.com, letters@economist.com, letters@tribuneindia.co, pav@acdlife.va
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2006, 11:47 AM
KALRA WAS POSTED TO JABALPUR IN 1985 BY SBI AND CAME TO RESIDE IN MIG 5 .I WAS RESIDING IN MIG 22 AND IF I SAT OUTSIDE MY HOUSE I COULD SEE HIS DOOR AND INSIDE THE DRAWING ROOM .I WAS AMAZED TO SEE THAT HE USED TO FILL THE WATER COOLER WITH A HOSE PIPE SIZED PIPE WHICH GENERALLY PEOPLE NEVER DO .PEOPLE USE SIMPLE TUBULAR PIPES.
MY FATHER WHO WAS UNOFFICIALLY WORKING FOR THE INTERNATIONAL INTELLIGENCE [KENNEDY 'S LINE]AGAINST ORGANISED CRIME AND SIKH/ISLAMIC TERRORISTS SPONSERED BY BIG COMPANIES AND THE BRITISH HAD DEFINITE REPORTS THAT KALRA WAS FROM A FAMILY WITH LADHA KALRA BAAP ,SAME AS OSAMA BIN LADEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY TOLD ME THAT I HAD TO ACCEPT KALRAS ADVANCES AND BE A MOLE IN HEINOUS MEHRAULI ,THE BIGGEST CRIME HELL IN INDIA.MY FATHER HAD ALREADY MADE MY BROTHER VIPIN DHODY A CIVIL ENGINEER AGAINST THEM AS OSAMA BIN LADEN'S FAMILY IS IN RELIGIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF MECCA.
I WAS A VERY STRONG WOMAN TRAINED BY MY FATHER ,WHO TOLD ME THAT I HAD TO LEAD A CHASTE LIFE OF A HINDU WIFE EVEN IF I WAS MARRIED TO A GUTTER AND NO MATTER WHAT HE DID ,I HAD TO WALK THE RIGHT PATH AS I HAD ALSO TO LAY CLAIM OVER THE HINDU RIGHTS OVER THE GARUDA STAMBH PREMISES OF THE KUTUB MINAR FOR THE ANCIENT VISHNU TEMPLE THERE AS SPECIFIED ALSO BY :-
Samuel Bourne (1834–24 April 1912) was a British photographer known for his work in India.
Vishnu Pud and Other
Samuel Bourne (1834–24 April 1912) was a British photographer known for his work in India.
Bourne settled back in
http://ia.rediff.com/news/1999/apr/23raj.htm
bournesamuel.html
 | See full-size image. www.harappa.com/ 330 x 147 - 17k Image may be scaled down and subject to copyright. |
The Civil and Military Gazette
Courtesy: National Archives of
| All this, and Bourne only spent six years in |
| Bourne wrote a lively series on his adventures for The British Journal of Photography. They begin the day he arrived in | |
| Another reason for the success of Bourne, Sache and other photographers in |
I MARRIED KALRA TO FINISH TERRORISM IN INDIA AS WELL AS TO LAY CLAIMS OVER THE ANCIENT VISHNU TEMPLE FOR RECITAL OF GARUDA PURANA IN KUTUB MINAR AS IT IS A TERRIBLE SYMBOLIC PLACE OF MAKING PEOPLE SLAVES BY SIKH ISLAMIC TERRORISTS.
MY FATHER PAINTED A PICTURE OF THE HOLY BETHLEHEM FOR ME AND TOLD ME TO TAKE UP FINE ARTS IN GRADUATION AS I HAD ALSO TO WORK FOR CHRISTAIN CREMATION IN ASIA AS SAID BY JESUS CHRIST "FROM DUST TO DUST ASHES TO ASHES YOU SHALL BE" AS WELL AS FOR FREEDOM OF JERUSALEM ,ROME AND CHURCH OF NATIVITY BESIDE THE RIVER JORDAN AS RAM TEMPLE/BIRTPLACE OF AYODHYA IS NEAR SARAYU RIVER.
HE ALSO PAINTED A PICTURE OF THE TERRIBLE HUMAN ATROCITIES BY ISLAMIC JIHADIS ON CHRISTAINS AND KASHMIRI BRAHMINS AS WELL AS ARYA SAMAJ ARTICLE 370 AKIN TO ARYA SAMAJ ACT OF 1937 OF MEHRAULI SYNDICATE- KILLING WOMEN FOR CRIME AND SEX.
ONE DAY AT NIGHT WHEN I WAS SITTING OUTSIDE MY HOUSE IN MIG 22 ,JABALPUR I SAW AN IMAGE OF KALRA STANDING NEAR HIS COOLER WHICH HE HAD PLACED INSIDE HIS DRAWING ROOM IN 1985.HE WAS LOOKING TOWARDS MY HOUSE AND WAS MASTURBATING WITH THE COOLER PIPE .HE HAD A RED LIGHT LAMP FOR HIS ROOM AND AN IMAGE OF SATAN LOOMED BEFORE ME AND I PUKED RIGHT THERE
IT IS THIS SAME MAN I MARRIED AND CONTINUED TO LIVE WITH UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES FOR MY RELIGIONS AND COUNTRY.
No comments:
Post a Comment