The Blacklisting of Dorothy Parker: The Pendulum of Power Swings Against the Bill of Rights, Again!

It is ironic today we are witnessing the intended power of the Bill of Rights being whittled down to nothing more than meaningless words. It appears that whatever political party is in power they find the Bill of Rights an inconvenience. Today with the TSA setting up road blocks on the interstate harassing travelers with probing searches and probing questions it is no wonder Americans are totally numb to the fact they have no more rights:

Probably the strongest law, signed by President Obama and passed by the Democratic Senate, was NDAA. Essentially this law allows the federal government to pick up any United States citizen and detain them without charge indefinitely. It is by far the most oppressive law against the Bill of Rights ever. What's ironic is this has been done before! Back in the 1950s the Republicans (with some Democratic help) pursued perceived Communist in our government and the arts (mostly writers and actors). In particular they basically accused 150 actors and directors in Hollywood for being communist (i.e. socialist).

Remember, no matter how much we disagree with another person being a communist, fascist, evangelical zealot, or any other true believer ideology, it isn't against the law. You have, under the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association (i.e. the Amish don't have to hang out with you). Under the witch hunt of the McCarthy era people were brought before Congress and were forced to testify under oath what they believed. Yes, many of these people were socialist and communist in their beliefs but, guess what, it's not against the law.

When members of this list were brought to the House Un-American Committee or Senator McCarthy's Senate Committee they were basically blacklisted from further work in Hollywood for refusing to answer questions (First Amendment Bill of Rights). What these committees did was to attack the principle of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly, as it was enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Finally, Congress threw ten writers in jail for a year and about 150 were blacklisted from further work in Hollywood. (The blacklist was derived from a private publication titled the Red Channels). This blacklist was totally unconstitutional and illegal.

The list was derived from a right wing Republican group who saw all liberal Democrats as anti-American Communist. Dorothy Parker, who's name was on the list, saw her career in Hollywood completely destroyed. She never recovered and never got to defend herself in a court of law. Essentially the big Hollywood studios caved in to the political pressure of the day and just ignored those who were on the list. About 11 years later some of the bigger writers eventually got to work under their real names again. In the meantime they had to work under pseudonyms for a fraction of the fee. In fact, why they put Dorothy Parker on the blacklist probably had more to do with her being a founding member of the Writers Guild with eight other Hollywood writers. It's interesting to note that half of the founding Writers Guild members were blacklisted. Sure looks and smells like union busting.

It wasn't until Otto Preminger produced Exodus that a blacklisted screenwriter received a screen credit with his real name. (This was one year before Kirk Douglas' Spartacus which some researchers mistakenly believe was the first film to break the blacklist). Today the pendulum has swung to the other extreme with the far left of the Democratic party attacking the Bill of Rights. The NDAA is only one example of laws being passed by congress (in particular the Democratic Senate). A citizen can now be picked up off the streets and held without charge. They can also be tried by a military court! The list of lost rights that have been removed goes on and on.

Why is it that extreme political believers always want to attack the Bill of Rights? Don't fret, the Bill of Rights always survives these attacks, because, in the end there is nothing else that works better for the people. The most effective tool in any world economy has been the freedoms stated in the Bill of Rights. As soon as they are restricted, as they are today, and Dorothy Parker's day, the economy starts to slow down. In the near future many of these restrictions on the Bill of Rights will be turned back and freedom loving people will get this economy moving again as they did back in Dorothy Parker's day.

Few people remember Dorothy Parker today but in her time she believed in helping the poor, the blacks, the anti-Franco forces in Spain, and the anti-Nazi groups in the late thirties. More then ever, we need the humor and wit of Dorothy Parker today! The pendulum of power may have moved but the need for the Bill of Rights is needed more than ever.

Terrie Frankel is a song writer, author of a New York Times best seller, and actor ( the film Room Enough For Two - The Life of Dorothy Parker). Terrie has been a board member of the Producers Guild of America and is a member of ASCAP and the Grammys. Dorothy Parker has been a 20 year research project for Terrie.

View the original article here

Chinese Soft Power and the Personality Void

Later this year, both China and the US will go through some fairly major political upheaval. In the States, the people will go to the polls to deliver their verdict on whether they are willing to give Barack Obama another four years to build upon the moderate successes of his first term. If they decide that the country's economic recovery has been too sluggish, his health reforms too radical, or his rhetoric too lofty, they will usher in Mitt Romney as the next President.

When the results are in, and regardless of whether it's Obama or Romney who is sworn in to office, you can be assured that almost every single person in the country will have some view on the man set to occupy the oval office until 2016. This is not necessarily because they will all be politically curious and opinionated, but because such is the nature of politics in the US; both candidates will have been figuratively hung, drawn, and quartered a hundred times over by the opposition in the run up to the elections.

The national media will have wall to wall coverage, exposing any inkling of weakness or scandal in the candidates, and no stone will be left unturned in their quest to dramatize the proceedings. No American will be able to listen to the radio, watch TV, or even surf the internet, without having their day interrupted by some kind of party political broadcast. Nines times out of ten, these broadcasts will take a negative point of view, creating a poisonous, febrile atmosphere between the two political parties.

Outside of the US, anyone with more than a passing interest in the next leader of the free world will easily be able to read up on Barack and Mitt at their leisure, coming to their own conclusions about the choice the American people will make in November.

Meanwhile, around the same time in China, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao will (one assumes) be packing up their offices in Zhongnanhai and heading out the door to be replaced by their anointed successors, Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang.

Of course, there will be no elections in China, but nor will there be much of an opportunity for anyone inside or outside of the country to find out much about the men due to take up the position of President and Prime Minister of the most populous nation on earth. To most people inside and outside of China, two faceless Communist Party suits will be replaced with two faceless Communist Party suits. Only a smattering of insiders will have any real and reliable insights into how these men think, what their plans are for the country and to what extent we can expect either more of the same or radical changes in terms of government policy.

The smart money is on more of the same, but isn't it somewhat remarkable that, in this day and age, when China is so focused on building its soft power beyond its national boundaries, that it has not thought it appropriate to invest in educating the world about these two men who are about to take up the hot seats at the pinnacle of power? Xi Jinping did make a well choreographed trip to the US last year, but given how suspicious most nations and people are of China's rise, why has there been such little effort to try and break down the image of the country being run by shadowy, characterless figures, devoid of personality and of public proclamation?

When the author visited Hanoi to attend an APEC business summit back in 2006, the difference between China and the US's approach to building their international image and relationships based on mutual trust could not have been more stark.

The first speaker of the day was Hu Jintao. Hu arrived on time, his speech was placed on the lectern by one of his flunkies just moments before he arrived, and he proceeded to read out the statement in a voice that suggested this was the very first time he had read the words in front of him. He paused for polite applause at the end of his speech, and then departed as fast as his legs would carry him. His entrance and exit were closely guarded by his entourage, who seemed utterly convinced that any interaction with the audience or waiting media could only end in tears. The auditorium was no doubt impressed by the speed and efficiency of his appearance, but there was certainly no feeling of warmth, friendliness or care emanating from the platform.

Next on stage was then Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice. This meeting was occurring right in the midst of the war on terror, and Ms Rice was not the most popular person in the world at that time. Even more provocatively, she was appearing at an event hosted by the government of a country that the US had entered - also uninvited - forty years previously.

Things did not start well for her as she arrived conspicuously late, but her entrance was immediately captivating. She paused on her way to the stage, shook several of the audience's hands, made sure everyone could see her smiling, and if my memory serves me correctly, she even embraced the person who was tasked with introducing her. She then spoke for 20 minutes using prepared notes, but speaking with utter conviction and passion on her chosen topic - the fact that people would look back at the war in a more favourable light than they see it now.

Most of the audience disagreed with her and I don't think many were won over by her argument. But few could not have been moved by the way she stated that amazing things can happen in current affairs, and to those who kept faith in what they believed in. After all, she said, who could have envisaged forty years ago that a black female Secretary of State would be standing there addressing a friendly audience in Hanoi in 2006? She completed her speech to a standing ovation lasting several minutes and then proceeded to take Q&A for another twenty minutes, clearly enjoying herself and the intellectual debate she was able to enter into with the people fortunate enough to be attending.

The above story is demonstrative of the challenge China faces as it advances its interest on the world stage. America is unpopular in many places, but at least most people know who its leaders are and what they stand for. For all its investments in Confucius centres around the world, and its attempts to turn CCTV into a respected global news channel and voice of the Party (shame about the xenophobic statements by its news anchor then), very few foreigners really feel comfortable with China's rise.

Would it make a considerable difference if there wasn't such a deep personality void at the very top of the echelons of power? We all know what happened to the last senior politician in China who dared to run a 'campaign' around personality, so one suspects monochrome statements from monochrome men in monochrome suits will be the norm for some time to come... but here's hoping that in an era when China is stepping into its role as a global leader, the new Party leaders surprise us all by appearing to at least care what the rest of the world thinks of them.

More from China Brain at: http://www.china-brain.com

View the original article here

Who Has the Power?

My mind often wanders as I sit at my desk in the late hours of the night as it did this past evening.. Within the seat of our government from the position of president on into our congressional representatives and concluding our nation's judicial branch we can bear witness to vast amounts of political power. These generous supplies of power work in conjunction with our constitution to support the concept of separation of powers. These checks and balances serve as auxiliary precautions to prevent one division of the government from obtaining too much power.

Since our constitution fails to exploit every detail involved in the various governmental divisions we are provided with a rather broad spectrum of dominance which during certain circumstances may appear to be excessive. Fortunately for us, this is merely a temporary illusion and within a short period of time the status quo quickly balances out one again.

The office of Commander-in-Chief of the United States has been gifted with numerous powers beginning with those provided by Article II of our Constitution. This article of our founding document defines the executive branch of America and establishes the provisions of the President's power. It clearly identifies his responsibilities as that of a representative who is vested with the authority to execute the mandates as set forth by Congress. Although the President can not actually create and introduce his own legislation into the agenda, it is a simple matter for him to locate a trusted member of his party to promote his illicit legislative goals. The president is empowered to enforce those decrees of congress which are deemed necessary for the good of our nation.

The President is widely referred to as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Services. This designation includes not only the active military but the state militias as well. He is afforded the consent to grant reprieves or pardons for offenses committed against our country. It is within his realm of control to establish treaties with the consent of the Senate. He has the right to assign foreign ambassadors to represent our country and Judges who will sit before the Supreme Court with the approval of our Senate members.

He acts as our head of state entertaining and welcoming foreign dignitaries to America. At the same time he is empowered to offer such diplomatic recognition to any nation he so chooses. It is his responsibility to manage the national affairs of America while he occupies the chair as president and to oversee the workings of our government, all for the good of the people. The president can issue what is known as Executive Orders which have the same force of the law but simply does not require congressional approval. His financial obligation is to prepare the annual budget and present it to congress for approval along with occasionally presenting a State of the Union report to the people.

It is apparent that those powers provided to the president are carefully scrutinized by those of the other two divisions of government so it appears that the president does not have an opportunity to abuse the power he is vested with, as was Hamilton's intent.

We are all familiar with the actions associated with our Legislative Branch of government. Article 1, of our Constitution established the legislative branch consisting of 435 member of the House along with another 100 from the US Senate. Congress serves as our nation's lawmaking body and is responsible for a number of federal level operations. It is congress which has been given the most prominent details of their powers within the lines of our constitution.

However, when the words in our constitution state "We the people" it's intend is directed towards our legislative branch of government. It is the people's voices which are heard in the halls of the House and of the Senate. Within our governing authorities the powers are limited as granted by the people and with these powers is justification that they will be employed exclusively for the benefit of the people. Abuse of those sovereign powers will not be permitted and they could be recalled if necessary.

It is our House of Representatives which possess the solo power to impeach the president of the United States, after which the final authority rests squarely upon the shoulders of the Senate members. It has been left up to the powers within congress to collect the necessary taxes and to pay the Debts accumulated for our country. They are responsible for the Defense of the United States and the equipment used in the task. They may authorize our nation to borrow money as necessary on behalf of the United States. They are commission to regulate commerce between America and any foreign countries, various national states and among the various Native American Tribes. They are expected to establish uniform codes relating to naturalization and the laws relevant to financial bankruptcies. It is Congress, who is authorized to coin money and to regulate its intended value while maintaining a fixed Standard of Weights and Measurements,

Our congress has established and maintains a Postal system which reaches the far corners of the world. They promote progress in the Sciences and in the various arts by way of patents and copyrights. Congress is the only authority in the nation that can declare war upon another country.

In short the major task for the legislative branch of our government is that of creating laws. It is their calling to create the bills which we live by and subsequently pass them into law. They are the only branch of government that can not only create new laws but change existing ones when they no longer serve their purpose. They are responsible for the federal finances as they approve or disapprove the president's annual budget. The legislative branch is also accountable for creating and maintaining an active military.

Congress may hold hearings and establish investigative committees as it deems necessary. During these sessions of these investigations they have the power to compel testimony when necessary. As you can see this branch of government also waves some awesome power but it too falls under the checks and balances system the same as the other two.

The Judicial Branch of our government is composed of courts and judges. Within this branch we encounter three separate court levels being the district courts, the court of appeals and the highest court in the nation - the Supreme Court.

The powers delivered to the courts are essentially and necessary to interpret our laws. We must keep in mind that the jurisdiction contracted to our judicial branch is limited in scope to the constitutional and federally directed laws. These types of court cases are usually consistent in nature to those of a constitutional preeminence, violations involving treaties or crimes committed while on federal property. Since often it is the lower courts which determine any sort of precedent of a case those lower court judges must provide valid, legal reasons in support of their decisions which they have handed down. Oftentimes it is these decisions which affect the American citizens the most.

At first one would suspect that the judiciary branch would hold the honor of having the most power from the three branches however, I do not believe this to be true. They may in fact have the power to change and modify laws through their judicial review process but other courts with similar powers may annul the laws if they happen to find them incompatible from the accepted constitutional standards. The judges selected to hold a seat in the courts are by and large of high moral character and accept their positions and responsibilities in a solemn manner.

I can not with any certainty establish one branch to have more power than the others. I think that the smooth operating capabilities of our government depend upon all three having defined limits along with the established checks and balances. Examples of this would be if the courts sentenced an individual to life in prison for a crime. If the president felt that the judge's decision was a trifle too harsh or that the issues presented in the court case appeared to be other than what was displayed, he could commute the sentence. In this respect the executive branch is balancing the power of the judicial branch.

Another example would be if the president presents his annual budget to congress for approval and our representatives viewed the compounded figures as excessive. In this case they may refuse to validate the request and cause the process to start all over again. This also works in reverse as well since the president has been gifted by our forefathers with the right of "veto". So, I must honestly say that no one branch has the most power to gain the upper hand.

The primary mechanism used to separate the dominance of the three branches rests upon the execution of the various checks on the powers vested in the other two. Even congress, which is traditionally viewed within the constitution as the most powerful branch is divided into several chambers to encourage this division of powers. These chambers serve as effective checks on our legislative powers. Is it considered to be the most powerful due to its dominant characteristics? Is its power for handling the nation's monetary supplies and its legislative power the reason it is rallied as the most powerful? Based upon these potential factors the question of power within the separate branches of our government must be examined amidst the context of the individual issues or concerns. Occasionally an issue will dictate that congress show more power while at other time the topics may point to the president as the power holder. Each branch has some powerful tools and can often conjure up some prevailing results but all in all I feel the power is generally divided up equally.

Copyright @2012 Joseph Parish

For more information relating to survival visit us at http://www.survival-training.info/

View the original article here