Obama on torture-pictures from external American prisons
Recently he changed his mind. President Barack Obama does not want to show pictures from torture-procedures in prisons in Iraq like Abu Ghraib or Afghanistan anymore. The inhabitants had been humbled and abused by their guardsmen (exactly these people who should have protected them!)
This decision caused him a huge wave of worldwide outrage and criticism. It is in fact exactly the opposite of what Obama had proclaimed in his election campaign. At that time he had accused his political enemy of hiding those terrible pictures and leaned on this statement in respect of his voters. And it is a change in his current political guideline. After exposing the “water-boarding-affair” – which was incredibly horrible – he now does everything to inhibit sticking to his promise he gave. So, why does he start to backpedal so suddenly?
Fortunately a lot of criticism comes from human rights organizations as well. The President had to be forced by judicial order (in the initiation of an American civil-rights movement) to reveal these pictures. He now wants to contest this action.
He argues, taking these photos was a part of official inquiries against the suspects in the US-army and could maybe hinder the commissioned courts of justice for offenders and victims in equal shares. These photos have no information value and are less sensational than the ones before.
He now suddenly fears, showing them would “inflame anti-American opinion” and endanger American soldiers abroad. Three weeks earlier when he made this promised he obviously did not care about that.
But, as we now know him, in the future everything will work better and everything will be alright and now please calm down and relax: He promised to not tolerate those behavior in his political leadership and prohibited it. I am sure, this will do the trick. Of cause, those pictures from torture done by the military and tolerated by their elites could be a new medium for terrorists to recruit new members to their mission against the western world. But please mind your own business first. What you can do right immediately.
So, why doesn’t he show those pictures to calm down the public and his critics? If these photos are as boring as he proclaimed? We have to ask ourselves: Where is the problem? If he says the truth – and for these effected inhabitants I hope he does so – I don’t see any.
Well, is this the kind of change we voted for?
See links:
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/audio/audio38272.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/audio/audio38282.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video496424.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video496154.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/audio/audio38326.html /
http://www.tagesschau.de/kommentar/kommentarfolterfotos100.html
and previous links
2009-05-15
Moment of Zen #5.2 ( for May 19, 2009 )
CDU proclaims:
“Homosexuality is healable!”
We are saved!
Oh holy lord, we are saved!
Finally there is a solution!
The world will be a better place now.
Thank you so much!
God save the “Christian Democratic Union of Germany” (CDU)!
The conservatives found the answer.
Now, we all can be free. And Heterosexual.
Yes, we always waited for that.
Thank you, politicians.
We couldn’t have known what to do without you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: April, 22, 2009 01:15:53
Author: Jochen Trebmann
Topic: New Therapy-Methods change homosexuals into heterosexuals.
Dear Readers.
Homosexuality as a cross-social problem could be contained very soon. New scientifical cognition offer therapeutic rudiments. Changing homosexuality to heterosexuality is possible, even though gay- and lesbian-associations assert the opposite.
Receipts for that provide the US-organization “National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality”. Particularly die research studies from Psychiatry-professor Benjamin Kaufman and the psychologists Charles Socarides and Joseph Nicolosi show exciting results. In many cases homosexuals could be changed to heterosexuals by new therapeutic rudiments.[1]
The indications intensify more and more that homosexuality is not a sexual orientation on an equal footing with heterosexuality – but a disorientation, which has multifarious reasons. Scientific researches for instance, show that Homosexuality – contrary to former published views – could in fact be a mental disorder, which is healable under certain circumstances.
Quite interesting in this context are the research-results of psychoanalyst Prof. Dr. Benjamin Kaufman. The amazing results of his analyses about how to heal homosexuals – particularly lesbians – definitely suggest that we have to rethink: Obviously a “native” homosexuality does not exist. Recently because of certain living circumstances a human sickens psychically on homosexuality.
Even Prof. Dr. Robert Spitzer, one of the leading scientists of homosexuality who researches and teaches at Columbia University in New York, had to admit a treatability of homosexuals after eight years of researching. thitherto he had been
Spitzer war vorher noch vastly of another opinion.[2]
Well, something is happening. A world without homosexuality is no longer Utopia or vision. Obviously it is possible. Now it depends on furthering the researches in this area. These must be free from ideology, particularly from such kind of ideology, which is carried from gay- and lesbian-associations.
Regards,
Jochen Trebmann
(CDU)
[1]
xxxxx://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_and_Therapy_of_Homosexuality
[2]
xxxxx://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(psychiatrist)
(trans. Germ. -> Engl.: Kir.H.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This change is exactly the one we need. Thank you!
References:http://www.wirreswirken.de/wp/?p=1142 / http://www.cdu.de/cgi-bin/errorpage.cgi
“Homosexuality is healable!”
We are saved!
Oh holy lord, we are saved!
Finally there is a solution!
The world will be a better place now.
Thank you so much!
God save the “Christian Democratic Union of Germany” (CDU)!
The conservatives found the answer.
Now, we all can be free. And Heterosexual.
Yes, we always waited for that.
Thank you, politicians.
We couldn’t have known what to do without you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: April, 22, 2009 01:15:53
Author: Jochen Trebmann
Topic: New Therapy-Methods change homosexuals into heterosexuals.
Dear Readers.
Homosexuality as a cross-social problem could be contained very soon. New scientifical cognition offer therapeutic rudiments. Changing homosexuality to heterosexuality is possible, even though gay- and lesbian-associations assert the opposite.
Receipts for that provide the US-organization “National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality”. Particularly die research studies from Psychiatry-professor Benjamin Kaufman and the psychologists Charles Socarides and Joseph Nicolosi show exciting results. In many cases homosexuals could be changed to heterosexuals by new therapeutic rudiments.[1]
The indications intensify more and more that homosexuality is not a sexual orientation on an equal footing with heterosexuality – but a disorientation, which has multifarious reasons. Scientific researches for instance, show that Homosexuality – contrary to former published views – could in fact be a mental disorder, which is healable under certain circumstances.
Quite interesting in this context are the research-results of psychoanalyst Prof. Dr. Benjamin Kaufman. The amazing results of his analyses about how to heal homosexuals – particularly lesbians – definitely suggest that we have to rethink: Obviously a “native” homosexuality does not exist. Recently because of certain living circumstances a human sickens psychically on homosexuality.
Even Prof. Dr. Robert Spitzer, one of the leading scientists of homosexuality who researches and teaches at Columbia University in New York, had to admit a treatability of homosexuals after eight years of researching. thitherto he had been
Spitzer war vorher noch vastly of another opinion.[2]
Well, something is happening. A world without homosexuality is no longer Utopia or vision. Obviously it is possible. Now it depends on furthering the researches in this area. These must be free from ideology, particularly from such kind of ideology, which is carried from gay- and lesbian-associations.
Regards,
Jochen Trebmann
(CDU)
[1]
xxxxx://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_and_Therapy_of_Homosexuality
[2]
xxxxx://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_(psychiatrist)
(trans. Germ. -> Engl.: Kir.H.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This change is exactly the one we need. Thank you!
References:http://www.wirreswirken.de/wp/?p=1142 / http://www.cdu.de/cgi-bin/errorpage.cgi
Moment of Zen #5 ( for May 19, 2009 )
Obama the smart guy?
Obama is a nice guy. He is a good politician, a brilliant orator and his heart is in the right place.
And it is true that he already did a lot for the United States: He spent a huge sum to save the financial system: Economic stimulus package (787 Mrd. $), saving banks (2 Bil. $), recapitalization of banks (Mio.-$-credits and last resorts). It's the economy, stupid!
But all that glitters is just not gold. He talks big and knows how to grab the audience’s attention. But already there are some details missing.
After the election – hoping that this ‘Obamania’ he caused would continue – he starts to back pedal:
Closing Guantánamo?
yes. ->Good!
But:
Civil Courts?
no. ->court-martials
Taking care of inhabitants?
no. ->deporting / flying them out to Europe
---
Closing all the other military prisons (like in Afghanistan / Iraq)?
no. ->but there are also human rights abuses
---
Afford transparency (policy)?
no. ->fearing bad reputation
---
Publicize torture-pictures from Iraq?
no. ->reason: shelter soldiers
So, where are the details?!
Why doesn’t he do the whole job?
Good start but we anticipated more probably.
Nevertheless Obama has the right ideas and concepts – but where are the detailed actions?
Suddenly he had to realize that there is a difference between getting into politics and doing politics actually.
So – Obama – Please take care of not being started as a lion but ending up as a paper tiger!
Further information:
links: http://www.n-tv.de/1147921.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video482210.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/guantanamo252.html
and: http://www.friedenssicherung-und-sicherheitskonzepte.de/
and: http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa220.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa222.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/kommentar/kommentarfolterfotos100.html
and: http://www.n-tv.de/1146380.html / http://www.n-tv.de/1145642.html / http://www.n-tv.de/1145252.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/obama1292.html / n-tv: “Barack Obama. Aufstieg ins Weiße Haus.” (reportage) April 29, 2009, 22:05 h.
Obama is a nice guy. He is a good politician, a brilliant orator and his heart is in the right place.
And it is true that he already did a lot for the United States: He spent a huge sum to save the financial system: Economic stimulus package (787 Mrd. $), saving banks (2 Bil. $), recapitalization of banks (Mio.-$-credits and last resorts). It's the economy, stupid!
But all that glitters is just not gold. He talks big and knows how to grab the audience’s attention. But already there are some details missing.
After the election – hoping that this ‘Obamania’ he caused would continue – he starts to back pedal:
Closing Guantánamo?
yes. ->Good!
But:
Civil Courts?
no. ->court-martials
Taking care of inhabitants?
no. ->deporting / flying them out to Europe
---
Closing all the other military prisons (like in Afghanistan / Iraq)?
no. ->but there are also human rights abuses
---
Afford transparency (policy)?
no. ->fearing bad reputation
---
Publicize torture-pictures from Iraq?
no. ->reason: shelter soldiers
So, where are the details?!
Why doesn’t he do the whole job?
Good start but we anticipated more probably.
Nevertheless Obama has the right ideas and concepts – but where are the detailed actions?
Suddenly he had to realize that there is a difference between getting into politics and doing politics actually.
So – Obama – Please take care of not being started as a lion but ending up as a paper tiger!
Further information:
links: http://www.n-tv.de/1147921.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video482210.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/guantanamo252.html
and: http://www.friedenssicherung-und-sicherheitskonzepte.de/
and: http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa220.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa222.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/kommentar/kommentarfolterfotos100.html
and: http://www.n-tv.de/1146380.html / http://www.n-tv.de/1145642.html / http://www.n-tv.de/1145252.html / http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/obama1292.html / n-tv: “Barack Obama. Aufstieg ins Weiße Haus.” (reportage) April 29, 2009, 22:05 h.
2009-05-11
Moment of Zen #4 ( for May 12, 2009 )
In how far did the media help electing President Obama?
Does the media coverage of a political event like presidential elections in America have such a huge effect on the voting decisions that it can change the whole outcome?
The widespread positive coverage leading to real support drove Barack Obama’s campaign further. The democrats decline – but of cause the conservative party claims it anyway and talks of a ‘loss of reality’ concerning journalists and media concerns towards the elections.
But did the media really lose their “professional-best-possible-objectivity”?
Here are some facts:
American journalists: 7% identified themselves as conservative (1/3 liberal).
American public: 20% identified themselves as liberal.
The larger part of negative coverage was not liberalism or conservatism but skepticism towards Obama as a person himself – treated by rumors in most cases.
Sometimes it was not just extremely positive coverage of Obama but the extremely negative coverage of the McCain-campaign. Even more problematic was the fact that Obama was attacked every time. Fortunately he had to do absolutely nothing when the conservatives tried to put him down: Because they derogated themselves even enough. Another reason for these imbalanced media-reports was that the journalists aimed their coverage at polls all through the American public.
Usually the American media split the two candidates and their campaigns up completely: there were no links, no same-ideas – just all the differences. So this topic polarized: Yes or No, Up or Down, New or Old, Black or White. You have the choice. That turns out to be no good journalism quality! But of cause the journalists were not aware of the fact of being less objective – one of the worst things a journalist (in his/her “media-as-the-fourth-statewide-authority”-self-conception) can slip up.
So – please! – all the journalists:
- Check Your Sources,
- Look, Who’s Talking,
- Play The New News Game,
- Understand that Absence of Evidence Can Be Evidence of Absence.
Shortsightening the coverage is no solution! To seem kind of trustworthy to the public news coverage needs journalism quality.
Too positive support for Obama?
Too much of everything in the media?
Even too unobjective coverage?
Maybe.
But we are so lucky to be able to name him our new president. Future will tell if we are allowed to.
Sources:
McCollam, Douglas: “In the Tank”. In: Columbia Journalism Review: Strong Press, Strong Democracy. Jan/Feb 2009. http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/192310357.html
Massing, Michael: “Un-American”. In: Columbia Journalism Review: Strong Press, Strong Democracy. Jan/Feb 2009.http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6775
Does the media coverage of a political event like presidential elections in America have such a huge effect on the voting decisions that it can change the whole outcome?
The widespread positive coverage leading to real support drove Barack Obama’s campaign further. The democrats decline – but of cause the conservative party claims it anyway and talks of a ‘loss of reality’ concerning journalists and media concerns towards the elections.
But did the media really lose their “professional-best-possible-objectivity”?
Here are some facts:
American journalists: 7% identified themselves as conservative (1/3 liberal).
American public: 20% identified themselves as liberal.
The larger part of negative coverage was not liberalism or conservatism but skepticism towards Obama as a person himself – treated by rumors in most cases.
Sometimes it was not just extremely positive coverage of Obama but the extremely negative coverage of the McCain-campaign. Even more problematic was the fact that Obama was attacked every time. Fortunately he had to do absolutely nothing when the conservatives tried to put him down: Because they derogated themselves even enough. Another reason for these imbalanced media-reports was that the journalists aimed their coverage at polls all through the American public.
Usually the American media split the two candidates and their campaigns up completely: there were no links, no same-ideas – just all the differences. So this topic polarized: Yes or No, Up or Down, New or Old, Black or White. You have the choice. That turns out to be no good journalism quality! But of cause the journalists were not aware of the fact of being less objective – one of the worst things a journalist (in his/her “media-as-the-fourth-statewide-authority”-self-conception) can slip up.
So – please! – all the journalists:
- Check Your Sources,
- Look, Who’s Talking,
- Play The New News Game,
- Understand that Absence of Evidence Can Be Evidence of Absence.
Shortsightening the coverage is no solution! To seem kind of trustworthy to the public news coverage needs journalism quality.
Too positive support for Obama?
Too much of everything in the media?
Even too unobjective coverage?
Maybe.
But we are so lucky to be able to name him our new president. Future will tell if we are allowed to.
Sources:
McCollam, Douglas: “In the Tank”. In: Columbia Journalism Review: Strong Press, Strong Democracy. Jan/Feb 2009. http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/192310357.html
Massing, Michael: “Un-American”. In: Columbia Journalism Review: Strong Press, Strong Democracy. Jan/Feb 2009.http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6775
2009-05-03
Moment of Zen #3 ( for May 5, 2009 )
Obama on Guantánamo
Barack Obama – new elected U.S.-president – has to stand a huge wave of criticism these days. One of the most powerful and convincing arguments in his presidential campaign concerned Guantánamo Bay Cuba. He promised the American public – and the political world – to close this detention-center and to enable every inhabitant a fair civil suit right after being elected president.
But hardly after a hundred days in office, Obama suddenly changed his mind. He is going to close Guantánamo. But there will not be civil processes. Instead of that, every effected will be court-martialled without having the same spread of fairness and evidence-trial as in a normal court of justice. The brutal police-questioning-procedure named “water-boarding”, which simulates a realistic drowning-situation, will not be prosecuted criminally. If these inhabitants would be treated like promised, in most cases the civil courts would acquit them probably.
So, what about keeping these promises he gave?
Don’t get me wrong - this decision does not turn him out as a bad president or a brutal leader. But it can do kind of a huge crack to the “new-and-better-world-after-Bush-perception” a lot of – not solely only American – people have built up since Obama entered the political stage.
See link: http://www.n-tv.de/1147921.html
and: http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video482210.html
Barack Obama – new elected U.S.-president – has to stand a huge wave of criticism these days. One of the most powerful and convincing arguments in his presidential campaign concerned Guantánamo Bay Cuba. He promised the American public – and the political world – to close this detention-center and to enable every inhabitant a fair civil suit right after being elected president.
But hardly after a hundred days in office, Obama suddenly changed his mind. He is going to close Guantánamo. But there will not be civil processes. Instead of that, every effected will be court-martialled without having the same spread of fairness and evidence-trial as in a normal court of justice. The brutal police-questioning-procedure named “water-boarding”, which simulates a realistic drowning-situation, will not be prosecuted criminally. If these inhabitants would be treated like promised, in most cases the civil courts would acquit them probably.
So, what about keeping these promises he gave?
Don’t get me wrong - this decision does not turn him out as a bad president or a brutal leader. But it can do kind of a huge crack to the “new-and-better-world-after-Bush-perception” a lot of – not solely only American – people have built up since Obama entered the political stage.
See link: http://www.n-tv.de/1147921.html
and: http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video482210.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
