Member since: Thu Dec 30, 2004, 02:05 PM
Number of posts: 11,847
Number of posts: 11,847
- 2014 (24)
- 2013 (139)
- 2012 (71)
- Older Archives
The Crime of Aggression is a crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:
Under the Statute, the definition of "crime of aggression" is stated as follows:
Article 8 bis
1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:
(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;
(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;
(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;
(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;
(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;
(f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;
(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.
Posted by grahamhgreen | Fri Jan 31, 2014, 04:27 PM (0 replies)
For years, corporations were--and still are--shifting profits to offshore tax havens, starving Montana and other states of millions in revenues. So the Big Sky state introduced a simple fix: make corporations report profits going to known tax havens and then tax a share of it, relying on the same formula the state uses to calculate how to tax businesses with operations throughout the nation. In 2010, alone, Montana’s solution to the problem raked in $7.2 million in cash.
Last summer, Oregon became the only other state to join it, but there are others who stand to gain millions through making similar changes, according to a new report. Some 21 other states already require corporations report profits generated in and out of the state, according to the report produced by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a pro-consumer group countering big banks, insurers, manufacturers and other special interests. If those states had been taxing profits diverted to offshore havens in 2012, they could have generated another billion dollars in revenue, the group estimates.
“With Congress often gridlocked, states should take action to reduce the impact of offshore tax havens on state budgets,” the report’s authors argue.
Estimates of the federal impact vary, but a report last year from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service cited a range of $10 billion to $90 billion in lost revenues annually. Yet, despite broad support for taxing corporate overseas profits and high-profile stories on the practice, the federal government has yet to do much about the problem. Enter the states.
Posted by grahamhgreen | Fri Jan 31, 2014, 11:56 AM (3 replies)
"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world : My own Government, I can not be Silent."- Dr. King
At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless on Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called enemy, I am as deeply concerned about our troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure while we create hell for the poor.
This Madness Must Cease
Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.
This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words:
"Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism."
If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. It will become clear that our minimal expectation is to occupy it as an American colony and men will not refrain from thinking that our maximum hope is to goad China into a war so that we may bomb her nuclear installations. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horribly clumsy and deadly game we have decided to play.
The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways.
In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war. I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:
End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.
Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.
Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.
Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and in any future Vietnam government.
Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva agreement.
Part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We most provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country if necessary.
Protesting The War
Meanwhile we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative means of protest possible.
As we counsel young men concerning military service we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is the path now being chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors. These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.
Posted by grahamhgreen | Tue Jan 21, 2014, 07:26 AM (10 replies)
Next time you wonder what happened to small businesses in America....
Posted by grahamhgreen | Fri Jan 10, 2014, 04:22 AM (10 replies)
Whenever I read comments by politicians defending the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Predator and Reaper program – aka drones – I wish I could ask them some questions. I'd start with: "How many women and children have you seen incinerated by a Hellfire missile?" And: "How many men have you seen crawl across a field, trying to make it to the nearest compound for help while bleeding out from severed legs?" Or even more pointedly: "How many soldiers have you seen die on the side of a road in Afghanistan because our ever-so-accurate UAVs were unable to detect an IED that awaited their convoy?"
Few of these politicians who so brazenly proclaim the benefits of drones have a real clue of what actually goes on. I, on the other hand, have seen these awful sights first hand.
I knew the names of some of the young soldiers I saw bleed to death on the side of a road. I watched dozens of military-aged males die in Afghanistan, in empty fields, along riversides, and some right outside the compound where their family was waiting for them to return home from mosque.
Posted by grahamhgreen | Sun Dec 29, 2013, 02:00 PM (9 replies)
From "Models" by Mark Manson:
The number one fear deterring men from openly expressing their sexual desires towards women is a fear of being perceived as “creepy.”
There are a lot of reasons for this, and I’ll spare you the anti- feminism rant that demonized male sexuality in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The point is, most modern men have a legitimate fear of being creepy.
Before we jump into what creepiness is exactly, and what women mean when they complain about it, I need to give the same type of painful-truth serum I gave for rejection:
There’s no such thing as a man who is good with women who isn’t also creepy some of the time.
The fact of life is that if you are a man who expresses his sexuality freely (and you should), some women, some of the time, are going to find you creepy. It’s simply unavoidable. No matter how cool, rich, good-looking and charming you are, at some point, somewhere, a girl is going to be creeped out by you.
So as a friend of mine says, “give yourself permission to be creepy.” There’s no other way. And look, it’s not the end of the world. There’s no Creepy Police who come and handcuff you and take you away for creeping on some girls every now and then.
Hell, once you let loose, you may find (as many men do) that being creepy can even be funny at times.
Creepiness is one of these vague concepts that everyone knows but no one can really put into words. If you ask girls what creepiness is, they’ll give you roundabout answers and inevitably fall into examples of creepiness rather than an actual definition.
Of course, their examples are all over the map and seem to have absolutely no rhyme or reason to them.
(For what it’s worth, asking a bunch of female friends this question over the years, I’ve gotten examples of creepiness that have spanned from “he had dainty hands” to “he sips his drink like a girl,” to “putting too many smileys in text messages.” As is often the case, women are terrible authorities on why they like/dislike something, all they know is that they like/dislike it.)
Creepiness: behaving in a way that threatens a woman sexually or causes her to feel insecure.
Remember, the basis of all female attraction comes back to security. It’s why she looks for men less needy than herself. It’s also why she looks for men who speak and behave in line with their intentions.
The further you get out of line with your intentions, the creepier you become. For instance, if you approach a woman and stand there and talk about the weather, but she can tell that you’re horny and want to rail her like a jackhammer, then you will be creepy. Your actions and words are completely out of line with your intentions.
If you approach a woman and stare at her breasts the entire time you speak to her, you will also be creepy. Even if you tell her honestly, “You have great tits,” you will be creepy. Not for lack of intention, but because she doesn’t know you and most women are not comfortable being sexual around men they don’t know.
This is why vulnerability is so huge. When you’re vulnerable around someone you don’t know, you’ll inspire them to trust you and become more vulnerable around you. The more vulnerable a woman is willing to be around you, the less likely you will be to creep her out.
(Caveat 1: Vulnerability is still subject to the right intentions. If you tell a girl a sob story for no other reason than to get her to feel sorry for you and sleep with you, then guess what, you’re still creepy!)
(Caveat 2: Sex can be viewed as the ultimate act of vulnerability for a woman. The more vulnerable you make yourself around her -- by leading, by sharing your intentions, by being honest -- the more she will trust you and become vulnerable in return. Sex is a side-effect of that vulnerability.)
Paradoxically, the way to interact with women in a vulnerable way, and therefore the way to combat creepiness, is to accept that some women will find you creepy some of the time. Just as with rejection, the more you’re willing to risk it, the less it will happen.
The more comfortable you are with women finding you creepy, and the more uninhibited and vulnerable your actions and words are around women, the less likely they will be to find you creepy. The more reserved and closed up you are about your intentions, the more you attempt to manipulate her and mislead her about what you want and who you are, the more likely you are to become creepy.
Obviously, there are technical aspects of communication that affect this as well. Bad body language, strange conversation topics, uncalibrated humor, inappropriate touching -- these things can all
make you creepy even with the best of intentions. This is why I say that at some point you have to accept that you’re going to creep some women out and that’s OK. Because the alternative is to hide your sexuality and hope a woman comes to you... and well, we all know how well that works out.
Posted by grahamhgreen | Wed Dec 25, 2013, 05:23 PM (4 replies)
Posted by grahamhgreen | Wed Dec 18, 2013, 08:21 PM (2 replies)
OBAMA (on Newtown): "We have to do more to heal troubled minds. We have to do everything we can to protect our children from harm and make them feel loved and valued and cared for." http://www.democracynow.org/2013/12/16/nikki_giovanni_on_1_year_since
Meanwhile, 57,000 kids are to be cut out of Head Start:
David Cay Johnston: "And we’re going to kick 57,000 poor children out of Head Start, which means we’re going to narrow their economic futures and make all of us worse off in the future." http://www.democracynow.org/2013/12/16/makes_absolutely_no_sense_david_cay
In my view, it's time to start implementing the ideals put forth by Obama in his speech on Newtown.
Posted by grahamhgreen | Tue Dec 17, 2013, 01:22 PM (71 replies)
Don't know if this has been posted yet, but here ya go
Posted by grahamhgreen | Sat Dec 14, 2013, 10:42 AM (42 replies)