This is what we signed up for | Miss Sarajevo

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights | Signed in Paris | December 10, 1948

Article 1.
 

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
 

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
 

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
 

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
 

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
 

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
 

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
 

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
 

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
 

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
 

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
 

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
 

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
 

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
 

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
 

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
 

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
 

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
 

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
 

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
 

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
 

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
 

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
 

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
 

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
 

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
 

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
 

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
 

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
 

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

10 Things I Never Say to Kids :: Why I Stopped + What I Say Instead :: Thing 02 Available Now

10 Things I Never Say to Kids :: Why I Stopped + What I Say Instead :: Thing 02 Available Now at NoiseTrade

This 10 Things Single is about using words to command compliance from children. As it turns out, this is a pretty effective tactic for keeping kids in line — right up to the moment when it stops working. From then on, all bets are off. 

Big Hairy Question: If your parents used words to overpower you, and if — once you saw what they were doing — you hated it, can you really expect a different outcome if you do that your own kids? 

This is one of 10 Things I Never Say to Kids :: Why I Stopped + What I Say Instead. It’s adapted from the book Ten Things We Should Never Say to Kids.

wash . rinse . repeat

I am thinking about this in the New York Times, and this in Christianity Today, when my attention is captured by the narrative in Mark 8 and 9 — especially the scene that begins with disciples of Jesus pretending they haven’t just been arguing about who among them is greatest. Jesus, in Mark’s telling, suggests they’ve missed every bit of the point. Then:

He took a little child whom he placed among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.” — Mark 9.36,37

Which reminds me of this in Matthew 25.31ff.

Which leaves me afraid to look in the mirror for fear of who I’ll see looking back. Which reminds me of this in James 1:19-27.

Which leaves me thinking about this in the New York Times, and this in Christianity Today....

If I heard Mr. Mueller’s case on a grand jury...

After chewing on the Mueller Report for a month, it occurred to me to ask: 

"If you were seated on a grand jury and heard this case from prosecutors, how would you vote?" 

My answer is: 

"On the weight of this evidence I would vote to indict Mr. Trump for obstruction of justice."

10 Things I Never Say to Kids :: Thing 01

10 Things I Never Say to Kids :: Why I Stopped + What I Say Instead :: Thing 01 Available Now at NoiseTrade: https://buff.ly/2ZjWRhv

Read it Yourself | Robert Mueller’s Statement 05.29.19

Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III Statement on Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election 

Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel’s Office. 

The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.  This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. 

I have not spoken publicly during our investigation.  I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public.  And we are formally closing the Special Counsel’s Office.  As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life. 

I’ll make a few remarks about the results of our work.  But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office’s written work speak for itself. 

Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election. 

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system. 

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign.  They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks.  The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate. 

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election. 

These indictments contain allegations.  And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant.  Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court. 

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system.  They needed to be investigated and understood.  That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office. 

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation.  The matters we investigated were of paramount importance.  It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned.  When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable  

Let me say a word about the report.  The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. 

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election.  This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation.  We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.  That is unconstitutional.  Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view — that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel’s Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy.  Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation.  Those points are summarized in our report.  And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness.  It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated.  From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination – one way or the other — about whether the President committed a crime.  That is the office’s final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by Department regulations.

The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.

At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released.  The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once.  We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public.  I do not question the Attorney General’s good faith in that decision.

I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter.  I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress.  Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report.  It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made.  We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.

The report is my testimony.  I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office. 

So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.

It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.

Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner.  These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel’s Office, were of the highest integrity.

I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.

Thank you.

Read it Yourself | Representative Justin Amash, Republican of Michigan, responds to the Mueller Report | 05.18.19

Now at Noisetrade | The Boy Who Believed in Magic

Brennan Manning + Keith Miller ♥︎ed The Boy Who Believed in Magic.

Find out why at Amazon | Noisetrade | thetinycompanycalledme.com

Read it Yourself | Download the Mueller Report | Update

Here's a link to the Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, Volumes I + II, by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.

Volumes I + II are together in sequence. Volume II begins on physical page 208.

UPDATE:

There is a searchable version of the redacted release of the Mueller Report here. The file is too large to read online; you’ll need to download it.

This scanned PDF of the Mueller Report was acquired from the Washington Post and processed via OCR (Optical Character Recognition) in PDF Editor 6 Pro. 

OCR software may not be 100% accurate in recognizing characters in scanned documents. Comparing the OCR version with the original scanned document should clear up any typographical issues.

Martin Marty on the New York Times Food Writer Who Fasted | Updated 04.04.19

We were, as a people, in a somewhat different space when this came up eight years ago ... somewhat, but not entirely. We're not arguing much about cutting the Federal deficits this year, but we're finding plenty to clash about as relates to the poor — of whom it may be said, as David Beckmann is quoted as saying by Martin Marty: "They didn’t get us into this, and starving them isn’t going to get us out of it.” So, with that...

“Why We’re Fasting” is the title of columnist Mark Bittman’s essay in Wednesday's New York Times, the “we” being himself and David Beckmann, here described as a “reverend,” and “this year’s World Food Prize laureate.” The pastor heads “Bread for the World.” Yes, why fast? Readers can do their own sighting and hearing of all the media-reported clashes over the national budget, now in final crunch time. That scan will reveal the obvious: that lost in the necessary political and economic debates blighted by the side-tracking but focal partisan and sub-partisan disputes on the issue is one set of people. Biblical scholars in this “Judeo-” and “Christian” nation call them “God’s people.” They are the poor, disabled, disadvantaged, undersheltered and, yes, hungry, about whom some of the budget debates were supposed to have been waged.           

Bittman and Beckmann discuss Isaiah 58, essential reading for believers and bystanders alike at such a time and place as this. G. K. Chesterton famously observed that one can look at something 999 times and then, on the thousandth sighting, see something revelatory, as if for the first time. We are asked to do such looking now. To bid each other to do so will sound embarrassingly pious, and yet. . . .           

As Bittman tells it, he is fasting, or was, last Monday, when thousands of others also fasted to draw notice to those Congressional budget proposals (H.R. 1) which would “quite literally cause more people to starve to death, go to bed hungry or live more miserably than they are doing now.” Adds Bittman: “And: The bill would increase defense spending.”

Bittman confessed to some skepticism about whether things work out the way Isaiah 58, reporting on God’s revelatory word, suggests. That chapter also reflected God’s being bored by all of Israel’s fussing about how strenuous the people were about holy fasting. The prophet—in my own loose translation—says, for God: “You think you are going to impress me by fasting, but all you do is get hungry and thus get angry and then beat up on each other. Is that the fast you think I want?”

Keith Miller + The Boy Who Believed in Magic

Keith Miller — author of A Taste of New Wine, A Hunger for Healing, and much more — sent me a pointed note in response to The Boy Who Believed in Magic. Keith said, "The Boy Who Believed in Magic is real — and sobering, but hopeful … This book can help a lot of folks who wouldn’t get it by being buttonholed by Alcoholics Anonymous Big Book thumpers."

Keith knew the boy who believed in magic … seems like maybe we all do….

The Boy Who Believed in Magic is available now in digital editions — for Kindle apps at Amazon , and as a PDF at thetinycompanycalledme.com. Help yourself. Help someone you love.

Brennan Manning + The Boy Who Believed in Magic

Brennan Manning — author of Ragamuffin Gospel, Abba’s Child, and much more — sent me a lovely note in response to The Boy Who Believed in Magic. 

The Boy Who Believed in Magic has been around for a long time but never, until now, in a digital edition. 

Now, anyone with a smart phone, tablet, laptop, or pc can read The Boy Who Believes in Magic and, maybe, see what — saw in 2,000 words, spread across 80 pages, illuminated by Gavin McKinley’s sensitive drawings of one boy’s life, from childhood to his 50th birthday....

The Boy Who Believed in Magic :: in digital editions at Amazon.com and thetinycompanycalledme.com.