RE: [ba-unrev-talk] NYTimes.com Article: An Uncertain Trumpet
Greetings -- (01)
I applaud the USA standing-up for her sovereignty! (02)
These phony envirocrats are as sickening as the demented free-trade
purists. (03)
The NY Times bashing republican administrations is about as original as
cold toast. Give us a break and something with intellectual or editorial
merit. (04)
When the world stuck its finger in the eye of America on 9/11, at the
World "Trade" Center and other places, it became clear that less
internationalism and globalism is the correct path for the country. (05)
Active participation in meta-government like the UN, leads to more
terror, war, poverty and destruction across-the-board. (06)
Let arrogant Finnish environmental blowhards slam the USA all they want,
but do not, never, allow the USA to be subsumed by the globalists,
particularly with supra-governmental boondoggles like Johannesburg. (07)
Ironically, it is the counterfeit, unelected diplomats and their
free-trade minions that have created, and indeed, sustain global poverty
and environmental destruction. (08)
Sometimes, the smallest things help create the greatest, most
significant lift and change. It is time that the greater USA follow the
lead of the mighty LaVerkin, Utah (pop. 3,400). This is truly an
unfinished revolution. To wit, (09)
"Most city councils focus on potholes rather than peacekeeping, but this
Fourth of July, civic leaders in LaVerkin, fired another shot heard
round the world. By a vote of 3 to 2, the City Council of this tiny
Western town made history by declaring independence - from the United
Nations. (010)
Neighboring Virgin, Utah (pop. 400) passed a similar measure July 19. (011)
Under the new ordinance, city property will not bear UN symbols, no
resident will participate in the "involuntary servitude" of UN
operations, and municipal funds will not be spent to support UN
activities. Those who disagree must register with the city and post yard
signs that read, "United Nations work conducted here." (012)
Opponents worked overtime to caricature the resolution's backers as
conspiracy-peddling, gun-toting zealots still disappointed that Y2K
fizzled. (013)
Not so. They're average citizens of a state where 83% of land belongs to
the federal government, and residents of a town near Zion National Park,
a site already requisitioned by the UN's World Heritage Committee.
LaVerkin understands encroachment. "We live in the West and we see parks
now where part of the fees that they earn go to the UN because it is a
biosphere," Councilman Al Snow said. "I can see our country's
sovereignty slowly slipping away." (014)
The pundit chorus clucks that the move is symbolic ploy with a short
shelf-life. More likely, LaVerkin is cresting the first wave of a global
sea change. (015)
Mayor Dan Howard hopes "LaVerkin is the crucible to get the rest of the
cities and the national government to listen." (016)
They're already listening, Mr. Mayor. From Ireland and Denmark where
voters just sent the EU back to Brussels to other small towns in
Washington and New Mexico considering "UN free-zones" of their own,
sovereignty is back in the saddle. (017)
Had our forefathers returned to fete our nation's founding, they would
have been gratified by the Capitol fireworks and Philadelphia
performances. (018)
But the brave souls who transformed themselves from King George's
subjects to freedom's champions might have enjoyed LaVerkin more. For in
that Utah corner, the patriots who staked their sacred honor on the
first declaration would have recognized a familiar insouciance and felt
right at home in the country they left us." (019)
-jtm (020)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
[mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of
garyrichmond@rcn.com
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 5:33 PM
To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] NYTimes.com Article: An Uncertain Trumpet (021)
This article from NYTimes.com
has been sent to you by garyrichmond@rcn.com. (022)
The lead editorial of today's New York Times shows that at least one
wing of the American press is capable of soundly criticizing Bush--even
on the eve of the 9/11 tragedy. (023)
Jack Park wrote: (024)
From: elohimjl <elohimjl@mail.zserv.tuwien.ac.at> (025)
From: Ari Lampinen <ala@cc.jyu.fi>
To: Inesnet <inesnet@fy.chalmers.se>
Subject: 9/11/02: USA evolved as #1 rogue nation (026)
USA Today had a cover story on August 14 2002 on the sentiments of Bush
administration policy across the world. It included a photo of a
demonstration in London with a large US map with text "#1 ROGUE NATION". (027)
Orwellian language was also used by International Herald Tribune in its
editorial on September 7-8 2002 on the results of the Johannesburg World
Summit on Sustainable Development: they quoted somebody as calling USA
and OPEC alliance as "AXIS OF OIL". Behind this, as the editorial puts
it was that "the conference was diminished by the unenthusiastic
participation of the United States" and the OPEC/USA cartel succeeded in
their goal "to oppose clear and binding targets to increase the use of
solar and wind power". (028)
The renewable energy issue was the last one to be agreed in the WSSD
Plan of Implementation. It was the most important thing for the Bush
administration not to have any targets and timetables for the energy
sector transformation towards sustainable development. Because the
opposite was a top priority for the EU this issue was settled only after
US succeeded in getting G77, i.e. the group of virtually all developing
countries to support its stand in exchange of having targets included
for health sector, another major theme of the summit where US had
blocked concrete action until the tradeoff. (029)
As one EU negotiator put it, the USA is the main stumbling block of
international negotiations. (030)
The continuation of the selfish unilateralism of the Bush administration
and its faithful mate Australia was recognized by the audience of the
final plenary of the WSSD in September 4, in the reactions to the
speeches of parties given after the adoption of the Plan of
Implementation. All except the two countries received applauds.
Australia was the only country whose final speech received total
silence. And the USA was the only one that was greeted with spontaneous
boos from the audience of ministers, diplomats and stakeholders from
almost 200 countries. This was the second time I witnessed this code of
diplomatic conduct: in Bonn climate conference last year, when the
political concensus of the Kyoto protocol details was reached with USA
the only country out of 179 parties to disagree, the US speech was the
only one receiving booing and all the other were applauded to. (031)
In its intervention after the adoption of the WSSD Plan of
Implementation USA made several reservations including:
- USA does not recognize the Rio principle #7, i.e. common and
differentiated responsibilities. It means that USA regards unfair that
they would be expected to do more than developing countries to fight
environmental and development problems.
- USA does not recognize the United Nations target of 0.72232140f GDP to
official development aid, or any other ODA target.
- USA interprets that the text regarding corporate accountability
improvements does not require any new actions.
- USA announces that it will not accept any of the biodiversity text to
evolve into legally binding commitments. And they also gave the
impression that this applies to rest of the text as well.
And USA announced that they take sustainable development very seriously. (032)
The official plenary speech of Colin Powell earlier the same day had the
same attitude and it was interrupted several times by loud booing. The
Wall Street Journal described in its editorial September 6-8 these
incidents the following way: "How little interest some of the delegates
had in a rational discussion of their first principles was on display
Wednesday, when US Secretary of State Colin Powell was jeered and
interrupted as he attempted to address the US approach to environmental
issues and economic growth." For Wall Street Journal the purpose of the
WSSD was to "develop international environmental bureaucracy" in the
name of "phantom threats" with the result of "keeping the poor from
improving their lot". (033)
It is necessary to note that the business and industry sector did not
share the US views in the WSSD. On the contrary, they strongly promoted
corporate accountability and targeted actions in most areas. (034)
Thus, it is exceptionally small minority of people that the Bush
administration has so strongly devoted to serve, with exceptionally
little consideration of the rest. (035)
Regards,
Ari Lampinen
Finnish society for environmental sciences (036)
--
elohimjl (037)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
[mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of
garyrichmond@rcn.com
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 5:33 PM
To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org
Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] NYTimes.com Article: An Uncertain Trumpet (038)
This article from NYTimes.com
has been sent to you by garyrichmond@rcn.com. (039)
The lead editorial of today's New York Times shows that at least one
wing of the American press is capable of soundly criticizing Bush--even
on the eve of the 9/11 tragedy. (040)
Jack Park wrote: (041)
From: elohimjl <elohimjl@mail.zserv.tuwien.ac.at> (042)
From: Ari Lampinen <ala@cc.jyu.fi>
To: Inesnet <inesnet@fy.chalmers.se>
Subject: 9/11/02: USA evolved as #1 rogue nation (043)
USA Today had a cover story on August 14 2002 on the sentiments of Bush
administration policy across the world. It included a photo of a
demonstration in London with a large US map with text "#1 ROGUE NATION". (044)
Orwellian language was also used by International Herald Tribune in its
editorial on September 7-8 2002 on the results of the Johannesburg World
Summit on Sustainable Development: they quoted somebody as calling USA
and OPEC alliance as "AXIS OF OIL". Behind this, as the editorial puts
it was that "the conference was diminished by the unenthusiastic
participation of the United States" and the OPEC/USA cartel succeeded in
their goal "to oppose clear and binding targets to increase the use of
solar and wind power". (045)
The renewable energy issue was the last one to be agreed in the WSSD
Plan of Implementation. It was the most important thing for the Bush
administration not to have any targets and timetables for the energy
sector transformation towards sustainable development. Because the
opposite was a top priority for the EU this issue was settled only after
US succeeded in getting G77, i.e. the group of virtually all developing
countries to support its stand in exchange of having targets included
for health sector, another major theme of the summit where US had
blocked concrete action until the tradeoff. (046)
As one EU negotiator put it, the USA is the main stumbling block of
international negotiations. (047)
The continuation of the selfish unilateralism of the Bush administration
and its faithful mate Australia was recognized by the audience of the
final plenary of the WSSD in September 4, in the reactions to the
speeches of parties given after the adoption of the Plan of
Implementation. All except the two countries received applauds.
Australia was the only country whose final speech received total
silence. And the USA was the only one that was greeted with spontaneous
boos from the audience of ministers, diplomats and stakeholders from
almost 200 countries. This was the second time I witnessed this code of
diplomatic conduct: in Bonn climate conference last year, when the
political concensus of the Kyoto protocol details was reached with USA
the only country out of 179 parties to disagree, the US speech was the
only one receiving booing and all the other were applauded to. (048)
In its intervention after the adoption of the WSSD Plan of
Implementation USA made several reservations including:
- USA does not recognize the Rio principle #7, i.e. common and
differentiated responsibilities. It means that USA regards unfair that
they would be expected to do more than developing countries to fight
environmental and development problems.
- USA does not recognize the United Nations target of 0.72232140f GDP to
official development aid, or any other ODA target.
- USA interprets that the text regarding corporate accountability
improvements does not require any new actions.
- USA announces that it will not accept any of the biodiversity text to
evolve into legally binding commitments. And they also gave the
impression that this applies to rest of the text as well.
And USA announced that they take sustainable development very seriously. (049)
The official plenary speech of Colin Powell earlier the same day had the
same attitude and it was interrupted several times by loud booing. The
Wall Street Journal described in its editorial September 6-8 these
incidents the following way: "How little interest some of the delegates
had in a rational discussion of their first principles was on display
Wednesday, when US Secretary of State Colin Powell was jeered and
interrupted as he attempted to address the US approach to environmental
issues and economic growth." For Wall Street Journal the purpose of the
WSSD was to "develop international environmental bureaucracy" in the
name of "phantom threats" with the result of "keeping the poor from
improving their lot". (050)
It is necessary to note that the business and industry sector did not
share the US views in the WSSD. On the contrary, they strongly promoted
corporate accountability and targeted actions in most areas. (051)
Thus, it is exceptionally small minority of people that the Bush
administration has so strongly devoted to serve, with exceptionally
little consideration of the rest. (052)
Regards,
Ari Lampinen
Finnish society for environmental sciences (053)
--
elohimjl (054)
garyrichmond@rcn.com (055)
An Uncertain Trumpet (056)
September 8, 2002 (057)
President Bush was hardly alone in hoping that America
would emerge from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 a
stronger and more cohesive nation. Yet nobody framed the challenge
better than he did in his State of the Union address last January. "In
the sacrifice of soldiers, the fierce brotherhood of firefighters, and
the bravery and generosity of ordinary citizens," he said, "we have
glimpsed what a new culture of responsibility could look like. We want
to be a nation that serves goals larger than self. We've been offered a
unique opportunity, and we must not let this moment pass." In later
speeches he pounded on the same theme, urging Americans to forswear the
"culture of selfishness" and embrace a "new ethic of responsibility." (058)
What has Mr. Bush made of that moment of opportunity, which
may have passed us by? Sad to say, not much. Most of us had expected the
country to be in a different place by now, and the fact that it is not
can be attributed largely (though by no means exclusively) to Mr. Bush's
failure to leverage the political and moral capital Sept. 11 provided. (059)
•
Mr. Bush had the words right. His problem was his failure
to give them meaning, either because he did not know what
had to be done or because what had to be done exceeded his political
will. Sept. 11 summoned Americans to think differently about basic
problems and to reach out to one another as never before. It was a
moment to begin thinking about less wasteful energy policies, to
envision new economic and social strategies, to examine programs of
national service for the country's young people - in short, to entertain
genuine sacrifices linked to an elevated vision of America's
possibilities. Despite lots of oratory, however, no real sacrifice has
been demanded, no vision offered. (060)
In his defense, Mr. Bush has been a busy and burdened man,
and as the nation's leader, he has pushed us forward on
several fronts. He has proposed a new architecture of
homeland defense that could do much to rationalize our quarrelsome and
porous security agencies. Abroad, he has prosecuted the complicated war
on terrorism with patience and resolve. He certainly did not anticipate
the explosion of exposés about appalling corporate behavior that has
helped make 2002 a peculiarly "low dishonest" moment in American history
(to borrow W. H. Auden's observation about the 1930's), instead of the
year of fresh beginnings we wanted. (061)
Nevertheless, the most glaring missed opportunities are directly linked
to the president. For instance, it is hard to imagine a sharper reminder
of America's dependence on the volatile regimes of the Middle East for
their oil than the events of Sept. 11. Yet instead of charting a new
course, one requiring major investments in energy efficiency and the
development of alternative energy sources - the two surest roads to
greater energy independence - Mr. Bush clung stubbornly to the notion
that the United States could drill its way to self-sufficiency. Absent
presidential leadership, a timid and unimaginative Congress did little
better, rejecting modest efforts to tighten fuel economy standards while
showering producers of traditional fossil fuels with a staggering array
of subsidies and tax breaks. (062)
Likewise, Sept. 11 seemed to have little impact on Mr.
Bush's economic thinking. Everyone makes sacrifices in
times of war, including leaders. Franklin Roosevelt, for instance, set
aside cherished domestic initiatives after Pearl Harbor because he knew
the country could not afford them. In a similar fashion, Mr. Bush might
have postponed or even rolled back his tax cut and redeployed the money
in more meritorious ways, perhaps to underwrite a serious program of
foreign assistance to encourage the growth of democratic institutions in
countries where poverty and corruption breed terrorists - and cynicism
about an American government that supports tyrannical leaders. It would
have asked much of Mr. Bush to ask him to give up a program so central
to his thinking and political strategy. Yet in clinging to the tax cuts
as if they were holy writ, as the former presidential adviser David
Gergen recently observed on the Op-Ed page, the president has sent a
clear signal to the public that we can have both war and business as
usual. (063)
Finally, Mr. Bush has come up short in the one area where
he seemed most determined to succeed: creating from the wreckage of the
World Trade Center a new sense of purpose in our national life. Robert
Putnam, an authority on American community life and the author of
"Bowling Alone," argues that the attacks of Sept. 11 connected Americans
in ways they have not been connected since World War II, creating a
sense of solidarity that manifested itself in a heightened political
consciousness, a surprising burst in trust for the federal government,
an increase in racial and religious tolerance, and a rise in
public-spiritedness in general. Mr. Bush himself noted the change
immediately and marveled at what he called "the gathering momentum of
millions of acts of decency and kindness." (064)
Unfortunately, though, the vehicle he created to capture
this spirit and enlarge upon it - the U.S.A. Freedom Corps
- seems to have drifted into irrelevance. It was little
more than a gussied-up collection of existing programs to
begin with, programs like John Kennedy's Peace Corps and
Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, and so far it has reached only a tiny
fraction of America's young people. The administration hopes to double
the size of the Peace Corps, to 14,000 from 7,000, and expand AmeriCorps
to 75,000 from 50,000. Set against the manifest idealism inspired by
Sept. 11, this seems a trivial response. Mr. Bush, as a longtime enemy
of big government, seems unable to embrace wholeheartedly a challenge
that requires making government programs grow. (065)
•
If surveys by Mr. Putnam and others are any guide, the
mood of sacrifice is fading, the window of opportunity for bottling the
patriotism generated by Sept. 11 slowly closing. Mr. Bush continues to
extol the virtues of voluntary service, and this is admirable. But it is
hardly enough to resist the erosion in the level of public engagement as
people return to everyday routines. (066)
In retrospect, Mr. Bush would have been better served - and
the civic enthusiasm of the moment would have had a far
greater chance of surviving - if he had called for
something truly bold, like a year of mandatory national
service for everyone of college age. Of course, that might
have kicked up a political storm. But of what use is
political capital unless you spend it? Mr. Bush had plenty
of capital to spend after Sept. 11. Sadly, on issue after issue, most of
that capital is still in the bank, depreciating by the day. (067)
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/08/opinion/08SUN1.html?ex=1032531576&ei=1
&en=b6a7bcd7e6051913 (068)
HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact onlinesales@nytimes.com or
visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo (069)
For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help@nytimes.com. (070)
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company (071)