MUMIA-"The Imperial Exception to Law"

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

ADVERTISEMENT

My Groups | mumiacolumns Main Page

 

 

THE IMPERIAL EXCEPTION TO LAW

[Col. Writ. 2/12/02] Copyright 2002 Mumia Abu-Jamal

 

"One of these days, the American people are going to

awaken to the fact that we have become an imperial

nation ... It happened because the world wanted it to

happen ... no European nation can have -- or really

wants to have -- its own foreign policy."  Irving Kristol,

(Wall St. Journal, 8/18/97)

 

  In the new post-Cold War world, the United States,

due to its heavy emphasis on military power, has

emerged as more than a lone superpower.  The French,

perhaps envious of her emergence in world affairs

without a serious rival, refers to the United States as a

hyperpower.

 

  Not since ancient Rome, or perhaps the 500-year

reign of the Ottomans, has one nation had such impact

on such a vast portion of the world.

 

  With such outsized power, such pacified borders,

such stratospheric wealth, what nation, or global entity,

can bring her to heel?

 

  None exists.

 

  Several decades ago, when the Soviet Union existed

but was precipitously in decline, the United States,

following its Cold War imperatives, was charged with

violating international law for sponsoring a terrorist

rampage against Nicaragua.  As linguist and scholar,

Noam Chomsky notes, the U.S. thumbed its nose at

the laws:

 

     ... [T]he U.S. is, after all, the only country

     condemned by the World Court for international

     terrorism -- for "the unlawful use of force" for

     political ends, as the Court put it -- ordering the

     U.S. to terminate these crimes and pay

     substantial reparations.  The U.S. of course

     dismissed the Court's judgment with contempt,

     reacting by escalating the terrorist war against

     Nicaragua and vetoing a Security Council

     resolution calling on all states to observe

     international law ... [Noam Chomsky, 9-11

     (Seven Stories Pr., 2001)].

 

  For, to an Empire, what other body exists that can

judge its actions?  To an Empire, it is the only source

of law that matters.

 

  Thus, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty can be

consigned to the garbage can.  Thus, the Kyoto Protocols

can be tossed into the gutter.  Thus, the Geneva

Conventions can be ignored as Taliban soldiers of

Afghanistan are shuffled, under sensory deprivation and

drugs, into chain-linked cages under a Cuban sky.  Anyone

who declares the U.S. should be subject to international

treaties (which the U.S. has signed!) is seen as a traitor.

 

  Thus, the imperial government can establish special,

military tribunals, where military officers serve as judges,

and executive branch politicians sit as a final court of

appeals, and death awaits those who go through this

perilous process.  What does the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights matter?

 

  It doesn't, to an empire.  Nothing does.

 

 

Copyright '02 MAJ

 

==================================

 

CHECK www.mumia.org AND ITS LINKS FOR IMPORTANT ACTION ALERTS!

 

PLEASE CONTACT:

International Concerned Family &Friends of MAJ

P.O. Box 19709

Philadelphia, PA 19143

Phone - 215-476-8812/ Fax - 215-476-6180/ E-mail - [email protected]

AND OFFER YOUR SERVICES!

 

Send our brotha some LOVE and LIGHT at:

Mumia Abu-Jamal

AM 8335

SCI-Greene

175 Progress Drive

Waynesburg, PA 15370

 

WE SHALL NOT BE MOVED!!

 

******************************************************

This column may be reprinted and/or distributed by

electronic means, but only for non-commercial use, and

only with the inclusion of the following copyright

information:

 

Text © copyright 2001 by Mumia Abu-Jamal. All rights

reserved. Reprinted by permission of the author.

******************************************************

 

Mumia Abu-Jamal is the author of three books: 'Live

from Death Row', 'Death Blossoms', and 'All Things

Censored'.

 

Write to Mumia directly at:

Mumia Abu-Jamal AM 8335

SCI-Greene

175 Progress Drive

Waynesburg, PA 15370

 

 

 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

[email protected]

 

 

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Guest Vyce]

I know that post SHOULD have made me upset at my country.....

 

But screw THAT!

 

WHOOO!!!!!! I LOVE being an Empire!!!!!

[Guest TJH]

Another desperate grab for attention from a convicted cop killer......

 

I'm probably stating the obvious, aren't I?

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

So America's got the big stick. Do I care? No.

 

Thus I could give a crap what this cop killer has to say.

 

Thus I will shortly write what I have to say about this topic and be gone off to bed.

 

Thus I will print this most recent Mumia chronicle out on some paper.

 

Thus I shall then take a poop.

 

Thus I will then take the printed-out Mumia piece and wipe my ass with it.

 

Thus it will then show what I think of this murdering bastard.

 

Thus I will then go to bed (after washing my hands of course)

 

Thus I will then dream about the day this should-have-been aborted fetus will die a slow painful death from some wretched disease.

 

Thus then will begin his decent into hell for all of eternity cleaning out Satan's grime-infested swimming pool.

 

Hey, I said "thus" a bunch of times like Mumia. Maybe I can get these pseudo-hippies to worship my every word, like lambs being led to the slaughter...

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<"One of these days, the American people are going to

awaken to the fact that we have become an imperial

nation ... It happened because the world wanted it to

happen ... no European nation can have -- or really

wants to have -- its own foreign policy."  Irving Kristol,

(Wall St. Journal, 8/18/97)

 

In the new post-Cold War world, the United States,

due to its heavy emphasis on military power, has

emerged as more than a lone superpower.  The French,

perhaps envious of her emergence in world affairs

without a serious rival, refers to the United States as a

hyperpower. >>

 

The French are ungrateful little whiners. Let's see Europe maintain ANY standard of living without US spending millions to defend them. OUR spending allowed them to use their money on borderline absurd social spending.

 

<<Not since ancient Rome, or perhaps the 500-year

reign of the Ottomans, has one nation had such impact

on such a vast portion of the world.

 

With such outsized power, such pacified borders,

such stratospheric wealth, what nation, or global entity,

can bring her to heel?

 

None exists.

 

Several decades ago, when the Soviet Union existed

but was precipitously in decline, the United States,

following its Cold War imperatives, was charged with

violating international law for sponsoring a terrorist

rampage against Nicaragua.  As linguist and scholar,

Noam Chomsky notes, the U.S. thumbed its nose at

the laws:

 

    ... [T]he U.S. is, after all, the only country

    condemned by the World Court for international

    terrorism -- for "the unlawful use of force" for

    political ends, as the Court put it -- ordering the

    U.S. to terminate these crimes and pay

    substantial reparations.  The U.S. of course

    dismissed the Court's judgment with contempt,

    reacting by escalating the terrorist war against

    Nicaragua and vetoing a Security Council

    resolution calling on all states to observe

    international law ... [Noam Chomsky, 9-11

    (Seven Stories Pr., 2001)].

 

For, to an Empire, what other body exists that can

judge its actions?  To an Empire, it is the only source

of law that matters. >>

 

The U.S has long had the problem of everybody asking us to help and then ATTACKING us when we do so.

 

And funny that the U.S.S.R wasn't charged with anything in the numerous revolutions that THEY were involved with.

 

<<Thus, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty can be

consigned to the garbage can. >>

 

If Mumia spent a moment to think, he'd realize one thing:

 

The ABM was signed between the U.S and U.S.S.R.

 

The U.S.S.R no longer exists---thus there is NO agreement any longer.

 

It'd be no different than an advertiser filing a suit because their commercials aren't aired on the long-defunct DuMont network today.

 

<<Thus, the Kyoto Protocols can be tossed into the gutter.>>

 

Congress never ratified it, so the Protocols never were actually signed by us.

 

And please note that Japan hasn't exactly gone along with them, either.

 

<<Thus, the Geneva Conventions can be ignored as Taliban soldiers of Afghanistan are shuffled, under sensory deprivation and drugs, into chain-linked cages under a Cuban sky.>>

 

You know, I could take Mumia a little more seriously if he wasn't so fundamentally inaccurate on so many issues.

 

As I have stated earlier, the Taliban fighters WEREN'T wearing uniforms and had no clear chain of command---meaning the Conventions don't apply to them.

 

The Taliban never SIGNED the Conventions---so the Conventions don't apply to them.

 

And they were under "sensory deprivation" as they were TRANSPORTED to Cuba. When they arrived, that ended.

 

Funny that being sent to a vacation hotspot for many of the world's left-leaning countries is such a brutal treatment for these sub-humans. They're kept in chain-linked cages because they cannot be trusted.

 

<<Anyone who declares the U.S. should be subject to international treaties (which the U.S. has signed! is seen as a traitor. >>

 

U.S never signed the Kyoto Protocols.

U.S.S.R doesn't exist, so the ABM treaty is null and void.

The Taliban forces violated the Conventions, so they don't apply to them, either.

 

Good lord, how can somebody as fundamentally idiotic as Mumia be so respected by the left?

 

<<Thus, the imperial government can establish special,

military tribunals, where military officers serve as judges,

and executive branch politicians sit as a final court of

appeals, and death awaits those who go through this

perilous process.  What does the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights matter? >>

 

The Taliban forces aren't subject to the Geneva Conventions, so it's up to us to decide what to do with them.

 

<< It doesn't, to an empire.  Nothing does. >>

 

*sniff* Sad, huh?

                    -=Mike

 

...Who wonders if Mumia has suffered severe head trauma in his life.

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

In the new post-Cold War world, the United States,

due to its heavy emphasis on military power, has

emerged as more than a lone superpower.  The French,

perhaps envious of her emergence in world affairs

without a serious rival, refers to the United States as a

hyperpower. >>

 

<<The French are ungrateful little whiners. Let's see Europe maintain ANY standard of living without US spending millions to defend them. OUR spending allowed them to use their money on borderline absurd social spending.>>

 

-Hey, the Marshall Plan was a great thing.  It would be nice if we could use those trillions of dollars we have right now on a similiar deal to help rebuild the Third World instead of bombing and raping it like we've been doing since the days of Columbus.  You have to remember that they say they don't want our help or influence, but they are talking about military intevention and Western cultural pressure.  Economic aid (without any strings attached) won't cause terrorism like those other things have.  And if you think that spending absurd amounts of money to take care of the people in your country is wrong, well then, you're a hell of a American then.  We all have to live on this planet, so we might as well try to understand each other and what's wrong with us instead of basking in the glory of our little hyperpower...

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<In the new post-Cold War world, the United States,

due to its heavy emphasis on military power, has

emerged as more than a lone superpower.  The French,

perhaps envious of her emergence in world affairs

without a serious rival, refers to the United States as a

hyperpower. >>

 

<<The French are ungrateful little whiners. Let's see Europe maintain ANY standard of living without US spending millions to defend them. OUR spending allowed them to use their money on borderline absurd social spending.>>

 

<<-Hey, the Marshall Plan was a great thing.  It would be nice if we could use those trillions of dollars we have right now on a similiar deal to help rebuild the Third World instead of bombing and raping it like we've been doing since the days of Columbus.>>

 

We've given TONS of money to third world countries, but then we have to sit back and watch the governments steal all the money and use it for the benefit of their leaders.

 

At this time, there is nothing we can do to help them. Anything we give gets taken by the government.

 

<<You have to remember that they say they don't want our help or influence, but they are talking about military intevention and Western cultural pressure.  Economic aid (without any strings attached) won't cause terrorism like those other things have.>>

 

There is no way in the world anybody should give anybody money with "no strings attached".

 

<<And if you think that spending absurd amounts of money to take care of the people in your country is wrong, well then, you're a hell of a American then.>>

 

No, it's called recognizing that socialism is a bad idea.

 

The government's job is NOT to provide job security for employees, regardless of their qualification (God knows we have enough of those in our gov't bureaucracy).

 

It's NOT to provide health care (and God knows those countries' health care systems aren't top-notch).

 

<<We all have to live on this planet, so we might as well try to understand each other and what's wrong with us instead of basking in the glory of our little hyperpower... >>

 

Why should understanding always be a one-way street?

 

Why is it always US who are the problem, never ANYBODY else?

 

If the rest of the world hates us, screw 'em.

                         -=Mike

 

...People had best learn to respect the U.S

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

<<We've given TONS of money to third world countries, but then we have to sit back and watch the governments steal all the money and use it for the benefit of their leaders.

 

At this time, there is nothing we can do to help them. Anything we give gets taken by the government.>>

 

-Can't disagree with you here.  It's too bad it's so easy to see the problem without any definite solution to try for.

 

<<There is no way in the world anybody should give anybody money with "no strings attached".>>

 

-Why?  Let's take this to a basic, human level away from politics and economics for the moment.  Put yourself in the shoes of someone who needs help for whatever reasons.  How would you feel if someone offered to help you, but with he stipulation that you must immediately begin paying back what you owe once you are somewhat on your feet?  Now, instead of being able to maintain and improve your condition to the point where you wouldn't need help in the future, you now have to use your resources to pay back a debt that has been placed on you for no real reason other than selfishness. This is why all our Third World aid does nothing, because the gov'ts of these countries are forced to pay these terrible and unneccssary debts back to us, when we don't need it, and they steal what's left over for themselves, leaving the rest of the people in a shape neither one of us could truly imagine. This country of ours has more money and resources than is good for us.  Using it in a totally unselfish and debt-free manner to help the less fortunate people of this world would be the first step towards fixing the many problems in this world.  You are either selfish or selfless.  There is no in-between....

 

<<The government's job is NOT to provide job security for employees, regardless of their qualification (God knows we have enough of those in our gov't bureaucracy).

 

It's NOT to provide health care (and God knows those countries' health care systems aren't top-notch).>>

 

-Again, why do you say this?  What is wrong with having the responibility of making sure everyone can live the most comfortable, healthy life they can live?  This isn't Trotsky, this is common sense. Again, there is a very clear line between selfishness and selflessness  I'm sure if we all sat down and threw a few trillion dollars down on the table, we could figure out a damn-skippy health care and economic system that would benefit everyone.  This isn't impossible.  We (and by we I mean America) just haven't tried it yet.

 

<<Why should understanding always be a one-way street?

 

Why is it always US who are the problem, never ANYBODY else?

 

If the rest of the world hates us, screw 'em.>>

 

-Re-read what you said there, Mike, and you tell me whose understanding is going one-way...

 

<<...People had best learn to respect the U.S>>

 

-These kind of stuffed-up comments are something no one needs.  I'd rather we all stick to objective political discussion rather than getting all "patriotic", because that is when understanding gets skewed and people get hurt.  Try going over to the Arab world and shouting that comment on the streets.  You'd get a very rude awakening that might just even expand your view of the world in a realistic manner. The only allegiance you need is to anything that's going to end the suffering in this world.  It's that simple....

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<We've given TONS of money to third world countries, but then we have to sit back and watch the governments steal all the money and use it for the benefit of their leaders.

 

At this time, there is nothing we can do to help them. Anything we give gets taken by the government.>>

 

<<-Can't disagree with you here.  It's too bad it's so easy to see the problem without any definite solution to try for.>>

 

Then wouldn't giving them MORE money be akin to burning it up?

 

Why don't we just throw it on a bonfire and cut out the middle man?

 

<<There is no way in the world anybody should give anybody money with "no strings attached".>>

 

<<-Why?  Let's take this to a basic, human level away from politics and economics for the moment.  Put yourself in the shoes of someone who needs help for whatever reasons.  How would you feel if someone offered to help you, but with he stipulation that you must immediately begin paying back what you owe once you are somewhat on your feet?>>

 

I'd do that regardless.

 

It's called having pride.

 

<<Now, instead of being able to maintain and improve your condition to the point where you wouldn't need help in the future, you now have to use your resources to pay back a debt that has been placed on you for no real reason other than selfishness.>>

 

And what would NOT requiring you to pay it back show you?

 

Hasn't history shown the world that freebies are never respected?

 

Why were Communist countries so uniformly dirty (and, yes, they were filthy. China is mind-numbingly dirty and grungy today)? Because the citizens OWNED nothing and, thus, didn't CARE about their surroundings.

 

Why is public housing so filthy? Because the people who live there don't OWN their housing and, thus, don't cherish it.

 

When somebody has to work for what they have, then they cherish it and become better people for it.

 

Giving people things with no strings attached leads to laziness.

 

<<This is why all our Third World aid does nothing, because the gov'ts of these countries are forced to pay these terrible and unneccssary debts back to us, when we don't need it, and they steal what's left over for themselves, leaving the rest of the people in a shape neither one of us could truly imagine.>>

 

We've forgiven tons of debt in the past---hasn't helped a darned thing. We're still the most criticized country, even though we do more good than any other country in the world.

 

<<This country of ours has more money and resources than is good for us.  Using it in a totally unselfish and debt-free manner to help the less fortunate people of this world would be the first step towards fixing the many problems in this world.>>

 

But IT'S NOT OUR JOB to fix the world.

 

It's not up to US to fix everybody's problems.

 

Don't we get enough heat for "butting in" too much as is?

 

If somebody is going to take our money and STILL criticize and blast us, then we shouldn't financially support them. If you want us to help, then you'd best learn a little gratitude.

 

<<You are either selfish or selfless.  There is no in-between....>>

 

Depends on your point of view.

 

Who's the better person---the one who gives the man money or the one who teaches the man how to make money?

 

I say the man who teaches, personally.

 

<<The government's job is NOT to provide job security for employees, regardless of their qualification (God knows we have enough of those in our gov't bureaucracy).

 

It's NOT to provide health care (and God knows those countries' health care systems aren't top-notch).>>

 

<<-Again, why do you say this?  What is wrong with having the responibility of making sure everyone can live the most comfortable, healthy life they can live?>>

 

Because it's not the government's job, that's why.

 

Why in the world SHOULD the government do it? The government's role is not to be the mommy and daddy for the country.

 

<<This isn't Trotsky, this is common sense. Again, there is a very clear line between selfishness and selflessness  I'm sure if we all sat down and threw a few trillion dollars down on the table, we could figure out a damn-skippy health care and economic system that would benefit everyone.>>

 

And the idea that anybody can plan out a good economic system shows a fundamental disconnect with how economies actually work.

 

The government can't even handle the MAIL better than private companies.

 

<<This isn't impossible.  We (and by we I mean America) just haven't tried it yet.>>

 

Our health care system is the best in the world. Even if you're broke, you still get treated (it is illegal for emergency rooms to deny care for any reason).

 

You give people "universal health care" and they'll see doctors for every little thing, which will cause the costs of the program to skyrocket.

 

The government will end up capping what doctors can make, making the quite-expensive and time-consuming investment in becoming a doctor not worth it---so the best and brightest won't become doctors (doubt that? Notice that ever since faith in government fell in the 1970's, the brightest people seldom go into government?).

 

Thus, the quality of our system will drop down to the level of Canada and Europe.

 

Thanks---but no thanks.

 

<<Why should understanding always be a one-way street?

 

Why is it always US who are the problem, never ANYBODY else?

 

If the rest of the world hates us, screw 'em.>>

 

<<-Re-read what you said there, Mike, and you tell me whose understanding is going one-way...>>

 

All I hear is how bad we are, how we commit all of this evil in the world.

 

We're the Great Satan, remember? We're the hegemon trying to force our beliefs on the world, remember?

 

What about EVERYBODY else?

 

Where in the heck does ANY Middle Eastern despot get off criticizing the U.S's foreign policy when theirs consists of little more than supporting terrorism and hating Israel? Where do they get off blaming US for starvation in Iraq while ignoring the opulence that Saddam Hussein lives in?

 

Where in the heck does Europe get off criticizing our treatment of prisoners in Cuba but yet ignoring CUBA'S TREATMENT OF CUBANS IN CUBA? Funny that our treatment of terrorists is morally reprehensible, but Europeans staying in hotels that CUBANS AREN'T ALLOWED TO STEP FOOT IN isn't?

 

If the rest of the world won't be consistent with their judgments, then their judgments mean nothing to me.

 

<<...People had best learn to respect the U.S>>

 

<<-These kind of stuffed-up comments are something no one needs.  I'd rather we all stick to objective political discussion rather than getting all "patriotic", because that is when understanding gets skewed and people get hurt.  Try going over to the Arab world and shouting that comment on the streets.>>

 

I'd be slaughtered. I'd either be shot on the spot or arrested and tortured until I died.

 

Arabs can come here and say "Death to U.S" and not be punished by the law.

 

But we're the bad guys, right?

 

Just checking, it was an Arab country that LASHED a woman repeatedly for getting raped but didn't punish the guy, right? Of course, they were going to STONE HER TO DEATH (again, for GETTING RAPED), so I guess they've mellowed out a bit.

 

Of course, WE are the Great Satan, right?

 

It was a Muslim country that destroyed the oldest known Buddhist statues on Earth simply because they disagreed with the religion, right?

 

But, WE are the ones trying to force our beliefs on the world, right?

 

It was Arabs that plowed planes into the WTC towers, the Pentagon, and a PA field, wasn't it?

 

But, WE are the bad guys, right?

 

<<You'd get a very rude awakening that might just even expand your view of the world in a realistic manner. The only allegiance you need is to anything that's going to end the suffering in this world.  It's that simple....>>

 

And the extermination of terrorism will do just that.

 

If they don't like it, they should stop supporting it. If they refuse to stop the support, then they will have to eventually suffer the consequences.

                       -=Mike

[Guest DrTom]

Chris, I think I've finally realized your connection with Mumia.  Sure, you're both liberals, but it goes beyond that.  He feels the need (presumably because of his circumstances) to try and force everyone to feel guilty about being Americans, which allows you to indulge your White American Male Guilt Complex.  I guess you both benefit from it, though the increased traffic to a convicted murderer's web site is debatably beneficial.

 

Mumia's column is largely uninformed rhetoric.  It's all well and good if people want to write opinion columns (I do it frequently), but they have to have some basis in fact for their opinions.  If Mumia wants to hate the US, pinch the term "hyperpower," and call us an empire with questionable motivations, that's fine.  But when his writing is all emotion and railing with nothing in the way of factual support, it doesn't mean anything.  The Left is the king of unchallenged claims, so Mike, you needn't wonder about Mumia's popularity any longer.

 

Some specific things you said, Chris:

 

"It would be nice if we could use those trillions of dollars we have right now on a similiar deal to help rebuild the Third World..."

 

We've tried.  We've dumped tons of good money at numerous third-world problems, and those problems largely remain to this day.  You can't solve a problem simply by throwing money at it, which is a lesson the left consistently fails to learn.  Look at the homeless situation in America: with all the money we've spent on it in the past thirty years, everyone should own a three-bedroom house by now.  But there are still homeless people.  Why?  Because throwing good money after bad does nothing to solve real problems.  

 

"Economic aid (without any strings attached) won't cause terrorism like those other things have."

 

Why won't it cause terrorism?  Does this mean if we gave monetary aid to Afghanistan, this whole thing could have been prevented?  Well, we did give money to Afghanistan, and have for years.  Fat lot of good that did us in preventing terrorism.  There's also the basic fact that giving money away blindly is never a good idea.  Remember that a lot of the countries you want to help are run by people who are more interested in money and their own survival than feeding their people.  Where do you think all this money would go?

 

"And if you think that spending absurd amounts of money to take care of the people in your country is wrong, well then, you're a hell of a American then."

 

I guess I'm a "hell of an American," then.  I don't believe we should just hand people money because they claim to be needy.  There are people who have a legitimate need for help, and they should receive it.  Those who are able-bodied and have the capacity to learn should be trained in useful job skills, so they can get off the government teat.  Endless transfer payments is what has led to welfare recipients breeding another generation of welfare recipients.  I'm not opposed to the idea of helping people, but I also think they have to take some incentive to help themselves at the same time.

 

"How would you feel if someone offered to help you, but with he stipulation that you must immediately begin paying back what you owe once you are somewhat on your feet?"

 

Whenever I've borrowed money from anyone (which hasn't been too often, thankfully), I've paid it back quickly.  Besides, this is a flawed example to begin with.  There's a huge difference between me loaning you $100 because you lost your job, and the US giving billions of dollars in aid to some random third-world country.  In the former situation, I have a reasonable expectation that you'll find another job, and I won't be without my $100 very long.  In the latter situation, there's no guarantee the aid money is even being used to aid the people who need it most.  

 

"This country of ours has more money and resources than is good for us.  Using it in a totally unselfish and debt-free manner to help the less fortunate people of this world would be the first step towards fixing the many problems in this world."

 

Things brings up the dilemma that Mike has mentioned several times.  If we try to fix the world's problems, we're rude and inconsiderate for butting in.  If we don't try to fix them, we're cold and callous for watching from the sidelines.  Damned if we do, damned if we don't.  I say heed the words of the UFP: Non-interference is the prime directive.  

 

"What is wrong with having the responibility of making sure everyone can live the most comfortable, healthy life they can live?"

 

That isn't the job of the government.  The government's job is to make sure you have the *opportunity* to lead a healthy, productive, comfortable life.  Capitalizing on that opportunity and building a healthy, productive, comfortable life is a matter of individual responsibility.